Cannabis vote needs careful wording

The debate warms up around the cannabis referendum, the way in which questions are framed is clearly a crucial factor. I find it most encouraging that if liberalisation is favoured, Andrew Little’s view is “to start with maximum regulation and control”. (Profit-driven cannabis market out of favour, Northern

Advocate, January 26).

It’s worth noting that in Canada where legalisation of cannabis for recreational use is controlled by regulation similar to that of alcohol, a predicted $4 billion industry is emerging. The Canadian Government (Canadian Public Health Association) is concerned enough to have published an evidence brief entitled: Is cannabis addictive?

The brief begins with these key messages:

■ Cannabis is addictive, though not everyone who uses it will develop an addiction.

■ Addiction can occur at any age, but the chances are higher while the brain is still developing, which can continue until around 25 years of age.

While I have no wish to see recreational users criminalised (including the likes of Paula Bennett who admits to having used cannabis in her youth) unbiased research evidence must inform the wording of the referendum and consequently, the choices we make.

In particular, we need to understand the potential effects on the most vulnerable members of society, including children growing up in cannabis-using households. Patricia Fenton Whanga¯rei

Climate change scepticism

So Jacinda Ardern’s concerned about climate change. Meanwhile, scorn is poured on the doubters.

However, from what I can gather the doubts lie not so much in whether climate change is taking place but rather if it is being caused by humangenerated carbon emissions — CO2?

There are documentaries (try YouTube) that are sound, robust and articulate that pose a defensive case for carbon emissions. A raft of scientific opinion strongly refutes this culprit.

That the IPCC supports the current certitude and, it being a branch of that self-serving monolith of questionable effectiveness — the United Nations, perhaps there is some room for scepticism?

I’m reminded of the Iraqi war where billions was spent in rescuing Iraq from the tyrant Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, only subsequently to discover that it was all a conspiracy by the major western oil companies to seize control of the vast oil deposits. Fronted by Bush and his British lickspittle Tony Blair.

Doubting is healthy. Take a look at those documentaries and ask — who is to gain from promoting this current wave of hysteria over carbon emissions? Maybe, just maybe, Al Gore’s inconvenient truth actually contains a convenient lie. Richard Harris

Whanga¯rei

Ban fireworks

We saw on TV that Whangarei is one of the places in NZ that has fire warnings. Sparks from lawn mowers were mentioned as one of the dangers to watch out for.

I don’t suppose that they would consider warning about the danger of

letting off fire crackers, as even an idiot could work that one out.

So, why on Sunday January 27th, do we have them going off? Because there are idiots I suppose!

Ban fireworks altogether I say. They seem to go on all year round our area, not just November 5 and New Year. Judith Pioletti Whanga¯rei