Of pot and pedantry

We’re seeing a fair amount of conflict of interests pop up on a motion (25/07, to be pedantic) that was passed by an SGM at the end of last year, namely “that OUSA recognise and publicise the knowledge that alcohol use is more harmful than cannabis use.” This follows on from a motion put through in 2006 (19/06), “that OUSA condones the public smoking of cannabis on University Grounds as protest against cannabis prohibition,” and while it’s clear that the NORML and 4.20 guys have been pretty proactive (both in terms of public smoking and lobbying OUSA on the anti-alcohol), there seems to be a fair amount of talk on the exec about what they can get away with not doing.

We cover the issue in a little more detail in our regular Execrable column this week (p12), but it’s always worth reminding the exec that their personal politics shouldn’t stop them from representing what students have gone on record to say that they want, whether that’s publicising the negative effects of alcohol relative to cannabis, or advocating for or against tighter restrictions on admissions. And, as a side note, it’s not a good look for exec members who profess to represent postgraduate students to express their surprise that one
vocal proponent of cannabis decriminalisation is getting his Masters degree “in whatever.” I’m just saying.

Should OUSA hold a referendum on the prospect of restricted entry to the University of Otago? Do you support motion 25/07? Let me know what you think at critic@critic.co.nz.