Two polls suggest a movement against cannabis law reform

While there are more options than legalisation of cannabis, nd we don’t know what we will be voting on in next year’s referendum, that’s the question asked by two polls.

Newshub/Reid Research: Should we legalise Cannabis?

  • No – 48%
  • Yes – 41.7%
  • Don’t know – 10.4%

1 News/Colmar Brunton: At this stage, do you think you will vote for cannabis to be legalised, or for cannabis to remain illegal?

  • Remain illegal – 52%
  • Legalise – 39%
  • Unsure/refused – 9%

These results are based on largely uninformed opinions. We don’t know what we will be voting on. One thing is certain – there won’t be total legalisation. Current proposals being considered by Parliament are for limiting legal use to 20 years of age and over, and very limited means of obtaining cannabis for use.

There is a lot of deciding still to happen in Parliament, and a lot of lobbying and campaigning. Some of the campaigning so far has been inaccurate and comes close to scaremongering misinformation.

When we know what we will be voting on we can make our choices.

Until the pollsters know what the vote will be on all they can do is give us a rough idea of possible outcomes.

 

 

Next Post
Leave a comment

60 Comments

  1. NOEL

     /  11th June 2019

    Had to laugh. For months the Greens and Drug Foundation had been claiming it was a health issue. The three remaining options are for a choice issue. And now they claim the polls have been influenced by propaganda.

    Reply
  2. Pink David

     /  11th June 2019

    “These results are based on largely uninformed opinions.”

    What on earth did you think democracy was other than a system of governance based on uninformed opinions?

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  11th June 2019

      What PG means is that when it goes against what he wants its ‘uninformed’.
      When those silly Horizon self selecting online panels come out in favour , no mention of how informed that was . Good to see even Horizon has gone down from 60% ‘uninformed in favour’ to 52% ‘uninformed in favour’

      I think the voters get it that all the diversions about reform and what the vote means, at the heart its a vote to legalise and any restrictions will be ‘light’.

      Reply
      • Griff.

         /  11th June 2019

        Yes Duker .
        Thanks for graphically illustrating PG point for those of us who can do joined up thinking.
        You dont know what the proposed reforms will say. No one as yet does. You just have your uninformed opinion based only on your uninformed prejudice .

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  11th June 2019

          yes we do .

          The background cabinet paper that included a number of other options that had been considered was released at the same time
          The draft legislation will include:
          -minimum age of 20 to use and purchase
          -commercial supply controls
          -limited home-growing options

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_cannabis_referendum#The_referendum_question

          What you dont realise is only 5% of the population are interested in the ‘arcane legalise over who can be an approved person to sell cannabis’ and so on such as if we need a ‘Cannabis Control Authority and who appoints its members and for how long.’
          Everyone knows that gangs will still control the market- through intimidation of small shop owners if necessary and that so called ‘Treatment options’ for addicts would be a sham, as our health system doesnt have adequate resources for all sorts of illnesses let alone the addiction ones.

          Reply
          • total drivel Duker

            Show us your crystal ball.. where you saw all this ‘gloom & doom’

            The WAR on Drugs is a failure.. definition of insanity

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  11th June 2019

              The War on speeding is a failure as people still speed, the war on parking doesnt work either and millions of tickets are still issued.
              So what if regular cannabis users are penalised, doesnt bother me at all.

              You dont win an argument by introducing the ‘War on’ fallacy.
              The simple answer is we dont legalise harmful products, many mistakes have been made in the thinking ‘ we can mitigate the problems with this.

              Someone at a food bank said the other day , 60% of his regular customers are pokies users.
              Kapiti Coast say that $8.5 mill per year profit from pokie machines yet there are only $750,000 returned as grants to community groups in the area.
              That was a giant con job by the breweries to get pokies in bars and all the happy/magic talk that went with it.

              looking forward to your rivers of tears when the ‘uninformed’ win

            • @Duker

              try comparing ‘apples with apples’ rather than B-S

          • Griff.

             /  11th June 2019

            What you dont realise is only 5%

            Ah yes that ever reliable source www factspulledfrommyarse.com.

            Everyone knows that gangs will still control the market- through intimidation of small shop owners if necessary

            More of the same.
            What you think you know and what any one who actually has a clue knows do not resemble each other in any way .

            Gangs control tinny houses. Most users I have known dont buy from tinny houses they buy from someone they know who grows or at most two or three times removed. Tinny houses are more for the lets get some pot on the way out to a party on a Friday night casual users. Just as most drinkers dont go to the off license at the pub for a six pack instead go to a liqueur store and stock up for a few weeks or get some with the shopping at the supermarket

            At present stand over rackets work for gangs because you can not go to the police and complain.
            Once it is legal if a gang trys to standover retailers a call to the cops will sort them out.

            So called ‘Treatment options’ for addicts would be a sham,

            More Duker just knows .
            Prohibition costs about $ 450,000,000 a year to enforce.
            You dont think a few mil could be spared to provide addiction services from that huge amount? . We should look at taxing all drugs at a level sufficient to mitigate their effects to society . In which case your piss would double in cost or more and cannabis would be extremely cheap.

            Duker .
            Re illustrating Pete’s point with every comment .

            Relative harm of drugs.
            Guess which one Duker uses? It shows…. hic…..

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  11th June 2019

              That’s absurd. I would favour stronger restriction alcohol sales. It s a good example that the magic thinking over relaxing restrictions is so very hard to change course when shit happens.
              I’m one of those people who knew too many drunks previously and now prefers the company of people who hardly drink at all.
              So save your slurs for another place

            • Duker

               /  11th June 2019

              Most users I have known dont buy from tinny houses they buy from someone they know who grows or at most two or three times

              You lead a typical middle class life…it’s not how the real world exists

              The old ‘I know respectable people who don’t abuse drugs’ line
              Pleeeese

  3. Total Ignorance; is what is driving the ‘NO’ campaign. It wasn’t that long ago, that some folks were still saying ‘NO’ to medicinal use & claiming it was ;just an excuse to ‘legalise dope’

    Family-first are still actively pushing ‘Reefer Madness’ rhetoric & most ZB hosts are pushing similar nonsense. Last night I heard B. Russell saying he is happy that it may fail, because ‘It is BAD stuff’. A caller gave him a ‘please explain’.. he just made some inane comment about ‘we dont want 14 year old girls smoking it’.. NEW FLASH; the proposed law will be R20, not anything goes.. as we currently have with a unregulated black-market, with NO age restrictions. The caller asked him ‘how many times have you smoked it ?’ he replied ‘millions’.. no credibility Bruce, if you still believe the 1940-50s lies about ‘MARIJUANA’

    I downloaded the ‘cabinet paper’ (OIA) & read through it. It needs more work.. BUT for 52% to reportedly vote ‘no’ without even likely having read it, just shows the ignorant, narrow-mindedness that still exists in 2019 :/

    I say ‘Vote NO to Status Quo !’

    btw: we are just asking for a level playing field. Alcohol has been compared to a Class B drug & Tobacco to Class A (deaths & other harm). Cannabis is Class C, so why do so many, still think it is this ‘Evil Insidous Narcotic’ that should be iradicated at all costs ? IGNORANCE.. plain & simple

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  11th June 2019

      You were happy when a poll self selected survey said 60% to votes yes with the same limited information.

      do tell us what this precious jewel ‘information’ is, that only is needed to be seen by one side ?

      Reply
    • Some university friends were asked to look after a plant in an old dunny bowl and the people never came back for it.

      Their elderly landlady knew about the ‘pot plant’ and thought it very funny.

      Reply
  4. This ‘docudrama’ was widely discredited in 1960s.. BUT many still quote the lines: Gateway to Hard Drugs, CAUSES Insanity & violence & it is mainly children/youth who use DRUGS

    methinks Hoskiing & co. are just ‘echo chambers’ for this misinfo. I wonder who is really funding them OR if they even have an independent thought process.. ?

    “wakey wakey its 2019”

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  11th June 2019

      Pleeeese.

      Plenty of medical studies show the harm , its a mind altering drug, you fool.
      Its not hundred and thousands

      Reply
      • ‘Plenty of medical studies show the harm , its a mind altering drug, you fool. Its not hundred and thousands’ sez Duker

        Yes plenty of medical studies.. funded by Big Pharm, Alcohol & Tobacco ! Now whose the FOOL ?

        Following your “logic’, should we also ban ALCOHOL ??
        It too is a harmful, mind altering DRUG.. said to be equiv. of Class B

        Reply
        • There is another word… PREJUDICE:
          Booze good.. Dope BAD, must be true because all those jumping on the ignorant/blinkered bandwagon, are saying it. :/

          Reply
        • Duker

           /  11th June 2019

          You have gone into full conspiracy mode now …forget it Dude its over.
          you have become a REVERSE parody of the Reefer Madness clip.

          Reply
          • The fact that some people misuse a substance doesn’t mean that everyone will.

            My mother knew a man who was extremely anti-alcohol; almost a fanatic.

            One day she saw him buying a carton (!) of cough medicine, opening a bottle and drinking it as if it was a soft drink. I couldn’t do that, I’d be sick. Most people would be.

            This doesn’t mean that cough medicine is bad in itself, although this man was one of many people who have abused it.

            Reply
    • Did anyone take Reefer Madness seriously even then ?

      Or was it seen as a joke at the antis expense because it is so over the top ?

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  11th June 2019

        I read that the original name was Tell Your Children and it was renamed RM as a joke in 1972.

        I MUST see this film.

        Reply
        • @KCk

          Yes it was supposed to be SERIOUS.. even though the opening credits say ‘it is fiction’ BUT supposed to be based on actual evidence/facts.

          As Ive said; most of the FEAR-mongering still being heard today, comes from the script of this ‘docudrama’; causes insanity & violence & leads to HARD drugs etc.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  11th June 2019

            It’s been edited for comic effect, I saw, but it’s hard to imagine it not being seen as funny because it’s so absurdly melodramatic and would defeat its purpose by looking ridiculous.

            Reply
  5. Duker

     /  11th June 2019

    And from the news today
    ‘An increasing number of Northland road fatalities involve drugs; blood tests show nearly 40 per cent of those killed in crashes this year had methamphetamine or cannabis in their system.’
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?objectid=12237920
    Not surprised at all, if drugs and alcohol in blood system is replacing those with only alcohol in fatal crashes. Likely to be more prevalent in some regions

    Reply
    • Zedd

       /  11th June 2019

      now thats just desperate..

      1) cannabis can be detected in blood for weeks after use, this does NOT mean they were ‘intoxicated’. Echoes of the Natl. meth housing debacle

      2) perhaps they are increasingly testing for ‘other drugs’.. this is nothing new

      maybe try sticking to a rational line of ‘logic’ ? :/
      I might take you seriously. Regardless of how youz dress it up; FEAR-mongering is still just that. “For God’s sake think of the Children !!”

      Reply
    • Griff.

       /  11th June 2019

      How many of the dead were drivers?
      How many of the dead were drivers that were responsible for the crash?
      How many of the dead showed evidence of cannibals rather than P?
      Having the metabolites of cannabis in your system by a blood test is not evidence of intoxication. How many were actually intoxicated on cannabis and that intoxication was responsible for the crash ?
      You need a lot more information to actuly make a case besides a casual correlation.
      Such a story is just more reefer madness dribbling… click bait for the uninformed and easily led to making unsupported connections .

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  11th June 2019

        I would never think that driving stoned was all right. Why take that chance ?

        Reply
        • Griff.

           /  11th June 2019

          I was not endorsing driving while stoned.
          I merely pointed out that the story contains insufficient evidence to make the conclusion that duker and probably the author did .

          The question of is cannabis use a high risk for driving? has not been conclusively answered.
          The most authoritative meta study I have seen suggests stoned driving is less risky than drunk driving at our present lower limit providing you to not mix cannabis with alcohol.The reason given why stoned driving is not as risky as drinking and driving is being stoned makes you paranoid and more cautious rather than give you a feeling of invincibility like alcohol does .

          If you want to spot a stoned driver look for a scruffy young person driving well under the speed limit holding up traffic in the left hand lane.

          Reply
        • Poor old PDT, nothing better to do than scroll through YNZ and downtick anything that I say. Pathetic Dull Troll.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  11th June 2019

            It may be less risky, but it’s not something that I would ever want to see being accepted.

            Reply
  6. the truth is there is a massive vacuum in public discourse, with Family First lapping up the attention claiming all sorts of weird and wonderful things, such as people putting cannabis oil in the eye for faster effect, (MCANZ study of 1800+ Kiwis suggest no one is squirting it in the eye)

    There is no govt champion outside of Chloe S, so the Nats and the religotards will campaign against it, while policy wonks such as NZDF, and myself actually, will argue for very tight and technical legalization which gets lost in the media beat up over gummies…..

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  11th June 2019

      You are a advocate not a neutral referee in the cannabis debate.
      Family First lapping up the attention – really ?
      It seems their rantings have taken up residence in your head , when for everyone else they hardly matter.
      NZDF never accepts any rational information about cannabis harms- most people are aware of cannabis smokers or have tried it themselves. And know its the 20% of smokers who are heavy users that will ruin it for everyone else. Its an addictive drug for many , not the time and place to make it easier even if you believe ‘tight and technical’ legalization. too many mistakes have been made before over increasing acess to addictive choices in NZ

      Reply
    • good onya SLB

      I too think that a strict regulation model, (as outlined in the cabinet paper) has to be better than status quo.. BUT the debate seems to be dominated by extremist views.. FEAR-mongering being the one getting most air play (MSM)

      There seems to be a wide consensus that the WAR on Drugs, has failed to achieve the stated outcomes & in fact has created the black-market & the ‘forbidden fruit mystique’ that attracts, rather than deters many youth, to try these illegal drugs. The FEAR-mongers are trying to convince ‘middle NZ’ that law reform will make things even worse. They need to actually LOOK at the changes occurring overseas, rather than just looking for ‘evidence’ to bolster their nonsensical point of view

      It sounds like most have no real idea, what the Govt. are proposing for the ‘reeferendum’; instead just going along with Family-first etc. who are clearly touting ‘Reefer madness; rhetoric/misinfo.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  11th June 2019

        Family First can’t believe that putting cannabis oil in an eye would result in anything but a mess as it ran down.

        The idea that the sweets and so on are a children’s menu is misleading, I think. It’s like claiming that liqueur chocolates are aimed at children.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  11th June 2019

          I won’t be trying it as I loathe sickly sweet liqueur chocolates, but as they are for sale in supermarkets and places like The Warehouse, I’d say that a child could well be able to buy them.

          Reply
        • Bill

           /  12th June 2019

          Yeah Family first got it wrong with oil eye’s, Cannabis oil is highly antiseptic and would burn your eye beyond any possible enjoyment what a joke folks. FAKE NEWS!!

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  12th June 2019

            Oh dear. I assumed that one would just have an oily mess to wash away…..

            They also suggest that people are putting it, er. elsewhere….

            Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  12th June 2019

            Perhaps FF enjoy that sort of thing 😀

            Reply
  7. Duker

     /  11th June 2019

    There never was a war on drugs in NZ. If a politician used the term it was a throw away term.
    Where were they resources allocated for said ‘campaign’? It’s 70s thinking and it seems you havent changed either.
    Recently they did M Bovis elimination would cost roughly $800 mill over the next 10 years. Never was a fraction of that allocated you your phone war.

    In reality it’s the classic straw man which can knock down.

    Reply
    • ‘There never was a war on drugs in NZ.’ sez Duker

      More misinfo. When Nixon declared WAR on Drugs in 1970-71, it was passed onto all UN convention signatories. (inc. NZ) & was declared a Global WAR
      I have even seen part of an Cop training video, where the instructor says ‘Welcome to NZs War on Drugs program’

      I find it interesting that cannabis is a Class C drug & yet to the ignorant folks.. it is seen as just as BAD as all others; Class A-B

      I suggest you pull you head out of the sand :/

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  11th June 2019

        What are the problems it is known to cause for some people Zedd?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  11th June 2019

          Not the criminal convictions ones, the other problems.

          Reply
        • @Gezza

          I have never said that cannabis (or any drugs) are harmless. BUT lets be clear, alcohol is considered equiv. of a Class B drug (harm/deaths), cannabis is Class C.. so on a ‘level playing field’, Alcohol is more harmful, but LEGAL

          I have seen interviews with Police & A&E staff, who constantly say that Alcohol is by far, the bigger problem. SO.. why is cannabis still being demonised !?

          All I (& others) are saying ‘The WAR on Drugs’ (esp. Cannabis) HAS failed.. so lets stop the insanity (repeating something expecting different outcomes) & look at alternatives; Legal Regulation.. as is now happening in many other OECD countries

          Lets address the issues around mental health & addiction, not just arrest & convict (not solving anything). Lets EDUCATE people about Cannabis use.. not just ‘Its BAD, Dont touch’ (as I was ‘taught’ in High School) with no other facts/reasons

          Why not allow ADULTS. the Choice, to use cannabis & focus, on keeping it R20+.. not ZERO-tolerance. Prohibition did not work with Alcohol in 1920s USA.. it only created a massive unregulated Black-market.. guess what ?
          Cannabis prohibition is doing exactly the same thing 😦

          I hope that answers your points ?

          Rant over 🙂

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  12th June 2019

            Not exactly. How much you know about what the research shows about which groups are likely to be most harmed by cannabis use is what I was wondering. The theory that young people under 20 won’t be easily able to get their hands on it even easier than now I think we can all quickly dismiss.

            I don’t think the current approach is working, but I’m waiting to see what comes out of the pipeline at the end & I think not talking specifically about the known mental health / psychosis-related, developmental, demotivational, & stoned workers or drivers problems realistically, as though they won’t be a problem, doesn’t help the debate.

            Reply
            • just to say.. in many other countries, that have already regulated or ‘decrim’d’ cannabis.. the sky has not fallen. They do realise that there are issues, BUT there are other ways to address them, besides ‘BAN IT’ or ‘Arrest them all & lock ’em up’

              btw; Some say ‘Cannabis causes insanity’ this is not actually proven. It seems that some people with mental health issues, use cannabis (self medication).. some folks then point to it & say “it must be the cannabis that caused it’ WRONG, they maybe using the cannabis to relieve their anxiety/depression etc.

              Its ‘time to think/look outside the box’ :/ 🙂

            • Griff.

               /  12th June 2019

              I think not talking specifically about the known mental health / psychosis-related, developmental, demotivational, & stoned workers or drivers problems realistically, as though they won’t be a problem, doesn’t help the debate.

              All your issues still exist if cannabis is legal or illegal. NZ already has one of the highest usage rates in the world under prohibition.
              We have laws and process already to address drugged driving of being drugged on the job.
              The use of such issues to stop legalization are a red herring not part of should cannabis be legal or illegal . The issues you high lite will need to be resolved if cannabis is legal or illegal it would probably be easier to do so under a legal framework.

              When you evaluate many claims you must be very carfull not to be confused by sources deliberately presenting false or biased information.
              For instance.
              The likelihood of developing psychosis with cannabis use goes from about 1 in 2000 to 1 in 1000 and only exists if you are genetically predisposed to developing the symptoms anyway hardly the huge problem many like to present. The harms of the present prohibition are actually greater than the proposed issues with metal illness are to many thousands of people who get marginalized due to their choice of recreational drug under the present regime.

            • Gezza

               /  12th June 2019

              I haven’t seen any credible recent research concluding that cannabis causes insanity, so, blatantly mischaracterising what the research does show like that doesn’t assist the debate.

            • Zedd

               /  12th June 2019

              ‘I haven’t seen any credible recent research concluding that cannabis causes insanity’ sez Gezza

              Neither have I.. my point exactly; BUT it is still often heard (psychosis etc.) & seems to be a regular part of the ‘public debate’ & demonisation process ?!

            • Zedd

               /  12th June 2019

              Id like to say ‘trust me Im a doctor’ BUT that would be a lie.. BUT I have spent a couple of decades, privately working & researching this info. & I did a course at Otago Uni. ‘Drugs & Society’

          • Bill

             /  12th June 2019

            Yep Zedd, ‘Cannabis causes insanity’ and the last forty plus years of failed drug policy stands as proof.
            This level of insanity is on the rise, with people like Mike Hosking believing we can arrest our way out of failed drug policy, the very reason we are having this ‘debate’.
            The problem is there is no real DEBATE happening at this time, only some washed up political commentators like HOSKING and the misinformation of family first, hardly a debate.

            Reply
            • True 🙂

              I think the real debate, will come in the 3-4 months prior to the election/reeferendum ?

              Hopefully by then all the PANIC/FEAR-mongering may have actually subsided…. somewhat. Then we may get SOME rational debate happening ?? :/

          • Bill

             /  12th June 2019

            That’s If you believe the reeferendum was even the correct path to go down. I know it may seem like a democratic system working at its best, but it was a cop out from our politicians.

            Would have Gay rights passed a referendum or prostitution for that matter, maybe, who knows the answer.

            The truth of the matter is whether we should stand back and allow another forty plus years of Government sanctioned abuse to be perpetrated on any group in our society.
            The fact of the matter is the misuse of drugs act will end up being reworked, because it’s not fit for purpose, what so many fail to see, is the reeferendum is an incredible opportunity to get this right.

            Reply
            • I think the ‘reeferendum’ is the only possible way, we MAY get some actual cannabis reform.. it still sounds like most MPs, are not really committed to it, unless the majority of voters say “AI”.

              BUT I have no preconceived notions about the outcome.. just keeping my fingers crossed that SANITY may prevail & they stop; repeating the same failed policy, expecting a different outcome:ie ‘Cannabis Insanity’

              still waiting……………. 40 years on……………………………. :/

              enuf sed.. 🙂

  8. Griff.

     /  12th June 2019

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/07-05-2019/what-you-will-and-wont-be-voting-for-in-next-years-cannabis-referendum/

    But the Cabinet paper delivered by Little offers a far more detailed insight into the government’s thinking about the legalisation of cannabis. It dismisses the minimal option of decriminalisation on the basis that “would not address the issue of supply” and would essentially require the law to be ignored in order to work.

    Instead, the recommendation is for “full regulation of recreational cannabis”. This would include:

    A legal age of use and purchase of 20. Unlike alcohol, cannabis could not be consumed under the legal age, even with parental permission and it would be an offence to provide it to someone under 20.
    Regulation of the potency of cannabis products
    A state licensing scheme for all stages of cannabis production and manufacture.
    The restriction of the consumption of cannabis to private homes and specifically licensed premises.
    Restriction of sales to licensed physical stores only – so no online sales.
    The inclusion of health and harm minimisation messaging in the marketing and retailing of cannabis.
    Recognition of and permission for “social sharing” of small quantities of cannabis among people of legal age.
    Regulated sale of cannabis plant and seed for home cultivation, “including the requirement to keep children and underage individuals safe”.
    Regulated sale of both edibles and cannabis concentrates. This is where we diverge somewhat from Canada, which has been shy of allowing the sale of concentrates. It would be legal to make your own edibles at home – but not your own concentrates, because the process is dangerous.
    A complete ban on cannabis advertising and restrictions on marketing. (So Cannabis Company A would be allowed to develop branding but prohibited from advertising cannabis products.)
    No importation of cannabis unless by a government-licensed wholesaler for the current market “to minimise the consequence of an illegal trade.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Pink David Cancel 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 )

Connecting to %s