Complaints pile up following Drug Foundation’s ‘vote yes’ to cannabis campaign

first_imgDr Kate Baddock, chairwoman of the New Zealand Medical Association, has called the claims “rubbish”. However, critics say the advertisement is inaccurate and possibly misleading. “It’s a completely misleading statement,” she told 1 NEWS. TVNZ One News 11 June 2020Family First Comment: The ad claims that people who could benefit from medicinal cannabis could get much better access. Dr Kate Baddock, chairwoman of the New Zealand Medical Association, has called the claims “rubbish”. “It’s a completely misleading statement,” she told 1 NEWS. Bill Hodge, an Auckland University law professor, agrees. “This new proposal on which we’re having the referendum has nothing to do with medicinal cannabis and I don’t think the ad should have that reference,” he says. That’s because medicinal cannabis is already legal and has been prescribed in New Zealand since April.Complaints are piling up over a brand new pro-cannabis campaign funded by the Drug Foundation.Launched on multiple platforms a week ago, it calls on New Zealanders to vote yes to legalising cannabis at a referendum in September. It’s the first step in a battle the Drug Foundation is desperate to win, but one of the claims in the new ad has hit a sour note with some close observers.center_img The ad claims that people who could benefit from medicinal cannabis could get much better access. “This new proposal on which we’re having the referendum has nothing to do with medicinal cannabis and I don’t think the ad should have that reference,” he says.READ MORE: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/complaints-pile-up-following-drug-foundations-vote-yes-cannabis-campaign Bill Hodge, an Auckland University law professor, agrees.last_img read more

Purslow expects Suarez to stay

first_imgFormer Liverpool managing director Christian Purslow thinks Luis Suarez’s 10-game ban for biting was “very harsh”, but he has no doubt that the forward will remain at Anfield this summer. He added: “A player commits an offence, you discipline him, and then the authorities might discipline him. That is the issue. “What has that got to do with whether Luis Suarez should be playing from Liverpool or not? “He is easily the most effective and important player in the team. He is enormously valuable. “What would a commercial enterprise get from getting rid of their most important player, probably at a discounted price, because of a disciplinary problem? No football club in the world would do that.” Although Suarez’s bite on Ivanovic, which came on the meeting between the two sides on April 21, sparked major criticism of the player, many were not expecting the FA’s punishment to be so tough. “I thought it was a very harsh ban,” Purslow added. “It was probably more than most of us expected, but that should not diminish in any way the seriousness of the offence. It was a terrible incident, a very unusual, graphic, and unappetising incident.” The Football Association handed down a hefty 10-game suspension on Suarez after it found the Uruguayan guilty of violent conduct following his bite on Chelsea defender Branislav Ivanovic. The suspension, one of the largest meted out by the FA, came 16 months after Suarez was banned for eight matches for racially abusing Manchester United’s Patrice Evra. Given that Suarez thought he should be suspended for just three games for the biting incident, many had speculated that the 26-year-old would take the news badly and push for a summer move away from Anfield. But Purslow said: “I don’t understand the link between a disciplinary issue and whether a player should be at the club or not.” center_img Press Associationlast_img read more