Friendly warning and disclaimer: These forums are provided for the thousands victims of prohibition who form the pot community of Aotearoa for discussion of marijuana-related issues. NORML reserve the right to delete off-topic posts. The views expressed in any forum are solely those of the contributor and not necessarily approved or endorsed by NORML New Zealand Inc.
Joined: Feb 19, 2004 Posts: 1347 Location: Nelson area
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:26 am
The Nelson mail ran an article three days out from the election titled "Cannabis use worries health professionals" Three health workers were interviewed. John Gawith, clinical psychologist and director of Te Whare Mahana, a health facility. John was anti-pot. Raine Berry, a counsellor with the Nelson Alcohol and drug service. Raine felt that alcohol was doing more damage than cannabis, and supported decriminalisation. Simon Dadley-Moore, Golden Bay social worker, he declined to comment on the weather cannabis should be legal or not.
I spoke to the reporter who claims that her item was balanced, even though John Gawith is a personal friend of hers. Also John Gawith's 14 year old son asked if he could come to the "meet the candidates" meeting to ask some questions as he was interested in finding out all the aspects of cannabis.
I wrote a reply to this item and sent it on the same day it was printed. It finally got published yesterday, tree days after the election (damage done)
CANNABIS REFORM
Sir,
I have yet to meet a proponent of cannabis reform who does not believe that cannabis should be restricted for those under 18. It is commonly believed that a young person's brain is still developing until then.
The one question that should have been asked was: is the criminalising of our young people the way to deal with cannabis? I believe the answer would have been a loud "no". With legalisation comes regulation, comes education. This is the path to protecting our young people while they are developing.
John Gawith complains that cannabis reformists ignore the negative aspects of cannabis (Nelson Mail September 14)
Well, he must realise that for the last 70 years all we have heard is the misinformation, half-truths and outright lies from the prohibitionists.
With respect to the work Mr Gawith does, he must realise in his line of work, cannabis is a symptom, not the problem, and seeing that every day it's not hard to start thinking that this is a common response. It's not. A 1999 House of Representatives Health Committee found that "moderate use of cannabis does not seem to harm the majority of people".
We have to start looking at cannabis minus our prejudices, whatever they may be.
Steven Wilkinson
Takaka
Nelson mail 14/09/05 _________________ Regulation will set cannabis free
Joined: Feb 19, 2004 Posts: 1347 Location: Nelson area
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:02 pm
WOO HOO a reply!
'REALISTIC SOLUTION'
Sir,
In reply to Steven Wilkinson on cannabis reform (mailbox, September 20), restricting cannabis to people over the age of 18 would be unrealistic and difficult to enforce.
It is well known among employers that many workers who smoke cannabis are unreliable and unmotivated. Some cannot even be bothered to shave. A more realistic solution would be to restrict cannabis usage to those over the age of 70.
Brian Bird
Motueka
Nelson Mail 23/09/05 _________________ Regulation will set cannabis free
Joined: Feb 19, 2004 Posts: 1347 Location: Nelson area
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:37 pm
A letter of reply was sent in by Duncan Eddy, from Community Action, Motueka. A dam fine letter, which was given a large font size heading which streched right across the page.
NEW WAY NEEDED 'TO ADDRESS THE REALITY OF CANNABIS IN SOCIETY'
Sir,
Correspondent Brian Bird writes that legal age limits for cannabis use will be "unrealistic and difficult to enforce" (mailbox, September, 23). Readers should consider whether the current policy of criminal prohibition offers a more realistic or workable way of reducing youth use.
New Zealand's cannabis usage rates have increased steadily since 1990. Prohibition isn't working and a new way is needed to responsibly address the reality of cannabis in our society.
International evidence shows that a reduced focus on policing and a greater emphasis on education is achieving real results. Earlier this month, the United Kingdoms Department of Health stated that reported UK youth cannabis use fell from 13 percent to 11 percent following the reclassification of cannabis. This is the first reported drop in four years.
Most New Zealanders aren't fazed by adults smoking a bit of pot. On the other hand, many people are concerned about the impact cannabis decriminalisation will have on youth.
It's only natural to be concerned about the impact of alcohol and other drugs on youth. But that shouldn't cause us to dogmatically hold on to unworkable policy at the expense of improving the situation.
The criminal prohibition on cannabis doesn't reduce cannabis use or abuse, and comes with serious social and financial costs.
Duncan Eddy
Community Action Motueka
Nelson Mail, 27/09/05
Thanks again Duncan. Don't stop writing, the more people who write to the papers will only encourage others to write. This might cause prohibitionist to write as well, but we know their letters will be emotive, half-truths, which we can combat with facts.
Steveoh _________________ Regulation will set cannabis free
Joined: Feb 19, 2004 Posts: 1347 Location: Nelson area
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:54 pm
CANNABIS
Sir,
Mr Bird seems quite comfortable overlooking all the facts in my letter, and then claiming that an age restriction on cannabis would be difficult to enforce (Mailbox, September 23). Is he saying that our young people will not respond to honest and factual education on cannabis use, in relation to youth? With legalisation and regulation comes education, which has to be way better than criminalising young people and allowing our children to be exposed to organised crime, and all that comes with it.
Holland saw a substantial reduction in cannabis consumption among teenagers when it adopted a policy of tolerance and non-prosecution of cannabis smokers. This is researched fact, not some "me and me mates reckon" statement. I invite Mr Bird to contact me, and I will endeavour to get to him some true facts regarding cannabis sativa - that's if he's brave enough to question his misinformed beliefs.
Steven Wilkinson
Nelson Mail, 29/09/05 _________________ Regulation will set cannabis free
Joined: Feb 19, 2004 Posts: 1347 Location: Nelson area
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:45 pm
Mr Brian Bird has decided to write another letter about his view on the evils of cannabis.
CANNABIS
Sir,
With lots of support, I still stand by comments made in my earlier letter regarding cannabis (Mailbox, September 23). I can understand Stephen (sic) Wilkinson's (Mailbox, 29) belief that education is possibly more effective than prosecution.
If he has proof that cannabis smoking is harmless in adults. I would be interested in his contacting me. My address is in the phone book.
Back in the 1970's, I read an article (Scientific America, I think), which said that as little as five "joints" a week by a pregnant woman could cause serious defects in the child. Pot smoking papas could also share some of the blame for this. It would correlate with the more recent discovery that cannabis smoking may hinder brain development in adolescents.
Their may be some benefits in the elderly drifting along in a happy state of hallucination, but there is no place for it in younger people, who have better things to do.
Education about the insidious effects of cannabis is important, but it should not be legalised.
Brian Bird, Motueka
Nelson Mail 04/10/05 _________________ Regulation will set cannabis free
Joined: Feb 19, 2004 Posts: 1347 Location: Nelson area
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:05 pm
My reply to Mr Brian Bird
CANNABIS
Sir,
Mr Bird (mailbox, October 4) seems to have missed the point by a country mile. No one is saying cannabis smoking is harmless in adults (But being non-toxic, it is not life threatening).
What is being said is, it's less harmful to the self, and less damaging financially and physically to society than either tobacco or alcohol, so why treat it so differently?
In the 1970's, America society went through a "reefer Madness" phase, where false medical claims on the dangers of cannabis were printed in many American publications. These studies have never been repeated, and the claims have never been reported again. In fact, studies show negligible differences between cannabis and non-cannabis pregnancies.
Studies suggest that cannabis may hinder brain development in adolescents (no one is advocating for adolescents to take any drugs), but unlike alcohol, it doesn't destroy brain cells. Mr Bird thinking that cannabis is a hallucinogenic (it is not) only goes to show the level of his misinformation.
I'll be more than happy to send him some factual information. I only ask that he read it with a clear head and open mind.
Steven Wilkinson
Takaka
Nelson Mail 07/10/05 _________________ Regulation will set cannabis free
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
