We asked for your responses to the Greens’ new plan to legalise cannabis and yep, you certainly have a few! Have a read below, or join the conversation in the comments section. 

Meanwhile everyone was happy to see Aaron Patrick from the AFR get called out over his obsession with Emma Alberici, and Guy Rundle’s analysis of power structures and free speech in sport provoked some more diverse responses.

Responses to Greg Barns’ “Look at the evidence — Greens’ pot plan makes a whole lot of sense”

Vivienne Skinner writes: I travelled for few months late last year and early this year in Europe, South America and the US. I was at first astonished and then became quite accustomed to seeing marijuana being sold in stores in various countries and US states. None of these jurisdictions would have legalised the drug without a whole lot of thought and consultation.

I’m not normally a Greens’ supporter, but I think the leader is “on the money” with this policy idea. He’s backed up by a helluva lot of  criminologists and public health experts.

Politicians in this country go a little bit insane any time ‘drugs’ and ‘legalisation’ are put together in the one sentence. It is cheap politics to give a simple-minded knee-jerk response to legalising marijuana, without listening to expert advice.

Public policy ideas such as this one require a lot of community education. However, Australians have shown themselves to be supportive of new ideas, once the benefits are properly argued and explained.

I’d urge our political leaders to show maturity here and listen to the evidence, not just kick this old drugs can down the road.

Don Wormald writes: It is plainly ludicrous to ignore correct policy for political reasons.

Laurie Patton writes: In 1977 then NSW attorney-general Frank Walker called for the decriminalisation of marijuana on the basis it would disrupt the business model of drug dealers migrating customers to harder drugs and therefore reduce harm. I wonder how how many lives might have been saved had that policy been adopted. One thing is clear, the existing policies haven’t worked.

Kieren Reynolds writes: Dr Di Natale’s dope proposal makes all the sense in the world. However, it’s at odds with his stance on alternative medicine which he stood with the government to help the insurers and Medicare out of supporting. Fair enough a doctor can be sceptical of Chinese medicine in favour of a type that pays travel allowance. But shouldn’t we be concerned that many illnesses have no equivalent (or even close) Western medicinal solution? 

Jay Walker, former Australian correspondent for High Times writes: Federal health minister Greg Hunt, PhD, should know when he resorts to the long-debunked war-on-drugs rhetoric of “of course, marijuana’s a gateway drug” that not only has he verballed the AMA, Mental Health Australia etc and contradicted the research data, but he has aligned himself (and the Coalition government) with the propagandist-in-chief of the modern war-on-drugs, Richard Nixon. 

Nixon’s real motivation was exposed by John Ehrlichman, his counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs, in an interview with Harper’s Magazine in 2016: 

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalising both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

Responses to Guy Rundle’s “Israel Folau’s homophobic comments are a flashpoint for players and power”

BeenAround writes: Not only does the Izzy affair highlight the toxic power imbalance in professional sport, it illuminates how employment conditions generally restrict an employee’s ability to fully participate in democracy. It is, therefore, unsurprising that democracy has become a political culture obsessed with populism, but actually controlled by corporations who don’t vote.

Sweeney Julanne writes: Isn’t it time to challenge the many institutions which still deem homosexuals as criminals? Our Commonwealth has 32 members which still adhere to the British Empire law criminalising gays. Did Prince Charles at the Gold Coast Games realise that many visiting gay athletes would be fearful of admitting their sexuality ? Could the Royal Family influence change?

There are many educated Christian Church leaders who could speak up to help Israel Folau by explaining to him that there are new understandings of the Bible of which he does not seem have been informed. Above all, how many homosexual families has Israel visited to see how normal is their everyday life? Maybe they can help him realise why there is such a response now to his hurtful words (especially for those who believe in Hell, which is another issue!).

Desmond Graham writes: Advertisers (i.e. “sponsors”) should also be restricted to what they say in public — Qantas should stick to the commerce of flying, etc. Commerce is different from social causes, and a public company should stick to its duty to return on funds from investors… The footballer merely gave an answer in public to a question asked in public — nothing else.

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length. Please include your full name.