Letter to the Editor: Tuesday November 1, 2016

How about a fruit ban?

If we accept the premise that most plants, in their raw state, are our natural foods and medicines, then no plant should be banned.

If we consider that some plants have the potential to be harmful to our health once processed, then are we considering banning all plants?

On that premise, should we be banning hops, because as a herb it is beneficial to our health, but processed into beer has the potential to cause health problems such as obesity, liver damage and violent behaviour?

Likewise with barley (whisky), sugar (rum), grapes (wine), plums (wine).

All the above plants, and many others, when processed, have the potential to cause dependency (alcoholism) in 15 per cent of the population and health problems in much of the population. In the legal sense, these are considered to be health problems, not criminal activities.

It therefore seems illogical that cannabis in its natural raw state has been banned because, although it may cause dependency when processed in eight per cent of the population, there have been no known deaths from its ingestion, either raw or processed.

Indeed, hundreds of independent, peer-reviewed research studies have found that cannabis heals/alleviates many diseases, thus having many health benefits, such that the US Government has patented it.

Therefore, for that eight per cent of the population who may become dependent when it has been processed, as with alcohol, they should likewise be considered to be a health, not criminal problem.

Our laws should be consistent. Prohibition does not work.

Adults must retain the right to choose their foods and medicine. It is totally rational and moral for cannabis to be re-legalised and for us to have the right to grow a few plants for its amazing health benefits.

BEVERLEY ALDRIDGE
President Otamatea Grey Power