I don't smoke the stuff, but I saw the benefits of it when I was travelling on the other side of the world, and, as Mark Twain said, "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness".
CAMERON TAURI, Whanganui
$1m dog pound
Whaat? $1 million for a dog pound, and $250,000 a year for the velodrome?
If (like the art gallery) these schemes are really either absolutely necessary and/or magnificently profitable, surely entrepreneurs will fund them with hard cash and user-pays charges.
In the spirit of continuing innovation, I suggest dog owners, art lovers and cyclists should get together and house the art collection under the velodrome cover with the dog pound in the unused central area. Win-win-win, surely.
If you don't like that, then I suggest the giveacrowdfundinglittlepage route, while taxes and rates fund truly worthy causes, such as multiple sclerosis treatments, Keytruda, council housing, and essential infrastructure.
Optional facilities should be donative-funded; medicine and housing should be ratepayer and taxpayer supported.
Concern was duly expressed that Wanganui's reputation would suffer if - as one example - we were seen to kill unwanted dogs in a facility worth less than $1 million. Our reputation already suffers - we are an over-rated (but loveable) city in the excessively-punitively-rated sense.
No point attracting more people here if they can't enjoy life, being constantly distracted by the sucking sound of their money hoovered up by high rates.
RENE De JONGH, Whanganui
Social housing
I've found the article condescendingly entitled "Residents upset by new social housing" (February 21) rather prejudicial. The general view about society is there's the "Haves" and the "Have nots".
We shouldn't infer based on an individual's social status, class or role in society.
I find the statement made regarding social housing rather condescending - "If you work hard all your life and have invested". Different people come from different circumstances and family backgrounds. It may be common to implicate the prejudicial.
M LEE, Castlecliff
Church and state
In reply to Russ Hay's letter ( February 8), he is seeking to restrict freedom of speech which is important in a democracy.
He claims that my opinion article subverts the separation of church and state. This is incorrect - the Constitution Act 1986 has no provision relating to separation of church and state. The doctrine of separation is based on the recognition that the state will not promote any particular church but treat all churches equally.
It should be of concern that the writer is inferring that people of faith have no right to contribute to a national discussion.
Our nation was founded by men and women of faith who based our laws on Christian principles.
I make no apology for expressing joy at the pregnancy of Jacinda Ardern, for every child is a unique miracle of creation that has a right to be born.
KEN ORR, Right To Life
Life choices
Is there anyone out there who accepts contraception but refuses abortion and euthanasia - or do all three go together?
F R HALPIN, Whanganui
