OTHER SIDE: One reader says the case for or against legalising weed should be based on facts, not emotive arguments.
OTHER SIDE: One reader says the case for or against legalising weed should be based on facts, not emotive arguments. Ashley Clark

Letters: Marijuana legalisation needs to be based on facts

Letters: RE SATURDAY'S editorial: the fact something is legal in 20 countries doesn't make us backward by not legalising it, and isn't a valid reason for legalisation.

In about 40 countries, it's illegal to leave the 'state religion'.

In over a dozen countries, you can be sentenced to the death penalty in a court of law for this act of apostasy.

And in more than 20 countries, a woman can be charged for the crime of being raped (typically called "forced adultery"), carrying a possible death penalty in at least several of these countries.

Valid reasons for legalising weed would be if it wasn't addictive.

If it didn't alter a user's state of mind.

If it didn't lead users down a path to other drugs.

If it actually was the easiest or best way to ease pain.

If it didn't mask problems resulting in worse long-term outcomes.

If it didn't cause other health problems.

These would be valid reasons to use (but only if they're true).

The fact weed is legal in 20 countries isn't a reason for legalisation, and calling people close-minded or backward provides nothing for value.

The case for or against legalising weed should be based on facts, not emotive arguments.

BRIAN BRANCH

Tinana

 

Editor's note: This is a thought-provoking letter and much of it is valid, but Saturday's editorial was about legalising medicinal marijuana, not 'weed' as such.