Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University of Wellington Students' Newspaper. Vol. 32, No. 20. September 4, 1969

Pot Legislation Question Deferred

Pot Legislation Question Deferred

After much tension, a certain amount of political manoeuvring, and some emotion, the question of the legalisation of marijuana has been put of by Nzusa till next Easter.

A motion that the matter lie upon the table was finally agreed to by all the constituents except Auckland, with Canterbury and Waikato abstaining.

"There is no necessity to rush into it," Victoria's President Curry told the final plenary.

He emphasised that it should have more consideration and a wider consensus. He said his reason for tabling it was that it had become apparent to him that the issue was unclear, from listening to the constituents.

In National Commission the night before, because of a political blunder by Lincoln College, a motion to table the marijuana question was defeated, and the vote for legalisation went through.

Mike Law (Auckland) said Auckland students realised there was widespread smoking of marijuana, and that to get it, people had to go to criminals.

If it was under state control, the supply could be restricted, and this would enable police to more easily get at the pushers of hard drugs.

He said Auckland students were convinced it was non-addictive.

In moving the legalisation motion, Ken Ross (Canterbury) said that they had done a great deal of research into the literature available on marijuana, and had compiled and circulated a 10½ page viewpoint. Canterbury students then voted in favour of legislation.

R. J. Payne (Lincoln) said there was no proof of the desirability or undesirability of marijuana.

"We are a pressure group whose priorities are in the field of education," he said. "We must avoid a credibility gap increase and a decrease in effectiveness in the education field."

Murray Jamieson (Otago) said he did not think that the credibility gap should be argued, and that he did not intend to argue the case of the "social prop".

He said he was speaking as a medical student who had done a week of investigation into marijuana.

He said it was not a drug of addiction, but of dependence. It was clearly a potent drug, with the same debilitating effects of alcohol.

He said he realised it is less dangerous than alcohol. Psychosis and mental disorder does not seem to result from smoking marijuana, he said, but it is not clear. One example of the consequences of use of marijuana brought forward by Jamieson was the causing of bad relationships within families. He emphasised that not enough was known.

"My argument is that this legislation is a little before its time."

Jamieson then went on to quote passages from what he called "reputable journals", two of them of the American Medical Association and the World Health Organisation.

Another argument of Jamieson was that legalisation would lead to an increase in the dose rate of marijuana, while at present it is very low.

"We are opposed entirely; we recognise research should be done; it is too soon for legalisation."

Bill Rudman (NZUSA Vice-President) said that he was speaking as a biologist.

"I. rather than studying it for one week, have studied it for two years, and had discussions with doctors."

He quoted from Sir Aubrey Lewis, of London, who said that in a review of all literature there was no conclusive evidence that psychosis is brought about by marijuana.

"On this whole question we must look at all the evidence," he said.

"There is little doubt that marijuana does release desire, but it causes offensive behaviour less than with alcohol . . . the overuse of any drug can lead to damaging effects.

"The major problem in our society is the middle-aged who rely on drugs—asprin and sleping pills—to escape.

"These are the ones reacting against marijuana.

"At this stage I think we must give a lead, even though there will be an outburst in the press.

"We must ignore it and act in a reasonable manner."

Gerard Curry (Victoria) in supporting the motion, said he though there was much misinformation on marijuana, but since freedom of the individual was presumed, and there was no conclusive evidence against it, marijuana should not be legislated out of reach.

A move to table the motion until Easter was proposed by Massey but failed to attract a seconder.

Moments later Otago proposed the same motion which lost 26-16.

After the National Commission, Lincoln who opposed the substantive motion but opposed the motion to table it until Easter was brought to realise that it had blundered, and that a vote to table the motion was in fact a vote against legislation at that time.

The motion was voted on and passed 26-16, but whcih was only provisional until voted on at the final plenary session, by whcih time Lincoln and Victoria had decided to reverse its vote.

It is not the medical facts that are considered, but the upholding of the conservative order of which these institutions are a part, so that "middle class values" may be "proved" to be true and pride and ego may be preserved.