 | NORML News: Searching for roses amongst the weeds |
by Stephen McIntyre
NORML News Summer 2002-3
You know, the closer you are to reaching the summit of a mountain, the steeper the climb.
In terms of cannabis law reform, this equates to the opposition throwing the lowest punches possible.
NZ First MP Craig McNair
recently laid an official complaint with the police against Nandor
Tanczos. McNair - like the rest of the country - has known about
Nandor's occasional and self-confessed cannabis use for over three
years, but had to wait to become a politician himself before taking a
formal stand on the matter. I wrote to Mr McNair and asked him
whether this was a case of authentic moral outrage or just faking it
to try and score a few cheap political brownie points? He never
replied!
Kaikoura MP Dr Lynda Scott has been sticking her foot firmly in her
mouth as well. In Parliament recently she accused Labour of
encouraging cannabis use by sending (that tired old warhorse of a
cliche) "mixed messages" to young New Zealanders. According to Scott,
by tightening up on public cigarette smoking and at the same time
discussing the possibility for change to the cannabis laws, Labour
has managed to bamboozle the youth of this nation into smoking more
weed! Incredible but true; and to support her argument she cited
statistics showing an increase in Kiwi cannabis use since 1999.
What Scott failed to acknowedge however were figures from 1990 to 1999
(under a National government) which show an even steeper rise in
cannabis use rates. Note that while National were not sending any
"mixed messages" by discussing law reform over this nine-year period,
they were toughening up the cannabis laws, with a resulting increase
in arrest rates for possession.
And to add further damage to her already poor credibility on this
matter, Dr Scott - in stark contrast to the rest of her colleagues in
the medical profession - consistantly refuses to acknowledge that
cannabis can be used therapeutically. Never mind the fact that
marijuana has been revered as a safe medicine for over 3000 years, or
that ongoing UK trials with MS sufferers have doctors there hailing
marijuana as the 'wonder-drug' of the new millenium. I scratch my
head in amazement over her position, and wonder whether she alone
knows something the rest of us don't.
Of course, there's always the possibility she's just plain ignorant!
When the Health Select Committee convened in Christchurch last year
to take oral submissions for the cannabis inquiry, it was Scott who
spent large portions of the day unable to hear direct evidence from
medical marijuana users because she was busy taking calls on her
cell-phone!
And of course, it's not uncommon for politicians in this country to
look like buffoons when it comes to taking a hardline stand on
cannabis. In August this year Peter Dunne described the United Future
party as "[drawing] from the classical liberal tradition with
policies based on clear principles, a deep sense of compassion, and
profound tolerance of others". Yeh, right! This is the same Peter
Dunne who appeared before the Health Select Committee in June of last
year and said that although the current cannabis laws were not
working, he didn't want to see them changed.
Dunne also attacked the Greens in October of last year, accusing them
of being anti-family because they wanted the cannabis laws reviewed.
Afterwards, I asked him just how pro-family cannabis prohibition was
when it expelled children from schools and hauled parents off to
prison. Dunne - without mincing words -refused to answer the
question!
But Peter Dunne himself has rightfully come under fire for being far
less family-friendly than he publicly chooses to make out. Leigh
Sturgiss from the Smokefree Coalition pointed out this year that
while United Future puts strong emphasis on alcohol and drug abuse
prevention, their leader has relentlessly opposed any tobacco control
legislation or initiatives that would deter young people from taking
up smoking or helping people quit.
In fact, Dunne has a history of giving political support to both the
liquor and the tobacco industry. In 1991, he lobbied for investment
certainty for the tobacco industry. In 1997, he voted against raising
the smoking age from 16 to 18 and defended the voluntary advertising
code between the Government and the tobacco industry. In 1999 he
voted for the Sale of Liquor Amendment Act No. 2, which lowered the
drinking age from 21 to 18. He opposed putting health warning labels
on alcohol vessels; and in July 2001, labelled tobacco control laws a
failure, despite the fact that for 10 years now New Zealanders have
reduced their tobacco use by over 30 percent!
In response to such criticisms of his support for the tobacco
industry, Mark Stonyer, a spokesperson for the United Future leader
said that people should forget Dunne's voting record because
"[smoking] is not even on the agenda." Little wonder then that in
Parliament apparently he has been given the nickname 'Peter
Dunne-hill'!
Still, not all politicians talk crap. Just prior to the election, the
Prime Minister made the statement that she personally favoured
cannabis law reform along the lines of 'partial
decriminalisation/partial prohibition'. I wrote to her asking for
clarification of meaning, and in response received a copy of a speech
she made in 1994 at a Waikato University seminar entitled 'The Great
Marijuana Debate'.
The speech is remarkable - if for no other reason - for the fact that
it sounds like it could have been written by a member of the Aotearoa
Legalise Cannabis Party! Here are some choice quotes:
"The effect of prohibition is to drive supply underground to what has
become an increasingly violent black market."
"Prohibition is certainly not stopping people trying marijuana."
"Prohibition actually causes harm by involving otherwise law-abiding
citizens who are marijuana smokers in the criminal scene."
"Strict punitive measures against individual marijuana users are
costly and counterproductive."
"Prohibition inhibits effective health promotion."
"Prohibition is not good public policy. It has not been able to reduce
the demand for or the supply of marijuana. Obviously it can't reduce
the harm to health caused by marijuana use and it has harmful social
effects in criminalising citizens who are otherwise law abiding."
Clark then goes on to outline her preferred approach to cannabis law
reform: the South Australian 'partial decriminalisation' model of
instant fines for possession of small amounts.
Things have changed since 1994 however, and the Prime Minister now
admits - in the covering letter that arrived with her speech - that
she's aware this system is not without its flaws. 'Partial
prohibition' has being suggested as an alternative and she is
awaiting further advice from public health experts on that matter.
Partial prohibition is really just another name for regulated
availability - making cannabis legal for adults and keeping it
illegal for children. So, going by her 1994 speech and this admission
of continued support for reform, I'm left wondering why Helen Clark
has since given in to United Future's 'bottom line' demand for no
introduction of new cannabis legislation as part of the coalition
deal.
Remember this: in a democratic society, politicians are servants of
the people. They represent you and me because that's the way a
democracy is intended to function; and they work for us because we're
the ones paying their salaries! What they say and do depends almost
entirely upon what the general public demands of them. Over half a
million Kiwis currently smoke cannabis, but only a small fraction of
us are talking to MPs about the discrimination we face! How many of
you have been busted for dak? How many of you are tired of paying
good money and furtively dealing with dodgy people to buy crap gear?
How many of you have kids who are getting fed bullshit at school on
the dangers of cannabis by people who drink alcohol or smoke
cigarettes? How many of you are tired of running out of buds every
summer, hanging out for harvest season?
All these things are reality because most of us choose to let them
stay that way. Ask yourself the question: what am I doing to help
change the law? If you do nothing else, at the very least become a
member of NORML. Your money helps us do things that maybe you don't
feel comfortable enough doing just yet, like phoning MPs and
challenging them on some of the ignorant things they say in public.
And encourage your mates to do the same. Being a non-smoker is no
excuse not to get involved. Everyone has friends or family who smoke,
and whose freedoms are constantly being threatened by prohibition.
Truly, we are closer to getting law change now than ever before, but
it's actually this last part of the battle that's the hardest. Just
like climbing that mountain, we need all our strength and all support
possible to reach the peak. Give us a hand!
|
|
|
|
| |
| Login |
|
You can register for some special extra features. | |
|
