I AM puzzled by Peter Johnston's letter of May 29.

In it he appeals to the "General Will" in much the same manner as those French Revolutionary Politicians who used it as a catch-all justification for political murders and wars of territorial aggrandizement.

But surely such a fearless champion of democracy as the multi-talented, music-performing (to broadcast standard) novel-reading ex-councillor whose range of reference spans from Jean-Jacques Rousseau to Detective Chief Inspector Jerome Caminada, cannot be in favour of simple utilitarian mobocracy, in which the desires of minorities are trampled into the ground?

As his favourite philosopher might put it: L'homme est n libre, et partout il est dans les fers -- man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains -- in this case chains manufactured by his fellow slaves.

And, even if he is, then his article makes absolutely no sense. In so far as the "General Will" has any existence, then surely it represents the desires of the majority of the people, and I think Peter will find that such a majority is in favour of strict anti-drug laws.

This may make them control-freaks, class warriors and fascists, but by Peter's argument, their will must prevail and be embodied in the law.

But even Homer nods, and even Peter Johnston occasionally spouts gobbledygook. As Rousseau said: everything is good when it leaves the Creator's hands; everything degenerates in the hands of man.

Simon Topliss

Hawthorne Road

Deane

Bolton