Cannabis poll: high support for use, not for supply

The NZ Drug Foundation has just released the results of a cannabis poll, carried out from 2 July 2018 until 17 July 2018

Participants stated whether an activity should be illegal, decriminalised, or legal.

Growing and/or using cannabis for medical reasons if you have a terminal illness

  • 10% – illegal
  • 17%  – decriminalised.
  • 72%- legal

Growing and/or using cannabis for any medical reasons such as to alleviate pain

  • 13% – illegal
  • 17%  – decriminalised.
  • 70%- legal

So high support for use of cannabis for medical reasons.

Growing a small amount of cannabis for personal use

  • 38% – illegal
  • 29%  – decriminalised
  • 32%- legal

Possessing a small amount of cannabis for personal use

  • 31% – illegal
  • 32%  – decriminalised
  • 35%- legal

More wanting to keep it illegal for personal (recreational) use but still about two thirds in support for legal change.

Growing a small amount of cannabis for giving or selling to your friends

  • 69% – illegal
  • 18%  – decriminalised
  • 12%- legal

Selling cannabis from a store

  • 60% – illegal
  • 9%  – decriminalised.
  • 29%- legal

Here there is much higher support for staying illegal for ways of getting cannabis apart from growing your own.

Source: NZ Herald Cannabis issues poll

The poll was conducted by Curia Market Research

943 respondents agreed to participate out of a random selection of 15,000 phone numbers nationwide

Leave a comment

39 Comments

  1. David

     /  July 24, 2018

    I have always been one who believes in de criminalizing all drugs on the basis its your body you should be able to buggar it up as long as you dont expect the taxpayer to pick up all the costs of the negative outcomes. If you are a stoner dont expect the dole etc.
    One thing that is coming out of Colorado is the increase in road accidents and deaths from stoned drivers which is an externality that is changing my mind on recreational use. Yes I know booze has similar issues but we already live with that why add to it when the state is trying to reduce its impact.
    Coming off the fence a bit from my libertarian view, never smoked it so have no idea what the appeal is.

    Reply
    • Griff

       /  July 24, 2018

      Tell me David what is your proof that the increase is as result of driving while stoned ?
      You have quoted a spurious correlation.
      A blood test is not evidence for impaired driving it picks up if you have smoked in the last month.
      How would you fell if you were accused of driving drunk just because you had a drink in the last month? How about losing your employment because you had a drink a month ago?
      There are multiple studies that find no discernible impact on driving three hours after a smoke. Blood testing for cannabis use is not for impairment but for chemical residuals that have no bearing on cognitive function.
      Reefer madness is alive and still pushing it fear mongering lies even today.

      Reply
      • David

         /  July 24, 2018

        https://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/
        https://gazette.com/news/study-finds-fatal-crashes-in-colorado-have-risen-since-legalized/article_2c003e7b-b976-5ccf-93f8-439bf61dfffa.html
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4971644/Cannabis-linked-66-rise-traffic-deaths-Colorado.html

        No need to get quite so aggressive so early in the morning Griff just because someone may not have exactly the same thoughts as you, surely its worth the debate and there are points on both sides otherwise what is the point in PG having a blog that people of different opinions contribute too. All I said was I was coming off the de criminalized fence “a bit”.

        Reply
        • Griff

           /  July 24, 2018

          Debate ?
          You have not replied in a meaningful way to the point I made.
          Blood testing for cannabis is not testing for impairment it is a test for chemical residuals that remain in fatty tissue for up to a month after use. I could get totally smashed on Piss and P today and pass a drug test on Thursday. I could be still measurably impaired due to the effects of misuse for both drugs lasting longer than the drugs stay in you blood. Cannabis is the opposite a blood test will pick up use weeks after any impairment is measurable.
          Linking traffic accidents to a positive blood test for cannabis is a spurious correlation.
          If you dont understand what a spurious correlation is google it.

          Reply
          • PDB

             /  July 24, 2018

            Might help if you could read Griff – your ‘could have used it a month ago’ is like most of your writing – bullshit:

            “Last year, all of the drivers who survived and tested positive for marijuana use had the drug at levels that indicated use within a few hours of being tested, according to the Colorado Department of Transportation”

            “Increasingly potent levels of marijuana were found in positive-testing drivers who died in crashes in Front Range counties, according to coroner data since 2013 compiled by The Denver Post. Nearly a dozen in 2016 had levels five times the amount allowed by law, and one was at 22 times the limit. Levels were not as elevated in earlier years.”

            Reply
            • PDB

               /  July 24, 2018

              To add: In 2016, of the 115 drivers in fatal wrecks who tested positive for marijuana use, 71 were found to have Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in their blood, indicating use within hours, according to state data. Of those, 63 percent were over 5 nanograms per milliliter, the state’s limit for driving.”

              “More drivers are testing positive for marijuana and nothing else. Of the drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2014 who tested positive for cannabinoids, more than 52 percent had no alcohol in their system. By 2016, it had grown to 69 percent.”

              Though I’m not totally convinced this makes the discussion worth having unlike your ‘what debate’ nonsense.

            • Griff

               /  July 24, 2018

              “drug at levels that indicated use within a few hours of being tested,”

              It is not possible to link a standard blood test for cannabis to time of use .
              It is also not possible to link a blood test to impairment.
              When you smoke cannabis the impairment is not congruent with the detectable levels .

              As the previous sections of this report have indicated, the poor correlation of THC level in the blood or oral fluid with impairment precludes using THC blood or oral fluid levels as an indicator of driver impairment. The use of BAC or BrAC as an indicator of driving impairment has assisted law enforcement and prosecutors in being able to show that an alcohol-impaired driver has a BAC that has been demonstrated to increase crash risk. The use of THC level cannot serve this same role for marijuana-impaired driving (Dupont, Voas, Walsh, Shea, Talpins, & Neil, 2012). 28 Toxicologists are not able to provide expert testimony that a specific amount of THC present in a suspect’s blood (or other specimen) is definitively associated with being impaired by marijuana and render the driver unable to drive safely.

              The drug most frequently detected in the oral fluid and blood of driver was THC, detected in 7.6 percent (n = 234) of the crash-involved drivers and 6.1 percent (n = 379) of the control drivers. To estimate the risk of crashing associated with drug use, logistic regression was used to obtain odds ratios (that are close to relative risk estimates). Odds ratios stimate the probability of an event (i.e., crash) over the probability that such an event does not occur. If a variable (i.e., drug use) is not associated with a crash, the odds ratio of crash involvement associated with that variable will be 1.00. Odds ratios above 1.00 indicate a positive relationship, with stronger relationships reflected by higher odds ratios. The unadjusted odds ratio for THC was 1.25, representing a significantly elevated risk of crashing by about 1.25 times or 25 percent. These unadjusted odds ratios must be interpreted with caution as they do not account for other factors that may contribute to increased crash risk. Other factors, such as demographic variables, have been shown to have a significant effect on crash risk. For example, male drivers have a higher crash rate than female drivers. Likewise, young drivers have a higher crash rate 26 than older drivers. To the extent that these demographic variables are correlated with specific types of drug use, they may account for some of the increased crash risk associated with drug use. When the odds ratios were adjusted for demographic variable of age, gender, and race/ethnicity the significant increased risk of crash involvement associated with THC disappeared. The adjusted oddsratio for THC positive drivers was 1.05 (95% Confidence Limit of 0.86 – 1.27). This adjusted odds ratio was not statistically significant.A final adjustment was made for the presence of alcohol. When both demographic variables and the presence of alcohol were taken into account, the odds ratio for THC declined further to 1.00 (95% Confidence Limit of 0.83 – 1.22). This means there was no increased risk of crash involvement found over alcohol or drug free drivers.

              This is from
              https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/812440-marijuana-impaired-driving-report-to-congress.pdf
              Based on science not some law enforcement officers feelz published in the popular press.

            • PDB

               /  July 24, 2018

              As I mentioned I’m still siding with you on the debate – however it is small minded of you to dismiss there is even a debate to be had in the first instance when more and more statistical evidence is emerging that high level cannabis use prior to driving is causing more accidents.

              Anyone that has used or has seen first hand mates being stoned when driving will tell you they are nowhere near as capable of driving as normal – especially reaction times & general awareness. Night time driving was especially more difficult under the influence.

              As testing methods improve it will be interesting to see what is found.

            • Griff

               /  July 24, 2018

              Your source .

              In 2016, of the 115 drivers in fatal wrecks who tested positive for marijuana use, 71 were found to have Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in their blood, indicating use within hours, according to state data. Of those, 63 percent were over 5 nanograms per milliliter, the state’s limit for driving.

              My source based on actual science.

              A number of States have set a THC limit in their laws indicating that if a suspect’s THC concentration is above that level (typically 5 ng/ml of blood), then the suspect is to be considered impaired. This per se
              limit appears to have been based on something other than scientific evidence. Some recent studies demonstrate that such per se limits are not evidence-based.

              I dont doupt that driving stoned out of your tree is an accident risk.
              However using a blood test to prove impairment is not supportable by evidence.
              It is fear mongering bullshite based on feelz .
              Demonstrably so.
              The risk for driving stoned appears to be at or below the risk for driving under our recently lowered drink driving rule.
              Relative risk based on supportable statistical evidence not feelz is what we should use to drive our laws.
              Alcohol is responsible for a large proportion of crime and violence in our society.
              Cannabis use is responsible for killing the content of your fridge. talking lots of inane Shite and couch surfing .
              We would be far better off with lots of stoners than we are with lots of piss heads.
              I seldom drink much prefer to smoke. I should have the choice to use a less harmful substance without the state persecuting me for using a safer alternative to alcohol .

            • PDB

               /  July 24, 2018

              Griff: “Cannabis use is responsible for… talking lots of inane Shite”

              Griff: I seldom drink much prefer to smoke.

            • Griff

               /  July 24, 2018

              That’s my excuse whats yours early onset dementia from alcohol use?

              I smoke like a responsible adult.
              In moderation and when appropriate.
              That means it would be very unusual for me to be stoned early on a week day.
              I know from the many years of commenting on line that no one can tell if I am stoned by reading my blog comments.
              The tell is my language becomes richer and the reading level of my comments higher.

          • insider

             /  July 24, 2018

            The only people who have THC or other residues show up in their blood or tissues are heavy or chronic users. https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/lifestyle/how-long-does-cannabis-stay-in-the-body-after-smoking/

            Reply
            • insider

               /  July 24, 2018

              After a month that should be

            • Griff

               /  July 24, 2018

              an occasional or first-time user would probably test positive up to four days after last using
              a frequent user would probably test positive up to 10 days after last using
              a very heavy user could test positive up to one to two months after last using

              Umm your point is ?
              Your link still rules out using drug testing for cannabis to prove impairment .

    • PartisanZ

       /  July 24, 2018

      The harm to our society from alcohol comes from alcohol … whereas the harm to our society from prohibition of cannabis comes from the prohibition, not the cannabis …

      The State is not trying very hard to reduce the harm of alcohol IMHO. Recent revision of licensing laws in the Far North evidences this. The vested interests wielded all the power and won the day … Our elected representatives once again represented ‘them’, not us … (as indeed they are doing by maintaining cannabis prohibition) …

      The argument that “we already live it” is entirely spurious …

      We already live with pine trees and introduced pests as well … It’s a bit like saying, “No. Don’t replant Native forest because we’ve already got Pine forest” … [not an especially good analogy but there’s one in there somewhere] …

      David – “Coming off the fence a bit from my libertarian view” or, in other words, I don’t believe in individual freedom and responsibility after all …

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  July 24, 2018

        Should be “The argument that “we already live WITH it is entirely spurious” …

        Reply
      • David

         /  July 24, 2018

        I do believe in it but as I said there appears to be externalities and harm to others.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  July 24, 2018

          Don’t worry about it. Parti often says he knows what other people are actually thinking. Despite the clever work of mentalists & psychics, the only people I know of who have this ability are usually having a psychotic episode.

          Reply
          • I have happy memories of smoking dope at university and after….it’s very pleasant and has no calories.

            I can’t agree that all drugs should be freely available, but can’t see why New Zealand Green can’t be – with proviso that it be subject to the same regulations as alcohol for sale and driving.

            Honesty compels me to say that I can tell when someone I know, a longterm user, has been smoking it…

            Gezza, I believe that there are real ‘physics’ as someone used to say, but that the commercial ones are not generally among them.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  July 24, 2018

              I believe there are some very clever cold readers, but there’s never been any psychic who has stood up to proper testing. The longer they do it, the better they get at cold reading. You’d surprised how much they can get out of you with just ordinary pleasant conversations & questions & many of their messages from the dead are based on guesswork & common family events & situations. People who visit psychics or mediums are strongly motivated to ignore 10 misses or vague statements & focus only on the hits. Confirmation bias.

              But if you know of & can name any ‘real’ psychics, I’d be happy to check some out.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  July 24, 2018

              I have seen and heard some very odd things that the person couldn’t have known. Eerie.

              But one of the Sceptics society hid a promissory note for $100,000 and deposited the money in a bank for any psychic who can tell him where the promissory note is….still there, who knows how many years on.

            • The real ones tend not to do it as a stage show, although I saw one on a series here that examined such things (and showed that most were not real) who told a girl about her brother’s friend who’d died young and even told the nickname that he had for her – which the psychic couldn’t have known.

              I have seen cold readings, and see them running down a list, in the way that one might do in the supermarket to remember something….obviously waiting for the cue from the person when it’s right. ‘X died of…let me see, I’m hearing a, b, c, d….E ! it was e, wasn’t it ?’

              The Sceptics society here has a largish amount of money set aside for anyone who can tell them where something is hidden (I forget what) and it has never been claimed.

              A fake faith-healer in the US really seemed to have the gift. If I’d been at a session and he’d said ‘There’s someone called Kitty who was in a bad crash etc’ I might well have believed it. He was there on the stage when the audience came in, and as they did, they were asked to write their name and medical problem on a card for prayer. How could there be any fraud involved ? Simple. he was fed the info through an earpiece.

              There are lists available of the most common names so that the frauds can say that there’s a message from X and there will probably be someone with a relly called that :-/

            • I saw one or two of the NZ series where psychics were solving (?) cold cases in NZ, They were Australian psychics, I think (so that they wouldn’t know about the cases ?)

              BUT….there are not that many. It wouldn’t take too much effort to read about them and where they happened. The odds would be that they would be young women* whose cases were featured, as this would seem sadder than middle-aged men (or even young men) If it was me, I would be looking up young women and memorising the basic details.

              To the cynics in this house, it was obvious that this had happened.

  2. NOEL

     /  July 24, 2018

    I’ll wait for the referendum. I reckon it will mimic the results for medicinal but may disappoint on recreational.
    https://www.curia.co.nz

    Reply
    • Griff

       /  July 24, 2018

      Yes California has been down that road.
      what happens is.
      1) Doctors are identified by users who will give a script for cannabis to all comers. (I already know my present doctor smokes pot!)
      2) People with a script will on sell to users .

      It becomes legalization by default.

      Reply
      • Zedd

         /  July 24, 2018

        a narrow view.. most of the hysteria that is often heard about ‘what will happen if it is legal’ is just that; HYSTERIA. ‘The sky is falling !!’ :/

        Most of the negative B-S is actually already happening as a result of prohibition; Black-market Gangs, Police corruption, a lack of health care options, in favour of law enforcement !!

        Reply
        • Dope on PRESCRIPTION in California ???

          How much is a ticket to the US ?

          I gather from someone who has been using it for many years that the police turn a blind eye to people like him.

          Our police force is about the least corrupt in the world, unlike the Australian one.

          Reply
          • Zedd

             /  July 24, 2018

            ‘Our police force is about the least corrupt in the world, unlike the Australian one.’ sez kitty

            “Sez Who ?” sez I

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  July 24, 2018

              Sez the people who do these studies. International studies routinely rank us and ours at the top, with Denmark 1 point below. The police here have been ranked highly as well. There will be some corrupt ones among so many, probably. But good luck offering a cop here a bribe. They are very well paid, so it would have to be a hefty one !

          • Griff

             /  July 24, 2018

            It has been available by prescription only since 1996.
            Recreational Cannabis sales became legal in California on Jan. 1, 2018.

            Reply
  3. Zedd

     /  July 24, 2018

    I listened to that idiot Hosking.. quizzing Winston (ZB) on whether he agrees with ‘legalising DOPE ?’ (his words)
    Winston said that it has been NZFs policy to run a referendum on it & he still supports this policy idea. He was not saying he supports reform; but let the public make the call on it ! (3 cheers sez I)

    It really looks like the whole debate on ‘should we have reform ?’ is actually over.. NZ Drug Fdn polls (3 years in a row) have clearly shown that the majority of kiwis, think cannabis reform should happen, it is just a matter of what model to adopt; looking to others overseas as examples. As to the Medicinal use.. those who still think it show be also illegal.. need to pull their heads out & have a reality check !

    Personally I think they should dump words like ‘Decrim.’ & even ‘Legalise’ & go with ‘Legal Regulation’; legal but with strict rules eg R18, driving restrictions, restriction on sales/home grow & where it can be legally used.. not in open public spaces etc.

    NZ is being seen by many OECD countries (eg Canada, USA states, Aust. states, much of EU, Israel, parts of Sth America etc.) as a bit of a joke on this ‘stuck in the mud’ attitude, that they have alrady moved past now (some reforms already in place). just look at ‘cannamaps’, has NZ ‘still illegal’ or some restricted med-use only

    Reply
    • NOEL

       /  July 24, 2018

      Sorry Zedd it majority of 943 out of 15000 kiwis randomly selected.
      lot of room for error. Me roll on the referendum.

      Reply
      • Zedd

         /  July 24, 2018

        I agree polls are just that, but they are certainly indicative of the trend; a majority of adults in NZ do seem to agree, it is time for some reform.. esp. on med-use, but also personal use.. in line with changes already occuring in other countries; Canada, USA, Aust, EU etc.

        The real issue (IMHO) is what question(s) will be in a referendum & who will write them. If you look at the ‘key flag’ one; they asked for submissions, then a ‘expert panel’ considered the final options & came up with choices (1st vote) then the outcome, was put up against the current one. (status quo)
        I think that might be a starting point, for this issue ?

        Reply
  4. Zedd

     /  July 24, 2018

    oops typo: As to the Medicinal use.. those who still think it SHOULD be also illegal..

    Reply
  5. Zedd

     /  July 24, 2018

    all the fear-mongering/hysteria about ‘use will go up & the roads will be full of Stoned drivers’ is again just that.. In Portugal & Holland etc. they actually found that use rates went down after the initial spike; because it was no longer ‘forbidden fruit’.. part of the reason why many youth try it, to ‘rebel against the Establishment’. If you look at the global stats. countries like NZ (still illegal) have amongst the highest use rates (UN reports) per capita

    the whole idea of law reform is not to ‘legalise the black-market’ & the gangs etc. BUT to reform ‘the corrupt system’ that has arisen as a result, surely that has to be a positive ?!

    Reply
    • Among the people with whom I have shared a few joints in my youth are some of NZ’s most famous actors and directors and a pillar of a large Melbourne synagogue 😀

      Reply
      • Zedd

         /  July 24, 2018

        onya kitty.. BUT ‘be careful what you are publicly admitting to’.. look out the cops are still about ‘LAW ENFORCEMENT !’ even if some think the tide has already turned 🙂

        The arrest rate is still in the 1000s per year in NZ, even for personal use

        Reply
    • Zedd

       /  July 24, 2018

      btw; I note that Mr Bridges & Natl are ‘still unsure or are opposed’ to any reform….. maybe until the referendum result ?

      If you look at the polls; it seems Natl voters are supporting, at least med-use & even some personal use option too :/

      Reply
  1. Cannabis poll: high support for use, not for supply — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s