Have You Heard about the North Andros Green Free Trade Zone - Proposed by Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong?

ANDROS’ DEVELOPMENT MUST NOT MERELY MEET, BUT SET THE WORLD’S HIGHEST ECOLOGICAL STANDARDS!

By: Professor Gilbert Morris

I argued - earlier in a FACEBOOK post by local historian Mr. Ca Newry that before speaking of developing Andros, some regard should be had for our routine of previous project-policy failures across Bahamian administrations. In those projects, we compromised the birthrights of our citizens and future generations.

I argued that Andros should not be an experimental playground, given its strategic and environmental significance, together with its iconic status in this country, constituting nearly 45% of the total land mass of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas. I suggested that Andros’ delicate ecology, if mismanaged, could wreck havoc on the interior islands of the Bahamas, whilst I assert in like manner that any potential development must represent an opportunity for the Bahamas to gain a foothold in the global conversations on climatology; from which we’ve been shamefully absent.

The issue of Andros’ development has been as heralded as it has been difficult to execute; as well it should be. Andros, its seems, is the place where projects go to die; for which there is a simple reason: they’ve been the wrong projects, presented in the wrong manner.

The current discussion of Andros arose when it emerged that Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong - a respected international investor and philanthropist - “submitted” a proposal to the government of the Bahamas for a project called: “North Andros Green Free Trade Zone” for the strategically prominent area of Morgan’s Bluff. It is proposed that the project would produce 10,000 jobs, so doubling the population of Andros; not a light consideration.

The Hon. Peter Turnquest MP - Minister of Finance - is reported to have said the proposal had not yet come before Cabinet; which raises questions as to why or how it has become public?

Essentially, the proposal - such as its understood - whilst rumoured to be a port development, is actually a completely new city, (along the lines called for routinely by Mr. Lester R Cox), which includes a port, cruse ship berths, limestone processing, medical facilities, alternative power generation and housing and all the corollary amenities of a cityscape. Therefore, this proposal seeks to transform the face of Andros considerably beyond what has been imagined previously.

Let me make a few final preliminary points:

It is well nigh impossible to discuss these matters in the Bahamas: 40% of persons belong to one political tribe and 45% to the other. 10% don’t care at all and the 5% who care are never heard.

We Bahamians - sadly - in the larger percentages accept any proposals coming from the government they support, utterly blindly. Moreover, when an investment is proposed, all we Bahamians seem to care for is who is close enough to politicians to get a piece of the contracts.

We seem willing to break our islands in half, no matter the consequence, so long as we hear contracts for the politically connected, and jobs for the man in the street.

Finally, those to whom I am known, know well, I DO NOT support or speak for ANY political party. My interest here is not to oppose development in Andros. Rather it is to ensure that any approach to developing Andros is transparent, inclusive and sensitive to Andros’ unique, delicate ecology.

As an economist, former chairman of the Turks and Caicos National Investment Agency and having completed in 2003 the largest ever study on “Shipping and Multi-modal Distribution Centres” commissioned by global investor/project developer Mr. Jim Zenga of StarCapital, the Chinese International Trust and Investment Corporation (CITIC) and the office of Madam Wu, then the Vice Premier of China, I surmise that such experience provides me solid standing to speak with some insight on this question.

As part of the FACEBOOK exchanges mentioned previously, Miss Myra Farquharson provided a link to a study VISION 2040.  Here I want to link and merge the VISION 2040 with the prospects of Dr. Soon-Shiong’s proposed project.

I reviewed this plan twice now, since having been introduced to its Andros section. The plan is described as: “Vision2040 is an initiative of the Government of The Bahamas, developed in partnership with the Inter-American Development Bank and in close cooperation with the College of The Bahamas and The Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation”: http://www.vision2040bahamas.org/

Here are my preliminary observations:

The VISION2040 plan is an excellent piece of descriptive work. It is refreshingly comprehensive in its descriptive scope and is an instructive starting point for any framing of options for development in these islands. It would be wise to have conducted such heuristic treatments of every island of the Bahamas; framing and emphasising the ecology, carrying capacities, preferable densities and infrastructural needs of each island zone, premised upon assumptions of their highest and best land uses for developments, as social theatres capable of enhancing the quality of the lives of Bahamians and our guests.

I focused attention on a special eBook section of the plan, called: “Masterplan for Andros Island”

1. The document - for all its excellent work, is NOT a masterplan and NOT a strategy
document: In the sense that it contains NOT a single point of strategy. It is a work for a pre-VISION. No development could be premised on such a document. Rather, VISION2040 is a perfect tool for setting a national development vision, followed by a master strategic document

2. In fact in several places, in the Andros eBook alone, the document calls for further studies and the cultivation of the very strategies I mentioned above.

3. The document contains some misconceptions (I must confess here that our own distinguished Bahamian Mr. Felix Stubbs - who oversaw VISION2040 - did ask me to meet with him to discuss the plan before its release. Unfortunately, I was in Central Asia for that time and and did not arrive at Nassau before the plan’s promulgation. Had we been able to rendezvous, I am certain these observations would have been made and accommodated. I render them now not to criticise, but to show that the plan is a Vision document and not a strategy).

I emphasise these distinctions so we are clear on what must occur in and for Andros:

The document refers to Andros as an “island”. It is not. Andros is an archipelago within an archipelago. This is crucial for understanding why its development must be approached thoughtfully; avoiding the catastrophic mistakes made in Grand Bahama, which exacerbated the flooding from hurricane Dorian.

The document calls for the establishment of a UOB campus at Andros, once BAMSI gains research funding. As a vision, a UOB presence at Andros is an excellent proposition. But a strategy document would have laid out the roadmap to attain funding, premised on cultivating a value-chain between BAMSI-UOB and the development of Agro-tech. We cannot possibly envision in the 21st century a physical campus, when universities with endowments larger than the Bahamas’ GDP are selling campus buildings.

The document recognises Andros’ delicate ecology, yet calls for an enlargement of conventional farming. A strategy document would have emphasised Hydroponics, as both labour-saving (given the plan’s notation of the small population), and as a cutting edge proposition that limits carbon footprint, whilst maintaining low density development with potentially greater productivity.

The document identifies what we all know, which is that Andros can supply 40% of the fresh water needs in the Bahamas. However, the entire document should have been premised on two points:

That Andros is potentially a “rescue destination”. That is, the land mass of Andros and its geographical positioning, protected by Cuba on one side and the Atlantic Bahama Islands on the other, makes Andros a safe “rescue destination” for a significant share of the Bahamas population in conditions of a national catastrophe where other islands become uninhabitable.

Andros’ fresh water resources are a national treasure, at a time when wars are already being fought (Egypt and Ethiopia for instance) over fresh water. This means, the mangroves, marshes and wetlands of the Andros archipelago are crucial to maintain, and cannot be sacrificed for any development and potential risks cannot be explained away in a few pages of a proposal.

To emphasise the points above: I am certain any competent strategist - beyond what coastal engineers or environmental scientists or geologists would recommend; all of whom I worked with in previous capacities - the strategist working from worse-case assumptions, would advise BANNING all pesticides in farming in Andros, all cesspits or conventional sewerage and all landfills, treating the fresh water as a strategic national asset.

5. Consideration in any strategy must be given since Andros sits on the world’s most politically advantageous and sensitive reef systems (and so is an important fish nursery), which is another leverage-point for participation above-our-weight in the global conversation on climatology. Between this fact, Andros’ foothold in the Gulf Stream and the two points above, Andros’ development must be the most refined, discrete, transformatively sensitive anywhere in the world.

6. A stealth strategic aspect of Andros is the AUTEC Base, and certain undersea exercises that make the potential presence of volume ocean traffic a considerable concern. The base makes the Bahamas part of an American coastal national security network - the most important outside the US on its Eastern seaboard.

7. Clearly the Soon-Shiong team did their research and modelled the concept of their proposal on the Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA). Here I speak with an even surer expertise in saying the following:

Constitutionally, it is unlikely that a port competitive with Freeport could be developed without  compromising the Hawksbill Creek Agreement. The Port Authority is a trust capable of binding a sovereign government and not merely a contract or agreement for development as is commonly and erroneously supposed.

The assets held by the Port Authority are not their own according to the agreement. Rather, they are to be returned to a municipality - as Maurice O. Glinton QC has emphases these many years - so that the exclusivities are part of the value which must be returned to the sovereign.

As a commercial matter, announcing the intention to develop a port, means that other port operators take defensive action to offset the prospects of such a possibility. Therefore unless there is an unrestricted book of business, its hard to advance such a notion as a “green-field” strategy. It is notable also that discussions around this idea of such a port for Andros mentioned the possibility of an “entrepôt”.

This is mistaken. Entrepôts are natural port centres between larger trading posts, with significant trade demand in the entrepôt itself: Singapore is ensconced in proximity to Indonesia and Malaysia with its major trade destination as China.

Singapore itself represents a significant demand for its own trade. Therefore, consideration must be given for the triangulation of trade between a potential port at Andros (possibly a break-bulk installation) and the US Eastern seaboard ports like New Jersey, where business volume would be impacted.

8. The VISION2040 plan does make mention of elements of eco-tourism, but does not outline what linkages, or leverage options could generate or contribute to an aggressive development of Andros away from our plantation tourism model or which Dr. Ian Strachan warned in his 2003 book “Paradise and Planation”. Additionally, there at least three endangered bird species whose natural habitats are in the proposed development zone; particularly at Joulters’ Cay.

9. The plan does not address investment models, which leaves us with the old model that has failed so often:

1. Foreign investor, who is friend of a Minister arrives
2. Links up with local oligarchy
3. Ministers  and Prime Minister gives assurances...hangs out at house or on Yacht
4. The usual law firms are retained
5. Minsters’ children, spouse or sweethearts’ family are engaged
6. Political lackeys are promised contracts
7. Investment is approved and yet another plantation emerges in which Bahamians have no equity, gaining mere jobs, subject to the same vicissitudes, the ebb and flow of which is outside our control or influence.

I think Bahamians may agree that this model must be rejected, a new model adopted and that model must  permit development ONLY within the constraints laid out by the VISION2040 document above, subject to a comprehensive strategy that deepens and enriches the intrinsic value and wealth of Bahamian citizenship.

These must include:

a. A comprehensive strategic plan for Andros
b. A Sovereign Wealth Fund, so that there is no direct investment in Andros - given its significance - which excludes the Bahamian people as equity stakeholders.
c. That the water resources of Andros be declared an unimpeachable “National Treasure” and NO DEVELOPMENT - for whatever purpose - should be allowed unless and until it satisfies an independent review that that development does NOT impeach the fresh water resources.
d. All aspects of ANY investment must be fully transparent, rendering ANY development on Andros must be the most “green” sustainable and developed against a 50 year horizon, so ensuring that future generations of Bahamians enjoy this birthright.

The objective shouldn’t be to prevent or ignore Dr. Soon-Shiong’s proposal, but to show ourselves capable of rational deliberation of such proposals against and within terms of our own strategic vision for our country.

Andros is a line in the sand, as its development alters the balance of the Bahamas: either toward a new sustainable model in which Bahamians share in the prosperity, or the old model of plantationism that leaves the many outside looking in on the few, who’ve compromised our resources for a half bowl of stale porridge.

Source

BAHAMIANS MIXED UP PRIORITIES

MIXED UP PRIORITIES - 

By Monte Pratt


"I believe in the old because it shows us where we come from - where our souls have risen from. And I believe in the new because it gives us the opportunity to create who we are becoming." ~ Abigail Washburn

Over the last decade the 'Columbus statue removal' has from time to time 'popped' in relationship to another noted 'historical event', such is the case in Dr. Gilbert Morris' post here. As he noted, it began with his earlier post: the “Decolonisation of the Bahamian Mind”.

I note 'there has never been to any concerted effort for a 'focused movement' for ... as Doc notes "mean nothing if our people’s thoughts were aligned against their own interests'. Based on Doc's pontification on this gnaw away 'subject matter' goes beyond the 'Columbus statue removal'.

Also, "to be considered, the demand to remove monuments, apply to lawyer’s wigs, to knighthoods, to QCs, to The Commonwealth, Anglican Church and the Queen? Or does our voices of defiance trail off to shameful silence when the true implications of what we demand come into view?"

This leads to my point of 'mixed up' priorities. Instead of 'tearing down' should we, Bahamians should be focused on 'building up' by embracing two key historic events that should be embedded in the annals of our 'Black' Bahamian history?

The first historical event, as a key component of the 'Majority Rule' Movement, In 1962, on the eve of a general election, at the request of the Party, it was Dr. H. W. Brown, who invited Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to serve as the guest speaker at a “mammoth service on the Sunday night before the election”. Coinciding with the historical 1962 general election was the 'first-time women were allowed to vote' in The Bahamas.

The PLP did not win the 1962 election, but this was the 'embryonic stage' of the 'Majority Rule' Movement, in the nation ending over 300 years of white minority rule.

The second historical event, the 'Bahamas Standing By Nelson Mandela'. At The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 1985 in Nassau' The Bahamas Prime Minister Sir Lynden Pindling, as chair, steered the meeting to that end. It was sanctions - started by the Commonwealth and pushed into the United Nations - that eventually crippled the South African apartheid regime, drying up loans from the international market and deterring investment.

The Bahamas is remembered by historians as the 'turning point' of the Commonwealth's struggle with Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in her obdurate opposition to 'sanctions' against apartheid South Africa.

Sir Lynden Pindling, as chair, steered the meeting to that end. It was sanctions - started by the Commonwealth and pushed into the United Nations - that eventually crippled the apartheid regime, drying up loans from the international market and deterring investment.

Led by Prime Minister Pindling, The Caribbean's drive for Mandela's freedom and the end of apartheid came in other forms - like from the region's leading musical icons, for example, 1976 Jamaica's Bob Marley (War) and 1977 Peter Tosh (Apartheid).

The concluding point that I am making here, do you 'rip a book' out of the Bible if you don't like its contents?

Should our focus be on 'Columbus' notorious history' and his statue? But rather on publishing the chronicles our 'direct' historical relevance to two of the most internationally revered 'Global Heros'... Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela?

In most cities of the 'free world', there is an erected Nelson Mandela statue and/or a 'Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr Boulevard'.

Yet most of these country/cities have no tête-à-tête 'historical connection' as we do in The Bahamas with these 'Global Heros'.

Yet, the focus is on the 'Columbus statue removal'. Indeed we as a 'people' have MIXED UP PRIORITIES.

Source

Decolonisation of the Bahamian Mind

BAHAMIAN APPROACH TO HISTORY: FIRE > READY > AIM...! 

By Gilbert Morris

I began this year with a post-called: “Decolonisation of the Bahamian Mind”. It was the result of conversations with friends and Caribbean colleagues over the holiday....who concluded with me that ideas, concepts, vision and strategies mean nothing if our people’s thoughts were aligned against their own interests. 

First amongst these interests is to remove from their minds a thinking inferiority. Second, to remove the feverish orientation toward and prioritisation of what is foreign. Third, to remove markings, signs and monuments on the Bahamian landscape that prioritises enslaver and colonial personages, hovering over our daily lives, infecting our children with their pride-of-place paramountcy.

As is typical, we leapt over the thinking part straight to the monument removal; essentially because the thinking part is hard work and one finds soon enough, we are hideously poor at disciplined conceptualisation, rooted context or discerning relevance. Now so many delight in removing monuments...no doubt inspired by events in America and elsewhere!

Well, its simple...requires no thinking...and one gains an adrenaline rush to have achieved something in a country where Turtle’s achieve more in a day! Unfortunately, that’s a short term “feeling good” neuro-stimulant that does nothing to change our situation or to cultivate a resolve to create or own a Bahamian future.

Had we taken time to think, we’d know that removal of statutes from a place of prominence is not - can’t and shouldn’t be imagined as - elimination from history: Christopher Columbus is part of our history, without whom any discussion of that history would amount to idiot babbling. This is a crucial understanding that demands we locate him - with scholarly discipline - in the structure of a Bahamian historical narrative that is intellectually honest, and not the product of flailing gum-clicking, Jungaliss analysis.

Had we taken time to think, we’d notice that our lazy, reactionary approach to national pride - which is so impotent it hasn’t prevented D Grade national averages, elephantine Debts, Criminal Slaughter of our own, Skullduggery and backward tribal politics - such that we’ve done far more damage to our heritage than Columbus ever could. This admission and a reflective national conversation would have shown us that we never bothered to think how to de-prioritise Christopher Columbus and what he symbolises, yet claim or monetise the motherhood of the Americas for our direct benefit, whilst locating Columbus at a level of our cultural meaning that removes him as the hood ornament of our history driving toward a Bahamian future.

What a thinking deliberative period would have confirm to us additionally, is the ahistorical manner in which we speak of Christopher Columbus as if he knew us. He didn’t. He couldn’t!

When we speak of him we speak of an aboriginal atrocity he initiated, informed by a reform of Dr, Martin Luther King jr.’s clarion that: ‘Injustice in any period is a threat to justice in any period’. This “period” break in the colonial hegemony in the Bahamas - between the aboriginals of these islands and ourselves - inhabits ‘enigmas of arrivals’, thousands of historical wedges, cultural drips, slippages and anthropological bleeding points, as these islands magnetised then metastasised a myriad of cultural nuances from the surrounding near abroad.

This Bahamas was a way station, a pastoral colony, a private haven (still), and was crucial to the economic establishment of the Carolinas and was a direct contributor to the American Revolution as a nexus of risks and allegiances, and so a geostrategic default territory...yet also - lest we forget and forget ourselves - a direct beneficiary of the Haitian revolution, and a contributor to the rise of Canada in the salt, Cod and Molasses trades; amongst many other things.

What is the true and proper psychology of a people of this rambunctuous history, and how do they de-colonise their minds, in a manner and by a method that does not corrupt their history, whilst reprioritising their historical personalities appropriately, by some disciplined measure?

Let us note for good measure, that every demand peters out to conundrums, which undermines the demand itself: So, does the demand to remove monuments, apply to lawyer’s wigs, to knighthoods, to QCs, to The Commonwealth, Anglican Church and the Queen?

Or does our voices of defiance trail off to shameful silence when the true implications of what we demand comes into view?

Moreover, how would such a people (Bahamians) - now rightly, if only lately enthused - employ this moment of nascent awareness to plow into a future that corrects the terrors of failure they inflicted on themselves?

That is a question that should be answered before we rush out in our typical unthinking bossiness - being as our grandparents say: “too fast” - and so constrain ourselves to contemplate organically what it means to de-colonise our minds from our over-churchified plantation thinking; to repriortisation of Columbus’ and other egregious monuments; to the plastic culture we sell in our plantation tourism model; to our vapid reprobate politics; our education, economic and strategic failures; to our obsession with what is foreign; to our slavish devotion to other people’s things...which permits foreigners to find one skullduggerer, who freely sells the country out for second hand BMWs, trips to Walmart and grinning selfies!

Source

Dr Duane Sands’ resignation is unprecedented in The Bahamas parliamentary history - in significance and substance

THE MEANING OF THE DR SANDS’ AFFAIR! 

By Gilbert Morris:


This is how one should think about The Hon. Dr Duane Sands MP’s departure:

First, overall - I speak here of the public handwringing and heaving hosannas - it’s really much ado about nothing...as large numbers of Bahamians are about to starve.

Second, As a specific matter, Dr Sands’ resignation is unprecedented in our parliamentary history in significance and substance.

Third, significantly, Dr Sands breached the rules - with the assistance of other ministers - but importantly not to benefit himself or friends. That is a clear significant distinction from previous breaches where a minister would have had his lackey junglisses selling those swabs on the streets!

Dr Sands, it is clear to see was desperately singleminded in getting the swabs for the legitimate purposes. (For those who refuse to think, I hope you can see, I’m not absolving him of breaching the rules, (Aristotle said reasons for errors matter), as such I am merely pointing out that his purposes were legitimate, which has hardly ever been the case so far as I can recall).

What it means is if we are now going to enforce rules against persons with clear good intentions, then every breach of rules must be addressed throughout all of government!

Fourth, in substance, Dr Sands letter is a study in the proper way to apologise in public office. (a.) He took responsibility, (b.) then explained his state of mind, (c.) But didn’t use his state of mind as an excuse, proof of which is offering his resignation after explaining his thinking and objectives.

This constitutes an act of the finest ministerial propriety.

Finally, when a Minister acts in significance and substance as Dr Sands did though it’s hard, it’s still the prerogative of any Prime Minister to accept the resignation. The problem is it forces a “strict adherence rule” (Think of Shylock’s “pound of flesh” in Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice”): that means any other Minister who aided his - since we are enforcing rules with no mercy for legitimate intent - they should also be disciplined.

Moreover, we must understand how LAW IS REFLEXIVE: that means every act (Dr Sands’) and every decision (Dr Minnis’) establishes a standard that must be maintained. Dr Sands’s act and the Prime Minister’s acceptance establishes a foundation for rule-following and everything and everyone afoul of such rules rendering it frowsy with uncertainty must be dismantled, dismissed, or disciplined respectively.

So that means every police officer or civil servant on duty without a mask or any public official who breaches the rule should be disciplined, because that is the benchmark that Dr Sands’s act of grace and the Prime Minister’s acceptance establishes.

It also means any elected person with a conflict of interest or an undeclared interest or any arrangement that amounts to an untendered advantage must also be squashed!

Source

Statement by The Bahamas Ministry of Transport on the Braemar cruise ship ...with COVID-19 coronavirus positive persons onboard

The Braemar cruise ship carrying five persons who have tested positive for the COVID-19 coronavirus will not be permitted to dock in The Bahamas and passengers and crew will not be allowed to disembark.

This decision is based on consideration for the protection of the health and safety of the Bahamian people and residents of The Bahamas.

The Bahamas Maritime Authority (BMA) has been in constant communication with the owners of the Braemer, which is a Bahamas-flagged ship. The BMA has reaffirmed to the Braemar that should it arrive in Bahamian waters, The Bahamas will do all that it can to provide humanitarian assistance.

This may include providing fuel, food, water and other supplies as needed by the vessel. The BMA continues to monitor the well-being of passengers and crew with updates at regular intervals.

Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the people who have contracted the coronavirus and who are at immediate risk.

Source

...anyone who questions or confronts Peter Nygard on any issue is immediately seen as an enemy of the PLP party

We are not the PLP’s enemy

STATEMENT By Save The Bays

Save The Bays is disappointed to find itself yet again the victim of a false, reckless and far-fetched attack by the PLP, as a result of the troubles facing the party's friend and benefactor, Peter Nygard.

While the current allegations against Mr Nygard are indeed serious, they have nothing to do with Save The Bays. We are an environmental conservation and good governance NGO which has only ever clashed with the fashion designer over his illegal dredging and other unauthorised construction activities at Nygard Cay which damaged the environment. We have no comment on these new allegations and our organisation is not involved in the matter in any way.

Sadly, yet again, we find ourselves having to deny the same tedious and ridiculous conspiracy theories of secret collusions and foreign interests trying to destabilise governments. We respectfully remind the PLP chairman that the Cold War is over, and ask him to leave us out of his crackpot political witch-hunts and fever dream paranoias.

Despite Fred Mitchell’s obsessive declarations, Save The Bays has never been an enemy of the PLP. The last thing our group ever wanted was to be drawn into a political fight during their last term in office.

After the election, once the political fever had broken, STB hoped we would be able to work with the opposition PLP to pressure the new government on many issues of common interest – environmental protection, freedom of information, the rule of law.

But for some reason that we cannot fathom, anyone who questions or confronts Peter Nygard on any issue is immediately seen as an enemy of the PLP party. And if Nygard stubs his toe, it must be STB’s fault.

Perhaps if the PLP chose its friends more carefully, the party would not have to be on the defensive so much of the time. Perhaps they should simply condemn Mr Nygard’s past environmental crimes, and call for the chips to fall where they may with regard to these new allegations, and leave it at that. If the party would simply file for divorce from Nygard, many of their troubles would be over.

Finally, we are also shocked by the latest revelations in the press. In the wake of the lawsuit against Mr Nygard, it seems additional alleged victims from all over the world have come forward. Meanwhile, thousands of Facebook posts and Tweets have claimed of similar incidents involving Mr Nygard in various jurisdictions.

To suggest that all of this is also the fault of STB would go beyond even the screwball imaginings of Fred Mitchell.

END

Save The Bays

I am advocating for the full nine yards or whole hog, as it relates to marijuana legalization in The Bahamas

By Dennis Dames:

Dear Honorable Brother Marvin H. Dames, the Most Honorable Hubert A. Minnis, the Honorable Carl W Bethel, Q.C., et al:

I have heard much about the Marijuana Commission’s Preliminary report – that so many among you are so very excited about – when there is nothing much to be thrilled with. It sounds like the typical politically correct proposals which consecutive governments have dealt us – for the past five decades!

The preliminary report seems to wholeheartedly support the medical marijuana business, and the Rasta’s Rights. But the poor recreational user is still screwed – even if all convicted users in prison are released, and the expungement of every marijuana conviction of the past and present.

All of this while the Police still arrest and charge for marijuana possession; no matter how small. Soon we will be fined on the spot if caught with weed – no matter how minute. So, some users might end up in prison, perhaps again - if they can’t pay the fine.

This is madness mixed with pure political correctness. It is a shallow and dangerous cocktail that the politicians seem to love to serve us because we are politically stupid and mediocre.

Look here brothers and sisters, I am advocating for the full nine yards or whole hog, as it relates to marijuana legalization in The Bahamas. How much more research is considered politically correct?