We need another view

September 30, 2009

Dear Sir,

First of all, I would like to applaud The Royal Gazette for the multiple addiction themed articles during Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month. I'm sure they have succeeded in drawing much needed attention towards a very widespread and equally stigmatised problem in Bermuda.

However, I can't help but notice that the vast majority of the articles based around relaxing the cannabis laws have been very firmly anti-legalisation/relaxation. For example, I hold Sandy Butterfield in very high regard and agree that she would be the perfect person to interview for an opinion on this subject. However you have already had the anti-decriminalisation viewpoint from Andrea Barthwell the day before, and then the day after we hear the same opinion from Larry Smith. All very well informed individuals. Yet among these three anti-decriminalisation viewpoints there was only one pro-legalisation viewpoint.

I am not suggesting that these articles should have been excluded at all, but it would be refreshing to see more in depth articles on the opposing viewpoint. For example, one could look at countries where cannabis has been decriminalised and observe the effects on said countries' crime rates, economies, tourism industries. It would be good to hear the points of views from more narcotics professionals who are pro-decriminalisation (if they are scarce in Bermuda, I'm certain there are plenty abroad).

I myself can think of plenty of reasons why decriminalising cannabis would be a good idea.

¦ Cannabis does not have to be a 'gateway drug.' The illegality of cannabis means that in order to get it, people (who don't necessarily have a criminal record, could be ordinary teenagers or honest workers) must go through underground means and have to consort with drug dealers. Chances are these drug dealers have harder, more addictive drugs in stock. What's to stop them from spiking the cannabis (as Sandy Butterfield indicates they are) or offering harder drugs to naive customers? Cannabis is only a gateway drug because it exposes people to the underworld in order to get it. If cannabis (not heroin, not cocaine, not math. We're not talking legalisation of all drugs here) were on sale at Arnolds behind the counter just like Smirnoff and Black Seal then your average consumer would not have to even speak to a criminal in the transaction. You wouldn't get spiked marijuana if you were buying it from a reliable, legally sound source.

¦ Cannabis could make us a tourist destination. Let's be honest, the industry is suffering. If people had to choose between smoking weed in Amsterdam or Bermuda, which would they opt for? Probably the island! Our hotels and beaches would be rammed.

¦ If cannabis were legalised less money would be flowing into the criminal market.

¦ Cannabis is widely used across the island. When there is not enough in circulation, people turn to alcohol as an alternative. Alcohol can very often result in violent and irrational behaviour whereas cannabis does not. Studies have shown that marijuana is less addictive than alcohol or nicotine. You cannot overdose either.

¦ Police efforts should not be focused on a drug with such mild effects as cannabis in these turbulent times. Instead the public needs to realise the huge problem of addiction to drugs such as heroin or cocaine on our island. This is such a greatly stigmatised problem in Bermuda, and far more pressing than the supply of cannabis. Having observed our Drug Court on many occasions and having done volunteer work at an addiction prevention centre, we have more serious things to worry about. I'm no professional, but to me it just seems like common sense.

These are but five key points. I'm sure pro-decriminalisation professionals could provide far greater insight than I.

Everybody has the right to form an opinion about this subject. You are an extremely influential information source on the Island. I just can't see how the public can think rationally about this issue (which people tend to make up their minds about without even considering pros and cons anyway) if they do not see both points of view investigated in equal depth.

A PATRIOTIC BERMUDIAN

Bristol, United Kingdom

A false impression?

September 28, 2009

Dear Sir,

Thank you for positioning me front and centre in your newspaper today, albeit in the words of Larry Burchall. It is really too bad for Mr. Burchall that he does not like the voice of LaVerne Furbert (Rolfe Commissiong can speak for himself) but I can assure him that my voice will not be silenced because he doesn't like it. He is correct about one thing however; my voice does set off discussions, even at picnics at Astwood Park. The difference between my voice and Mr. Burchall's voice is that I did not train mine to sound as if I were visiting Bermuda from the "mother country". I will admit though, that I can understand why "mostly older, mostly white people" would rather hear Larry Burchall's voice than mine.

I don't know where your reporter, Ms. Pearman got her information from, but Larry Burchall was not the man behind the PLP's successful 1998 General Election Campaign, neither was he the PLP's campaign chairman. To give the impression that the PLP was successful in 1998 because Larry Burchall was involved in the campaign is as far from the truth as one could get. First of all, Larry Burchall co-chaired the national campaign along with Calvin Smith. Secondly, branches like Hamilton Parish, Sandys, Devonshire, Southampton and St. George's ran their own local campaigns.

Mr. Burchall conveniently forgets that his cousin, Calvin Smith designed and wrote the 1998 Campaign strategy which was accepted without question by the Central Committee of the Party. Mr. Burchall, along with Mr. Calvin Smith, Alex Scott, David Allen and Party Leader Ms. Jennifer Smith did have a say in the very successful public relations campaign of 1998 but Mr. Burchall certainly was neither the leader nor the originator of the articles and public statements that were issued. In fact, the exciting, stimulating articles that appeared in the last stages of the campaign originated from Mr. Roy Boyke, an outstanding campaign advisor from the island of Trinidad and Tobago. Another prominent financial advisor and money raiser to the campaign was Mr. Michael Markham, a white Bermudian.

In fact, it was only when I read parts of his book, "Fine as Wine" that I realised that Larry Burchall was involved in the 1998 Election Campaign in any capacity. I can assure you that I never saw him in Hamilton Parish and I know that those of us who worked to get Randy Horton, Arthur Hodgson, Renee Webb and Derrick Burgess elected never took any advice from Larry Burchall, no matter what he tells others.

I will note here that Larry Burchall was appointed to the Candidates Committee in 2007 and offered himself as a candidate. However, once it was established that he was not a member of the Party and that he refused to become a member, he was removed from the Candidates Committee and not accepted as a candidate. I personally cannot understand why anyone would want to run as a candidate for a political party and not be a member. It is obvious to me that Larry Burchall has illusions of grandeur and thought that he was irresistible to the PLP. I know that he brags about the fact that he was the first person to sit on a PLP campaign committee without being a member of the Party, but why he was chosen boggles my mind.

I also note that on "The Bermudians" website, the caption under the picture of Larry Burchall reads "Mr. Burchall is the man behind the PLP's successful 1998 General Election campaign, he has worked closely with Ewart Brown in the past, but is now calling for the Premier's removal". The only truth in those words is that he "is now calling for the Premier's removal". I can categorically state that Larry Burchall has never worked with the Premier, closely or otherwise. I do know that he was a columnist for the Bermuda Times, which was owned by Dr. Brown, but to state the he worked closely with Ewart Brown is another lie.

Mr. Burchall states: "The PLP that I have worked with has changed in the past three years. It's changed particularly in the past three or four months." That is one true statement that Mr. Burchall made to the picnickers at Astwood Park. Certainly any political party that does not embrace change will stagnate and die. Isn't that what's happening to the UBP? I see Mr. Burchall as yesterday's man, singing yesterday's song.

Mr. Burchall was also correct when he told the 100 or so picnickers: "What you did five years ago is not relevant to today and tomorrow." Certainly we can deduce that his being a member of the 1998 Campaign Committee has no relevancy today, ten years after the PLP swept to power.

But to say that Dr. Brown has moved tourism into lower ground is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Does Mr. Burchall expect the Tourism Minister to change the global economy? I do believe that Dr. Brown is a man that gets things done, but I have yet to see him perform any miracles. Although Mr. Burchall would have us believe that he is a strategist and a statistician, I know that he does not have the qualifications to be either. He may have been able to fool the Bermuda Employers Council into thinking that he could counter the research conducted by a qualified statistician, but he should remember that you can fool some of the people, some of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

LAVERNE FURBERT

Hamilton Parish