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: Oct 12, 2003 Posts: 400 Location: Otepoti, Te Wai Pounamu
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:45 pm
Great letter Jason. Illustrates some very critical points...so many prohibitionists don't compute that their regime is actually causing a lot more harm than cannabis itself...under the current regime, NZ still has the highest levels of cannabis use out of all the countries where it is monitored...if we're going to do it anyway, then why add on extra harms such as convictions, family problems, employment issues, etc etc. To me that seems a lot more harmful than getting slightly inebriated after a hard days work
Thanks for your comment Steveoh.
I’ve often sent a covering letter with my letters. It’s a good opportunity to put a “human face” to a Letter to the Ed. For example, I’m a solo dad so I often point out that I’m fighting prohibition for my children’s sake. Or a personal experience that might illustrate the point you’re trying to make is good too. A covering letter also allows you to explain a point in more depth or to talk about any references or proof you’ve sent.
And I’ve had a really good success rate with the ODT for re-submitting letters with a covering letter and getting them published (all but one and that was about GE corn contamination). Newspapers are vulnerable to the Truth by virtue of the fact that they usually claim to publish it!
But the best one was when I got pissed off with The Dominion and thought “what the hell, I’ll resubmit my letter and tell the Editor just exactly what I think of their miserable little rag”. Well to my great amazement they printed my letter. I’ll try and find it on my old computer and then post it here.
I’ve also been thinking about my relationship with the ODT since my previous post. While they can be really frustrating at times, there have been other occasions when they’ve really surprised me. For example, they made my second letter about growing cannabis and making hemp paper at the Mataura mill their Letter of the Month for July 2000. And I once had a sub-editor writing a cannabis editorial ring me to ask my opinion about the difference between hemp and mj. I also had a sub-editor ring me when I resubmitted my letter about Chris Fowlie’s court case with a copy of Nandor’s speech to Parliament and the Judge’s actual ruling. And last year I submitted my “David Lange agrees with the ALCP” letter on the Tuesday just before Election 05 with a covering letter saying "please, PLEASE print it before Sat’day" and they did (I also mentioned the solo dad with a sick kid thing!).
So covering letters can be a good tactic but they’re probably best done sparingly and by keeping them short and relevant. It's also worth noting that influencing an editor's thoughts about prohibition is probably just as worthwhile as influencing the general public's opinion.
Bye for now
Jason
p.s. sorry about taking so long to reply but I’ve been a bit busy over the past few days.
Prohibition maximises harm Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:30 am
That’s so right Pyramid.
I came to the realisation that cannabis prohibition was far more harmful than cannabis use while writing my 2003 Health Select Committee submission into minimising the harm of cannabis use [the terms of reference of which I think were deliberately chosen so as to make it harder to argue for a law change ie how can we possibly change the law when smoking something has just gotta be harmful!]. As a result I spent the first part of my submission showing that prohibiting cannabis use actually maximises the harmfulness of cannabis use. After that it wasn’t hard to show how legalising cannabis use would minimise those harms created by its prohibition. Interestingly, I found that decriminalising cannabis use (Instant Fines etc) is little better than prohibition in reducing harm because it doesn’t tackle the supply (black market) problem. Decriminalisation only reduces some of the negative effects of prohibition and does nothing to minimise the harm from actual cannabis use.
But it’s not surprising that people don’t recognise that prohibition is the cause of the “drugs problem” when you look at the information they are given. The ODT in its weekly World Focus news magazine often runs articles where the location and drugs involved change but the basic story remains the same. Essentially the argument goes something like this: Hedonistic partygoers in Western countries are aiding terrorists/gangsters by buying cannabis/cocaine/Ecstasy/P & speed/heroin produced in Mexico/Colombia/Ibiza/Pacific Islands/Afghanistan respectively while the poor underfunded local Police try valiantly to battle well financed, equipped and armed criminal gangs/terrorists who exploit and bring death to the poor native population who are tempted into growing/dealing/smuggling drugs in order to scratch out a living. Of course, we know that prohibition is to blame (given a choice the hedonistic partygoers would most likely want to buy their drugs legally rather than illegally) but I think it is very easy for people to get sucked in (willingly because it reinforces their prejudices) by this fairy tale that the drugs and the hedonistic youth that take them are to blame for the problem. Could be a Letter to the Ed there for me!
Jason
p.s. This “the youth are to blame” attitude was shown up brilliantly in Tuesday’s (28/11) ODT in an article about people parking in disabled car parks which stated that “almost half the drivers appeared to be under 40”. Of course, this means that most of the offenders would appear to be over 40! No wonder the under 40s behave so badly when the older generation set such a bad example.
Joined: Feb 19, 2004 Posts: 1347 Location: Nelson area
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:17 pm
One thing I always do is reference my information. I find editors like that its something they understand lets keep up this wave of letters, coz its educating the literate masses
Steveoh _________________ 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
COOL pro-active with the editor. I never thought of that
lets keep up this wave of letters, coz its educating the literate masses 