WE DISAGREE

SO WHAT if 25 per cent of our MPs have used cannabis? How does that
"vindicate softer laws"? I believe that MPs are meant to make decisions
for our community based on the facts. It seems the majority of the MPs who
tried cannabis claim it was in the 60s and 70s. If that is the case,
should we look at what else they did in the 60s and 70s? Should we look at
law reform based on what 25 per cent of the general population has done
once in the past?

What would happen if we reformed laws on that principle? Would double
demerit points go out the window? Would we still have to drive at 50kmh,
worry about speed cameras, use a hands-free kit or wait until we get home
before having a beer?

Meanwhile the small police force left can do nothing but watch retailers
sell cigarettes to drunken minors in Northbridge. Really, is a history of
25 per cent the way our highly educated MPs make choices for the betterment
of the community?

D. FARLEY, Duncraig