Recent polls indicating support levels for the proposed “decriminalisation
of cannabis use” referendum have produced interesting results. Although
surprised that both surveys suggest it will be voted down (l wouldn't have
picked that result), l am none the less grateful that kiwis appear not yet
ready for such a change.
We must ask the obvious question - why not?
Having been inundated with supportive opinions from the self
appointed guardians of social behaviour for years leading up to this point, l
had become resigned to the fact that this was a fight that was not going to be
won based on logic or even appeals from those who are the casualties of this
selfish destructive pastime. I thought we had lost out to the smooth talkers
who weren't interested in their responsibilities to future generations or even
the current ones. There appeared to be
little hope of a re think and I wasn't looking forward to the consequences of
this inevitable decision.
But, apparently miracles do happen.
I guess we should also ask if this apparent change of heart
is a permanent shift in attitude to what is gratuitously described as a
recreational drug?
God help us if it isn't!
My own opinion about cannabis in our society isn't based at
all on personal use - simply on my experiences as both an employer of users and
an observer of the (particularly) young lives cut short well before their
prime.
Clearly, l'm not the only one who has observed first hand
the destructive capacity of cannabis in all aspects of human activity. Perhaps
the negative affects on our families and communities in general is much greater
than even the researchers had discovered.
Maybe, it is no longer impossible to ignore the unfulfilled
promise of our children who have fallen through the cracks due to the subtle
influence of this "harmless" poison.
I hope that, whatever the reason for this apparent trend
towards a "re think", we don't blow it by allowing the pro lobbyists
to influence the outcome when we finally get around to voting. We must remain
vigilant in opposition to current legislative proposals.
In paraphrasing Sir Winston Churchill: “Now this is not the
end. It is nor even the beginning of the end. But it is perhaps the end of the
beginning.”
For me, those simple words from the great man pretty much
sums up where we are at with this cannabis debate.
Even after the referendum is completed and the government is
contemplating what to do from there, we will still be faced with this multi
faceted dilemma - how to legislate for the restricted use of the drug for
medicinal purposes, and for limiting its negative effects in the workplace and
in educational programmes.
At some point, even the partial decriminalisation aspect of
the issue will have to be faced again and it will simply not be enough to keep
handing it back to the police.
Whatever the solution, the text for the legislation will
need to be drafted by Solomon and
introduced as an effective measure capable of acting as a deterrent for
minors and those who work in jobs that could impact on the safety of others in
the workplace.
Simply banning its use in the hands of those under the age
of 20 yrs of age would be as stupid as rearranging the deck chairs on the
Titanic! Yet that would seem to be the remedy our witless lawmakers are
contemplating.
We must have something that effectively controls its use in
areas where it does the most damage.
Only then will we be able to peacefully co-exist with a
substance hopefully only available to licensed users. It should be recognised
as and legislated for being a controlled substance - something that is not in
the habit of taking prisoners when abused.
Think on that one.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and
community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
3 comments:
well said Clive. However, how many times have referendums been ignored or even overturned by governments when it doesn't suit their agenda?
Complaining about bad outcomes under a prohibition regime and then arguing for a continuation of that regime perfectly fits Einstein's definition of insanity.
If we know one thing about drug policy, it's that the so-called 'war on drugs' not only doesn't work, but also wastes huge quantities of resources, unnecessarily fills up prisons, and is far more socially destructive than the drugs themselves.
I know many highly functioning, contributing professionals who have used or still use cannabis. It didn't stop them excelling at university and in their careers, though obviously they had to place boundaries around their recreational activities of all kinds. I also know alternative lifestylers who use cannabis daily and live worthwhile, satisfying lives that however don't conform to the rat race existence of worker exploitation and mortgages. Of course some will overdo any activity but there's no way of knowing if they would have fared better otherwise. And there is risk to a few with genetic predisposition to schizophrenia, for which legalization will promote early identification and advice. As for driving, I have no hesitation being a passenger of a mildly stoned driver but no way would I get in a car with a drunk or highy stressed or amphetamined or angry or foreign (right hand road) driver. Nevertheless, driver drug testing would be justified but only if able to measure current levels high enough to cause current impairment, not traces of something done last night or last week
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.