Dear Editor
I write in response to the article in Activate (20 March 2012): “Dagga couple for the ‘re-legalisation’ of weed”, which is an alarming example of an insidious advocacy group making irresponsible claims. The issue of drugs, and specifically marijuana usage is of grave concern to my Office, given its attendant risks, and I therefore seek to set the record straight through the medium of the same paper which was so generous in airing the views of Ms van der Wielen. In her article, she makes little attempt to provide a balanced view of dagga and its effects, and implies that there is no empirical evidence regarding dagga’s negative effects. This is biased, misleading and dishonest. The article is a mischievous blend of some facts and half-truths mixed with a few wild claims, resulting in conclusions that any competent Philosophy 1 student could dispose of without difficulty (assuming, of course, that they weren’t high on dagga). But the danger is that such an article could be very affirming for any (uncritical) student who seeks to justify why they use cannabis. Indeed, the article provides the uninitiated and adventurous student with grounds to try it.
To ensure that our students do indeed get a balanced view about cannabis, hopefully before they try it themselves, I have therefore asked a few local professional experts to supply our campus newspapers with the kind of empirical evidence that Activate apparently could not locate. I’d also like to ask that Activate take a more responsible and balanced editorial line in future.
From my side, I wish to emphasise only three points that every student needs to consider before trying cannabis: firstly, it is impossible to predict who will get addicted or who is prone to psychosis, and just taking it to see “how it goes” is a huge risk (my source: Counselling Centre and local psychiatrists’ reports). Secondly, dagga is an entry level drug; the real danger is that once a student gets hooked onto the "high" and finds they cannot repeat it, they often move to the next level of dangerous hard drugs (my source: local medical practitioners). Thirdly, dagga usage is of particular concern in a learning environment, because it impairs cognitive skills related to attention, reasoning and memory (evidence: the academic records of known users). I ask all students to consider their own wellbeing and academic future very carefully before they take this risk.
I would like to take this opportunity to educate those readers of Activate who might fall into the same trap as Dr de Klerk in assuming that an article expresses the views of the writer. Despite the various postmodern doubts concerning objectivity and truth, journalists are still trained to strive for a level of objectivity (i.e. keeping your views out of your writing). Accordingly, there are a few distinctions that might be helpful to any readers who find this concept (and some basic journalistic concepts) difficult to grasp.
Dr de Klerk was obviously under the impression that I had written a column, in which the writer’s views are expressly stated and discussed. These are generally distinguished from articles by their specific place on the page and by sporting a picture of the writer. Similarly, opinion pieces generally have a photo of the writer and appear under the opinion pages. I, in fact, wrote a feature, which thus appeared under the features section. Features are longer articles that either focus on a specific thing (i.e. a profile, which focuses on a person) or investigates an issue. In the case of the Dagga Couple article, the focus was solely on the couple and their campaign. I gave some history of cannabis to provide some context which might not have been widely known (unlike the commonly reported detrimental effects of dagga).
Furthermore, I feel that a distinction between fact and opinion must be explained, since this seemed to be confusing as well. Here I shall illustrate the difference via an example.
Fact: the Dagga Couple, on their website and various other platforms on which they delivered their opinion, said what I reported them saying in my 20 March Activate article “Dagga Couple for the re-legalisation of weed”. If you reference the article (either original or the edited [by others] version that appears on the Activate website), you will see that wherever a statement about dagga is made, I give the source of this statement (which is supposed to alert the reader to the fact that the statements are not my own).
Opinion: Dagga shouldn’t be legalised.
My opinion, in fact. I will not, presently, go into why I think dagga should not be legalised, but will just say that I am probably one of the biggest anti-smokers you might ever come across, and that includes dagga, cigarettes and even hubbly. I also don’t think getting stoned in any shape or form is a good thing.
Thus, in my feature about the Dagga Couple, I explained their campaign, some of their arguments, some of the history of cannabis sativa and some of the impact that this campaign might make. In no part of the article did I personally encourage the consumption of dagga, or any type of drug.
Having posited a defence of my article, I would like to now address the personal attacks Dr de Klerk made in her letter to my editor. Dr de Klerk suggests that my competence is exceeded by that of a Philosophy 1 student, I assume thereby implying that I am incompetent and uncritical.
This makes me wonder whether the Dean is in touch with her student body at all. Dragging my surname into her letter so condescendingly, one might think she didn’t notice that it is in the 2012 Awards, Scholarships, Bursaries and Prizes booklet handed out to graduates. This booklet states that I won two prizes, both of which are based on achieving the best results out of the year for my two majors. It also lists my name under those students who achieved Academic Half Colours. I have been on the Dean of Humanities’ list since my first November examinations. This year, I have not received any marks under 77%. Last year, I achieved firsts in all my subjects.
If I am incompetent and have no critical thinking ability, it doesn’t say much for the university's standards.
I would further like to say that I am deeply disappointed with the way in which Dr de Klerk handled the situation. I understand that, in her position, she might have concerns about the students’ impressions about drugs and illicit substances. However, in her haste to “set the record straight”, Dr de Klerk committed one of the most basic logical fallacies known to even those competent Philosophy 1 students (I hope) – ad hominem, the act of attacking a person rather than an argument.
In her letter, Dr de Klerk insults my intelligence, questions my integrity and refutes my competence. Instead of making a rational and mature argument against the usage of drugs, she rather chooses to start her letter by belittling her opposition before claiming to have the ultimate truth. I do not appreciate being thus denigrated by an authority figure who obviously has no idea who I am and what I actually believe.
Had Dr de Klerk stuck to the “facts” she so esteems and left her condescension and derision out of the letter, I would have been happy to write an article that tackles the issue. I might have even used some of the same sources she mentions.
However, the so-called “facts” about dagga are so disputed that I feel prescribing or preaching to the student body is neither prudent nor helpful (I am, after all, only a third year student). As a student myself, I know that students are on the whole educated (let’s hope so, even though Dr de Klerk’s opinion of her student body does not seem to reflect this). Thus I feel that students have been exposed to the arguments surrounding dagga, and other drugs. As a sub-warden, I know that workshops are held every year that address issues of drug use.
I also know (thanks to the research I did for the article) that dagga is being used by a lot of South Africans, and that students are especially prone to experimenting with dagga. However, I do not think that one article, which explains one couple’s views, will sway anyone either which way. My role as journalist is not to tell anyone what to think, but to make them aware of what is out there in the world (which shouldn’t worry the Dean of Students so much, since any “competent Philosophy 1 student” can dispose of what she considers harmful conclusions – or does she assume that the majority of students at Rhodes is incompetent?).
As Dr de Klerk asks Activate to take a more balanced and responsible editorial line, I beseech her to do the following:
- Do your research, so that you may know who you are attacking/denigrating (I do not, in any way, deserve the criticism you have levelled at me)
- Consider the effect your method of arguing might have on your argument (attacking your opponent does not prove you right and lends no credence to your point, but only makes you seem incapable of actually making an argument that can stand on its own)
- When stumbling across a situation where you feel that a mistake is being made by a student (although here I suppose you assumed that my intension was to mislead and dupe the unsuspecting Rhodes students, but let’s pretend), rather than attacking the student, lend the guidance and advice expected of your office.
We are, after all, students who are meant to be learning the skills we should one day employ. Although I suppose that this has taught me to respond to unfair criticism. I will make no apology for my article, and I refuse to believe that students are so daft or weak as to use my article as a vindication for the use of dagga.
Thus, in conclusion, I am shocked and disappointed that someone I previously admired could react with so little consideration, thought and insight. I reiterate: nowhere in my article do I recommend or encourage the use of dagga. I am a top student (and thus by Dr de Klerk’s rationale not high on weed) and, for lack of better description, a model citizen. My views and opinions do not colour my professional performance, and I do not deserve to be insulted by someone who is supposed to have students’ best interests at heart.
