End of Life Choice and Cannabis referendums

Voting for the 2020 election opens in New Zealand today and continues for two weeks through to election day on Saturday 17 October.

As well as our two MMP votes for a party and for an electorate candidate, we also get to vote on two referendums.

End of Life Choice referendum

In this referendum, you can vote on whether the End of Life Choice Act 2019 should come into force. The Act would give people with a terminal illness the option of requesting assisted dying.

The referendum question is:

Do you support the End of Life Choice Act 2019 coming into force?

You can choose 1 of these 2 answers:

  • Yes, I support the End of Life Choice Act 2019 coming into force.
  • No, I do not support the End of Life Choice Act 2019 coming into force.

Learn more about the End of Life Choice referendum

Cannabis legalisation and control referendum

In this referendum, you can vote on whether the recreational use of cannabis should become legal.

The referendum question is:

Do you support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill?

You can choose 1 of these 2 answers:

  • Yes, I support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill.
  • No, I do not support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill.

Learn more about the cannabis legalisation and control referendum

Leave a comment

49 Comments

  1. Gerrit

     /  3rd October 2020

    My vote will be Yes for end of life and No for cannabis reform.

    Reply
    • Mine will be Yes to both.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  3rd October 2020

        Me too. Prohibition has been a continuous disaster for half a century. I hate hypocritical laws of the “police won’t prosecute” type. This is problem that the law can’t solve and simply creates other problems in the attempt. Without the law blundering around it there will be a chance to deal with the real problems.

        Reply
    • Fight4nz

       /  3rd October 2020

      Yes to both.

      Reply
  2. Duker

     /  3rd October 2020

    Mine will be No to both

    Reply
    • Jack

       /  3rd October 2020

      No to both, and I find the cannabis one hardest to decide.
      Couldn’t believe yesterday one of our candidates saying she’s in favour because medicinal cannabis is useful. Thought that was a bit ill thought out.

      Anyone know if I can extract oil from my four plants?

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  3rd October 2020

        Medicinal cannabis is already legal but not the self medicating kind

        Reply
  3. Jack

     /  3rd October 2020

    Gentle Dr Sinead was aghast at David’s strangeness during the Simon interview. He interjected her professional arguments to challenge her that it would be more respectful if she talked through her reasonings according to her faith. Weird.
    I would love to interview David, alas I’ve found my voice too late.

    My argument is that NZ society is not ready for this to be passed. We need more time, we’re too young.

    In that interview David also mentioned on the side that some people feel lonely all the time even when surrounded by others.

    We are voting on a ‘me’ bill put forward by a lonely ‘me’ and worked thru by a Bakram yogi (Brooke).

    Any argument always comes down to ‘me’ in a way no other ‘health’ and well being issue does. It’s a dangerous bill with a wonky foundation. If it passes, this generation is leaving heartache for the future

    Reply
    • artcroft

       /  3rd October 2020

      I saw the interview you refer to and found Dr S unconvincing. Her claim to greater expertise and knowledge because she is the fourth generation of doctors in her family is laughable. Perhaps they have all been terrible at the profession, but very persistent.

      She came across as very emotionally committed but lacking sound arguments to support her case.

      I’ll be voting; Yes.

      Reply
      • Jack

         /  3rd October 2020

        Perhaps they have all been excellent in their palliative care work and persistent in serving with great kindness. Really, why else would an individual persevere in that line of work?

        It was David who was emotionally committed to tripping up Dr Sinead using foul play. He’s clever like that. An emotionally tricky man can not be trusted to put forward bills for the common good.

        I think your response reveals a hardness of heart toward kindness

        Dr Sinead is not trained and practised for the camera. Her line of work is unseen, and David abused his privilege. If this is how he does politics —

        Reply
        • artcroft

           /  3rd October 2020

          “I think your response reveals a hardness of heart toward kindness”

          Aren’t you the charmer.

          My grandmother under went palliative care at the end of her life. She secretly saved up her morphine pills and took them all at once. And she was a faithful church goer.

          Another relative had their life support turned off. What’s the difference between that and euthanasia?

          Some people want the choice, maybe others are afraid of choice. I know if I was racked with pain I probably opt for a quick end.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  3rd October 2020

            “Another relative had their life support turned off. What’s the difference between that and euthanasia?”
            I think you totally misunderstand what euthanasia is

            Reply
            • artcroft

               /  3rd October 2020

              I understand that it’s a choice and that some are afraid of having to choose.

            • Duker

               /  3rd October 2020

              And euthanasia and life support ?

            • artcroft

               /  3rd October 2020

              They are the same as far as someone making a choice to end life. Switching off life support demands the consent and co-operation of the medical staff, and the consent of family. Euthanasia demands medical consent and the will of the patient.

            • Duker

               /  3rd October 2020

              By that reasoning driving down the road is the same as walking because the destination is the same.

              i dont think you understand how people are put on life support and the reasons.
              A ventilator is life support for example, that and other means are used because they think you WILL LIVE because of it.
              No one with a terminal illness that would qualify for euthanasia is put on life support

            • Gerrit

               /  3rd October 2020

              Duker,

              Sometimes when people are terminal, but an organ donor, they will be put on life support to ensure living tissue is in the best condition for future transplants.

              Thinking mainly accident patients and in truth not really covered by the euthanasia bill.

              Though our Koru whilst terminal was kept on a respirator (with the family blessing) so the recipients for his cornea’s could be made ready to receive them.

              Perhaps the most moving and poignant transfer to the operating room for organ donations is the honor walk.

            • artcroft

               /  3rd October 2020

              Actually Duker you are misattributing your ignorance. It belongs more rightly to you.

              After a catastrophic accident a relative ended up on a ventilator, but there was no chance of recovery. So family were summoned, a decision was made and farewells said to the unconscious person.

              This person was able to continue to live, drip fed and ventilated, but a choice was made to allow them to die.

              Palliative care could have been offered until eventually infection or pneumonia eventually took them. But no, a CHOICE was made to euthanise them. That’s the choice that many want to make for themselves.

          • Jack

             /  3rd October 2020

            Are you serious Art? What’s the difference between turning off life support and euthanasia law?!!?

            Your grandmother sounds like my sort of lady. Good on her

            Reply
            • Jack

               /  3rd October 2020

              Look to the future. There will be no such thing as ‘a church goer’.

              You’re either a Christian or you’re not and if yes, then you belong to the Church and you use your spiritual talents there and nowhere else.

              Nothing wrong with church buildings though (except when Christians sell them off to Muslims).

              I’m sure you have nice memories of your grandmother. By the one detail of her life which you shared with us she was a character who knew her own mind. I think that’s beautiful

            • artcroft

               /  3rd October 2020

              Yes when she decided to die, that was it, nothing would overcome her determination.

              Curiously my grandfather who pre-deceased her by some years, also expressed a wish to die and then passed naturally only shortly afterwards. It was never a happy marriage.

  4. Gerrit

     /  3rd October 2020

    Who are the god botherers to judge if anyone wants to end their suffering.

    Surely if they have the faith (christian at least) they will understand that the actions of those who want to pass on, to end their suffering, will be judged when the bright light at the pearly gates beckon and they meet St Peter.

    Who on this mortal coil has the right to judge a person when they want to end their suffering?

    A Jack does not a Peter make.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  3rd October 2020

      ”Who are the god botherers to judge if anyone wants to end their suffering.”

      The God botherers want to control our afterlife fortunes. The Socialists want to control our financial fortunes. It matters not where you look. You will always find some sniveling weed thinking they know better.

      Reply
      • Fight4nz

         /  3rd October 2020

        Better we listen to snivelling weeds who want corporations to control us?

        Reply
    • Jack

       /  3rd October 2020

      I don’t give one bother to your afterlife well being. Couldn’t care less
      Not once have I used my faith as a Christian as my argument here.
      You’re harassing.

      Reply
      • You cannot be serious !!!

        Reply
        • Jack

           /  3rd October 2020

          I wish Kitty would leave me alone. I think she’s a Christian, going by many past comments, and she just seems to have a need to harass me. It’s weird.

          My comments and reasoning in debates stand up to common sense. Less PDTs at any rate. When somebody engages I play the ball not the man. Not Kitty.

          Remember CEP? Jack coined that one.

          I think that the euthanasia issue is a very important one and will keep coming up. Hoping most people vote no this time. We’re not ready for it. This time around no one can convince anyone that it’s a law for the common good.

          David Seymour dropped his cross on this one. If he doesn’t have a change of heart, his politics will become onerous for him. I feel very sorry for David. He could be an awesome politician. NZ could certainly do with that

          Reply
  5. seer

     /  3rd October 2020

    The opinions expressed above are consistent with

    from https://yournz.org/2020/09/02/cannabis-referendum-poll-closed-up/

    What I find pathetic is the kind of “thinking” that supports people being put down but prohibits an adult growing/possessing/consuming cannabis – truly pathetic. To all you prohibitionists out there “pokokohua!” (an ironic use of that te reo epithet)

    No and yes, my votes.

    Reply
    • Gerrit

       /  3rd October 2020

      So your curses on those who say NO. All good.

      Would it not be better to ask why the NO vote? Get a dialog instead of the curses flowing.

      My concern is drugs in the workplace and the liability for accidents coming on the employer. Plus major disquiet on measuring drug driving.

      Plus gangs are not going to be out of business dealing cannabis. They will offer stronger, better and cheaper. And if they were smart instigate home delivery.

      Worth a read

      https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/18/cannabis-canada-legal-recreational-business?CMP=share_btn_link

      Reply
      • seer

         /  3rd October 2020

        “Worth a read” not really – not anything quoting effing bahai Kevin Sabet. Guess he makes a change from purveyors of scientology anti-pot propaganda.

        Reply
        • Gerrit

           /  3rd October 2020

          When all you have is to attack the messenger and heap curses upon those who disagree with you, it reinforces that the NO vote is correct in cannabis reform.

          Care to discuss at least two of the points I made for the reasons of my NO vote?

          Or is it easier to shout in desperation at the truth.

          Latest polls suggest the poll will be 60% NO, 40% yes.

          Suggest that the two most salient points regarding measuring impairment in the work place and on the road are the biggest concerns.

          But go ahead, keep the curses flowing, it will surely change the end result…Not

          Reply
          • seer

             /  3rd October 2020

            Is the referendum about allowing cannabis to be consumed at the work place and/or while driving?…..Are these activities now stopped by prohibition?…
            Do tests for the presence of cannabis actually measure impairment?…

            Reply
            • Gerrit

               /  3rd October 2020

              Where cannabis is consumed is irrelevant.

              If found with cannabis in the blood stream after a work or road accident you can be made liable. Alway’s have been and will be again whether cannabis is legal or not.

              What the question is; how to set safe limits that allow work and driving, how to measure those levels and who, especially in the work place, will be responsible for accidents whilst an employee is over the limit. Plus what rights will the employer have to drug test at the start and during the work day.

              The legislation just does not cover those vital aspects and as such it must be a NO to the referendum.

              The Greens have done a very poor job on presenting the referendum before the public with so many open questions not answered.

              It seems this referendum was so badly presented that the answer is a foregone conclusion. Did Labour want this to be so? I can expect sloppy and open ended laws put together by the Green party, but not from Labour.

              Maybe the Labour/NZ First cabinet drafted this referendum and the proposed laws so badly it would fail and make the Greens look amateurish?

            • Griff.

               /  3rd October 2020

              In Gerrits world we have no users of cannabis because it is illegal .
              So drugged driving and being stoned at work does not happen now.
              In reality we have one of the highest usage rates in the western world. Making it legal will not change that by much going by places that already have.

              Being impaired at work is already a sacking offense.
              It is not hard to tell if someone is too stoned to work. Give them a complex task they would normally cope with and watch them get all flustered.
              From my time as a supervisor I was far more concerned about the piss heads who habitually come in badly hungover two or three days a week if they even bother to come in at all.

              I bet Gerrit would be happy to drive after one glass of alcohol yet he would be as impaired as someone who is moderately stoned .
              Drugged driving happens now we already have laws to deal with it .

              Both of his reasons are not based on logic .
              Gerrit like many conservatives is still in the thrall of reefer madness propaganda .
              Their fully legal drug of choice is far more damaging to society than a legal cannabis market could ever be . If those against a legal market campaigned for alcohol prohibition they would have a valid point.
              instead they are total hypocrites “you can not smoke pot but keep your hands off a my piss”.

              Yes to both.

          • Gerrit

             /  3rd October 2020

            Griff,

            As per usual you shoot first (from the gob) without reading what I said. Let me refresh.

            What the question is; how to set safe limits that allow work and driving, how to measure those levels and who, especially in the work place, will be responsible for accidents whilst an employee is over the limit. Plus what rights will the employer have to drug test at the start and during the work day.

            Am asking for safe and measurable limits to be set before the legislation is set and goes to a referendum.

            And that in the legislation, limits are set and how to measure them in the work place and on the road. Not looking at abolition.

            Reply
            • Griff.

               /  3rd October 2020

              ROFL
              Your argument is what you call a red herring.
              We already have issues with working and driving stoned legal or not so why use it as an excuse to vote no ? Cannabis is easy to get and widely used making it legal does not change anything at all about being stoned at work or drugged driving.it is a totally separate question from having a legal market .

              Being stoned at work will get you sacked in every employment contract I have ever seen or had in the last forty five years. Some industry’s can not get workers now because they rely on the blood test that has nothing to do with impairment .
              They end up paying for this policy in limited the available employment pool and losing good workers because they smoked a joint in their own time .
              Work drug testing as it presently exists is a rort just like the p testing of houses was. it is often done by the same bullshite artists busy pushing baseless fears to make money off suckers.
              I could get shikkered on piss and p Friday night be totally unfit to work Monday Tuesday yet pass a drug test fine.
              I could get pinged on cannabis use from two weeks ago that has no measurable effect at all on work performance.

            • Gerrit

               /  3rd October 2020

              Griff,

              Now you have me ROFL.

              The fact you cannot answer at what level, and how those levels of impairment, will be measured, of a now legal substance, means that it is not a red herring.

              You just don’t know the answers and the legislation for the proposed reforms don’t set them either. Hence it is bad legislation.

              That is pure logic in my view.

              Hence a near 60% NO vote.

              But go on believing it will turn around, you will be disappointed and the impairment level will remain at 0%.

            • Griff.

               /  3rd October 2020

              Tell me ?
              How does it being legal change the level you can drive or work at?
              We already have legislation dealing with drugged driving and a future direction to take according to the transport agency .
              Saliva testing which is more justified than blood or urine testing that does not pick up impermanent. .
              https://www.transport.govt.nz/multi-modal/keystrategiesandplans/road-safety-strategy/drug-driving/questions-and-answers/

              As to work place that is up to the individual employers and their insurance company’s just as it is now. I do know of company’s that test for cannabis before employment because their insurance makes them but do not random test employees because they know its bullshite and they would lose good staff for no purpose.

              still
              It makes no difference at all if it is illegal or legal for either question.
              It is just a red herring pushed to easily confused conservatives by campaigners with an anti drug agenda .

            • Griff.

               /  3rd October 2020

              But go on believing it will turn around, you will be disappointed and the impairment level will remain at 0%.

              Straw man .
              Feel free to point out any occasion when I have said it is not happening now . I said cannabis use is out their legal or not the exact opposite of what you are dribbling .

              Do try to use fuckin logic .
              it gets frustrating when you are debating with those who can not actually think straight or understand a many times repeated point .
              Your arguments have nothing to do with the legality of cannabis
              They are just your justification for your authoritarian urges.

            • Gerrit

               /  3rd October 2020

              Oh wow, authoritarian urges?

              How about just answering the question I asked repeatably;

              “What the question is; how to set safe limits that allow work and driving, how to measure those levels and who, especially in the work place, will be responsible for accidents whilst an employee is over the limit. Plus what rights will the employer have to drug test at the start and during the work day.”

              But you wont because you don’t know and the legislation does not set it out.

              An well enjoy loosing the referendum simply because the proposed legislation is defective and negligent.

              Next rant?

            • Griff.

               /  3rd October 2020

              “What the question is; how to set safe limits that allow work and driving, how to measure those levels and who, especially in the work place, will be responsible for accidents whilst an employee is over the limit. Plus what rights will the employer have to drug test at the start and during the work day.”

              The existing law as it already stands covers drugged driving.
              The work place health and safety act covers intoxication on the job as do employment contracts . Mine, as most do. says I must undertake a blood test for drugs at any time if asked to by my employer with the responses laid out if I decline or test positive up to eventual dismissal .
              Making the drug legal will not change either of the laws about driving or workplace intoxication.
              Again your argument is a total red herring both situations are already covered under existing laws.
              You are just repeating nonsense talking points from the anti drug lobby aimed at unthinking idiots.

              Illogical nonsense and conservatives.

    • Jack

       /  3rd October 2020

      So seer, now I know that pokokohua is a curse. Is that right? But you stated you used it ironically. I suppose you mean that some people choose the curse of death via euthanasia, ergo undoing a natural prohibition, while hypocritically applying prohibition to a natural plant which can be used as a blessing in life.
      It’s the prohibition issue which most causes me difficulties in deciding about my cannabis vote.

      Reply
      • seer

         /  3rd October 2020

        poko – head
        kohua – pot

        That was directed at all cannabis prohibitionists.
        With regard to cannabis legalisation vis a vis euthanasia, it seems bizarre that someone wants to agree to the state permitting the killing of a person but that same someone doesn’t want the state to allow an adult to be recreational with cannabis and further wishes that adult to be punished! Feeble!

        Reply
        • seer

           /  3rd October 2020

          Actually perhaps it follows that someone who thinks life is conditional might be dismissive of the (comparatively trivial) right for an adult to be recreational with cannabis.

          Reply
          • Gerrit

             /  3rd October 2020

            No one is saying that you cannot be recreational with cannabis. What we are saying is that there needs to be measurable limits in place to decide impairment of a now legal drug.

            Neither you, Griff, nor the legislation can explain what those impairment limits, nor how to measure them, are.

            As a business, under the HSO in the workplace rules (and on the roads if employing drivers) become liable for the actions of their employees, they must have a legal approved and enforced testing regime to measure impairment.

            Not provided for in the proposed legislation.

            Hence the 60% NO vote.

            Reply
            • Griff.

               /  3rd October 2020

              Here is the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.
              http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2013/0459/latest/DLM5736956.html
              Feel free to point out where it has

              What those impairment limits, nor how to measure them, are.

              for alcohol
              It doesn’t because both questions are not within the scope of the legislation that makes the sale of alcohol legal they are covered by other laws.
              Limits for use of all drugs while driving are under .
              Land Transport Act 1998, s 12
              With alcohol limits up dated in.
              Land Transport Amendment Act (no 2) 2014
              Drug use while employed comes under .
              Health and Safety at Work Act 2015
              These laws already cover cannabis use.

              Again you are repeating dumb talking points .

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  3rd October 2020

              @Gerrit, agreed we need objective impairment tests. Not sure why you think making something illegal even if not causing impairment is justifiable as opposed to merely convenient?

            • Gerrit

               /  3rd October 2020

              AW,

              Not making anything illegal, just want clarification on HOW to measure the impairment levels BEFORE the drug becomes legal.

              The laws, as propose by the referendum, does not address this issue.

              Worth a read

              https://www.newsroom.co.nz/why-cannabis-use-doesnt-equal-impairment

              “When Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter announced a bill allowing the police to conduct random roadside drug testing, she said 95 people died in crashes during 2018 where the driver had drugs in their system that could impair driving.”

              Also worth a read

              https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/07-09-2020/what-does-the-cannabis-referendum-mean-for-your-workplace/

              “With the legalisation of cannabis, the focus is going to shift to testing regimes that can measure impairment, not just the mere presence of THC. Practical enforcement of a drug policy will require objective cut-off levels in a similar way that the law provides objective levels for drink-driving offences.”

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  4th October 2020

              I entirely agree but the only way objective measures of impairment will be set is to legalise. Otherwise it is just seen as unnecessary.

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 )

Connecting to %s