Didn't Roffey stand on a cannabis manifesto?
I WOULD like to pose a question to 'Roffey writes'. As the youngest (I think Carol came after you) member to get into politics on a cannabis manifesto, what went wrong?
You ended up on no committees, out for 10 years and came back with banning smoking on the advice of your CEO at Health. Is that what becoming a minister means, becoming a puppet? How can you
U-turn so much?
Cannot wait to read your column on Guernsey's stance on standing up for Human Rights Article 8 'to be free of pain' (abbrv).
SUE SOLWAY,
19, Pre de l'Aumone,
Castel,
GY5 7RW.
Editor's footnote: Peter Roffey responds: 'Your correspondent is right in one respect, I was Guernsey's youngest-ever deputy – it's a title I very much hope to lose one day. However, he or she is quite wrong to suggest that I was elected on a "cannabis manifesto" – there was no mention of the issue in my 1982 campaign literature. I did, however, feel the need during that first term to propose stopping the then practice of locking up very many young islanders for a standard six months' imprisonment for small amounts – even traces – of cannabis, as it was clearly disproportionate. While I didn't win that vote, I was delighted that sentencing policy nevertheless changed soon afterwards.
In regards to the smoking restrictions, your correspondent couldn't be more wrong. Firstly, I was not a minister of anything when I proposed them. The restrictions were put forward by the former Board of Health, of which I was president at the time. Totally unlike the cannabis issue, the smoking restrictions did not touch on the right of any individual to consume any drug. They in no way reduced the personal freedom of smokers to use tobacco but simply insisted that, should they choose to do so, it should not be in a place where it impacted on the rights of other islanders to enjoy clean air. The proposals were not the brainchild of the chief officer of the BoH but I suspect that like the vast majority of islanders, he strongly supported such patent good sense in protecting the right of the public not be harmed by tobacco smoke.
As for my current attitude to "the drug question" well, at the time of writing, I have already penned a Roffey Writes on the subject, which may have been published by the time your correspondent's letter and this response appear.
For the record, I am a strong supporter of human rights and having seen some close to me suffer pain that is difficult to relieve, I am hugely sympathetic to the medicinal use of any drug which can relieve such symptoms.'
