It’s admirable that Hove Conservative councillor Dawn Barnett should seek to defend local MP Mike Weatherley and his controversial assertion that drug addicts who commit criminal activities should be spared jail (Letters, August 7).

But Coun Barnett fails to address any of the key criticisms I made of Mr Weatherley in my earlier letter (August 2).

Coun Barnett claims that Mr Weatherley was “merely pointing out that it was drug addicts who are very often the hapless victims of the drug trade and that it is the dealers and barons who are the real criminals”. However, in the original article (The Argus, July 28), Mr Weatherley makes no mention of either dealers or barons.

Few will disagree with Coun Barnett that the courts need to start dishing out stiff sentences to drug dealers rather than community service orders, but that wasn’t the issue under discussion. It would have been more enlightening if Coun Barnett had explained how Mr Weatherley’s proposal would work in practice.

If one follows his logic, it would seem that if a non-drug addict robs or steals, Mr Weatherley is happy to see them jailed. But if they are an addict, he favours them being spared a prison sentence. Does he honestly believe this would be a fair system?

Coun Barnett ends her letter by saying Mr Weatherley should be applauded for raising such a difficult issue.

On the contrary, I see no reason at all to applaud my parliamentary representative for making controversial comments and then appearing to hide away when someone criticises them. I thought we were told after the MPs’ expenses scandal that the new intake of politicians would be much more accountable to the electorate? To my mind this includes MPs responding personally to difficult questions from their constituents.

Peter Lilley
Salisbury Road, Hove