Cannabis concern
Misses Aldridge and Pattinson continue to trumpet the merits of cannabis for
adults (‘Prehistoric notion’, March 14). They may even be correct that it is not documented as having “killed” adults. What they consistently fail to address is the documented cases where it has damaged brain development and caused psychotic events for people under the age of 24. Age 24 is generally acknowledged as an age after which we are less likely to suffer such affects.
These frequent advocates have failed in their many letters to acknowledge the dangers for adolescents, also they have not provided any ideas about how to limit or prevent use by people whose brains are still developing. They have not even agreed that 24 is the age at which our brains are sufficiently developed. Some outlandish proponents still advocate for age 21 or even younger.
If Misses Aldridge and Pattinson are to be taken seriously as spokespersons for seniors, they will have to stop coming across as self-serving and address a sensible age limit and how this limit can be enforced. BRIAN GILLESPIE
Coopers Beach Recently, when acknowledging acceptance of a contract with Healthcare NZ, I was required to agree to a clause that I must “align to the Ma¯ ori Health Strategy (2002) and apply the principles accordingly”.
On researching the MHS, I found that it was an official agreement signed by Hon. Annette King, Minister of Health and Hon. Tariana Turia, Associate Minister of Health in November 2002. I was disturbed by the fourth paragraph which stated the need for supporting the health status of whanau by “addressing systemic barriers including institutional racism”. Seventeen years on, this term appears regularly in the media from ethnic sources but without a shred of supportive evidence of the claim.
I then read an article in the Herald eulogising Naida Glavis claiming ethnic privileges. She acknowledges that in hospitals whanau are already given special grieving rooms and designated corridors for the passage of deceased.
The Kaipara Ward at Tauranga Hospital is available exclusively for Ma¯ ori. Is this not institutional racism?
If the ward was exclusively for Pa¯ keha¯ it would be. But that would be considered apartheid.
When questioned about Ma¯ ori crowding out the waiting rooms and stairwells outside operating theatres she replied “Ma¯ ori aren’t responsible for the size of your waiting rooms and they are entering into a specialist area of karakia to give support to ensure the knife doesn’t slip . . . ” A slur on the expertise of our surgeons. Try using a tohunga who wasn’t even allowed to feed himself.
Ms Glavis, hospital space and facilities are at a premium. Those of the other 230 national ethnicities have equal concerns for the health and well-being of their relations awaiting medical procedures but are not so impractical, self-serving and insensitive as you to others’ needs. None of them has been given special medical or health privileges.
Many of the health problems of Ma¯ ori are the result of their chosen life styles and not the result of colonial oppression or institutional racism.
The cultural changes that you have claimed and that the Herald unreservedly published have been solely for the benefit of Ma¯ ori and not all New Zealanders who pay for them. Your phrase “your waiting rooms” indicates an exclusive mindset. Is that because WE pay for them and YOU should have unlimited access to them? BRYAN JOHNSON
O¯ mokoroa
"If Misses Aldridge and Pattinson are to be taken seriously as spokespersons for seniors, they will have to stop coming across as self-serving and address a sensible age limit [for cannabis use] and how this limit can be enforced. "
Brian Gillespie, Coopers Beach