UMR cannabis poll suggests close referendum

A new UMR cannabis poll has quite a different result to a recent Colmar Brunton poll.

Last week from 1 News: Support for cannabis legalisation dropping, End of Life Choice remains steady

Poll question: ‘Do you support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill?’ (the same question that will be asked as a referendum at the election). 

Support the bill:

  • November 2019 – 43%
  • February 2020 – 39%
  • June 2020 – 40%
  • September 2020 – 35%

Oppose the bill:

  • February 2020 – 51%
  • June 2020 – 49%
  • September 2020 – 53%

11% did not know or refused to answer.

1 NEWS Colmar Brunton Poll: Between September 17 and 21, 2020, 1008 eligible voters were polled by landline (405) and mobile phone (603). The maximum sampling error is approximately ±3.1%-points at the 95% confidence level. Results higher and lower than 50% have a smaller sampling error. The data has been weighted to align with Stats NZ population counts for age, gender, region, ethnic identification and mobile or landline access.

A Narrow Majority Support Cannabis Legalisation 

A new poll released by the Helen Clark Foundation and the New Zealand Drug Foundation shows that cannabis legalisation would pass if the referendum were held today. 

It doesn’t show that, it just suggests that it is currently possible a majority might support the the referendum ‘if held today’ (voting started last Saturday and runs for two weeks).

Support:

  • February 2020 – 46%
  • September 2020 – 48%

Oppose the bill:

  • February 2020 – 44%
  • September 2020 – 43%

Oddly Stuff report a slightly different result to the Helen Clark Foundation 49% for, 45% against – see Cannabis reform would pass if referendum held today: Poll

What these different poll resultss suggest is we will have to wait for the referendum result to see what those who are motivated enough to vote actually think.

Official referendum website: Cannabis legalisation and control referendum

Leave a comment

36 Comments

  1. John J Harrison

     /  6th October 2020

    Won’t happen.
    Who could give credence to a poll associated with Helen Clark or the Labour Party propaganda sheet, Stuff ?

    Reply
  2. Corky

     /  6th October 2020

    One things for sure… if you really oppose this proposed legislation you had better get out and vote because every glassy eyed, funny smelling, giggling toker will be heading for the ballot box if they rememeber what day it is.

    Reply
  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  6th October 2020

    Open Forum AWOL?

    Reply
    • Last night I was contemplating not posting at all for a while, I can’t be bothered with some of what has been happening here. This morning I decided there were things of interest on democracy matters and a number of regulars make generally good contributions here. But I don’t want to get bogged down dealing with personal agendas.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  6th October 2020

        Understandable. Obsessive behaviour is tedious and destructive.

        Reply
        • I must admit to being very tired of being harangued about my religious views and told that I am on a cult slide, that I am harassing someone, that I should be carrying a cross and asked if I am and if not, why not…..yes, I could ignore it, but that doesn’t seem to stop it !!!

          Reply
  4. artcroft

     /  6th October 2020

    Am I right in understanding that there is no consideration given in the bill regarding workers showing up on the job, impaired and unable to work, and this somehow becomes the employers problem and expense.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  6th October 2020

      Is that different from them turning up drunk?

      Reply
      • Gerrit

         /  6th October 2020

        No, but has the same results. Loss of productivity, an unhappy workforce and a pissed of employer.

        Some of my customers now only use contract workers or Indian and Sri Lankan immigrants keen to not fall foul of the work permits.

        Problem, despite what the yea advocates say, is measuring impairment. Goes equally for alcohol or cannabis.

        Reply
        • artcroft

           /  6th October 2020

          Andrew Little promised some solutions to this before implementation of any changes, but I imagine this will be another fail to deliver by labour. So I’ll vote no.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  6th October 2020

            Done all ready . Do try to keep up to date

            The Police are running trials of roadside drug testing- including P.. the details dont matter was they will likely use the levels they do in US or Australian states.
            https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/422372/land-transport-drug-driving-amendment-bill-proposes-random-roadside-drug-testing
            “This bill proposes that drivers who fail two consecutive oral fluid tests would incur an infringement penalty, aligned to the drink driving infringement penalty.”
            https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_99686/tab/sop
            “Nearly 28 per cent of all fatal road accidents in the Waikato involved drugs, Mr Lyon said. Research carried out more than five years ago revealed that 39.9 per cent of Northland drivers killed in accidents had cannabis in their blood.”
            This is why Ill be voting no

            Reply
            • Jean Smithers-Wurther

               /  7th October 2020

              These statistics on road fatalities and drug use are happening UNDER PROHIBITION. That means they happen under the status quo of overwhelmingly criminal and organised-crime controlled drug supply. The whole idea of legalisation is to pass the large majority of the control of supply TO THE GOVERNMENT (and therefore the non criminal voter) so they can regulate, tax and educate on recreational drug use. The choice is therefore simple. You can stay with OVERWHELMINGLY CRIMINAL CONTROLLED drug supply, or govt controlled, taxed and educated drug supply.

            • Gerrit

               /  7th October 2020

              Jean Smithers-Wurther.

              The supply of higher strength drugs than purchasable from a state shop means illicit cannabis will still be available.

              “In Canada, where recreational and medical marijuana is legal nation-wide, a government survey found that in 2019, only 29.4% of cannabis users reported that they’d gotten all of their weed legally ”

              Reasons were two fold Quality and Price.

              “The overall consensus on that platform is that government-regulated cannabis is more than twice the price of black-market weed. Plus, as one user put it, ‘The legal stuff is garbage’ ”

              https://www.wikileaf.com/thestash/black-market-cannabis-2020/

              Illicit cannabis is not going away.

            • Harry

               /  8th October 2020

              “Cannabis in their blood” can mean they might have smoked a joint within the last 3 weeks. It is totally meaningless as a measure of impairment. But it is an example of the dishonesty and manipulation of evidence typical of the anti-cannabis crowd.

        • Griff.

           /  6th October 2020

          Alcohol is easy to test for
          The leval of alcohol in your blood or your urine is highly correlated to your leval of a impairment. Your body rapidly expelles alcohol or converts it into sugar. It is after all highly poisonous and at large doses will actually kill you. The ld50 is about 14 standard drinks.
          With cannabis blood or urine tests have no correlation to impairment.
          They measure what your body converts the active ingredients of cannabis into not the presence of the active drug.
          Even saliva tests for cannabis are unrealible. You body can store these chemicals for weeks with little effect on your ability to function. There is no known risk of death from cannabis the lethal dose approaches you body mass.

          If I was an employer it would be more concerned with underproforming workers than worrying about who smokes pot
          It is pretty easy to tell if someone is stoned on the job I would simply performance manage them out the door if they were that effected regularly.
          As I would and have done with habitual drunks far more of an issue in my humble opinion after many years in a supervisor role.

          Reply
    • Corky

       /  6th October 2020

      ZB talking to employers at the moment (9.33am). Boy, there could be problems.

      Reply
  5. This looks very poor from the medical Council.

    Doctors also say the NZMA view is outdated, given it is based on advice first presented in 2012.

    Dr Baddock admitted the NZMA has not looked at the overall impact of legalisation, and the actual proposed legislation itself does not appear to have been considered.

    Dr Baddock said the NZMA “didn’t do anything” to further inform its position when the referendum was announced.

    Last week, one doctor quit the association and others spoke out in support of the referendum because they said the NZMA stance was too narrow, and not fully formed.

    Since then many more doctors have come forward, outlining their disappointment with the association’s stance.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  6th October 2020

      A great example of attitudes from the NZMA and other medical agencies for that matter. If your views or medical treatments to do concur with these organisations protocols, then you are heretics.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  6th October 2020

        Employers can set their own test levels depending on what sort of work they do. Once drinking at work was condoned ..breweries used to provide free beer at all breaks and others of course people could and did get plastered

        Reply
    • Dukeofurl

       /  6th October 2020

      They gave the ‘medical view’ not the overall situation which is social-political-legal anyway
      Getting agreement from up to 12,000 members or so is impossible

      Its a harmfull Drug.. and calling it harm reduction is is just a play on words

      again the POLL is paid for by recreational legislation supporters , The Drug Foundation and the Helen Clark Busbybody Foundation. Another sponsored poll is from Horizon who get paid by the Cannabis Industry
      It beggars belief that only the polls which are paid for pro marijuana lobby say the Yes vote will win…consistently

      Colmar Bruntons poll isnt paid for by one side of the debate.

      Reply
      • Duker ? Is that you ? Someone’s using your avatar, if it’s not you.

        Reply
      • Duker

         /  6th October 2020

        NZMA has 5000-6000 members ..theres never going to be consensus view. Thats what lobby groups do , have an elected board to DECIDE day to day matters

        One member resigning is a bit of non event…. and purely medically they are correct . I saw something the other day , which suggested even the drug treatment counselors were ‘divided’

        Reply
  6. seer

     /  6th October 2020

    One of the acts that Jacinda’s government recently did to aid the yes vote was delay the election for a month. There are probably 1 or 2 thousand more pot prohibitionists than reformers who exited from this world in that time.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  6th October 2020

      The 20-29 demographic are the lowest voting turnout, the 18-19 even worse.
      The door has caught you on the backside as an even greater number of people move into the 55+ older more conservative on drug reform but have very high voting patterns demographic.
      it seems that 50 + is around 80% plus regular voters but the 18-30 are much lower around 50% turnout for votes.
      It remains to be seen whether this referendum will ‘ bring out the young vote’
      Dont forget the other referendum, assisted dying might bring out the seniors too ( remember who got this question on the ballot – NZ First)

      Reply
    • Griff.

       /  6th October 2020

      Yip
      If not this year legal weed is just a matter of time.
      I have been waiting 45 years another five is hardly a concern.

      Again we have conservatives bring up employment law
      Use of alcohol at work is not part of the sale of liqour laws
      It is under employment law.
      Same will happen with cannabis.
      Some jobs should have very strict rules like pilots and surgeons but others it hardly
      matters.
      Who cares if your lawyer is as high as a kite all the time as long as he does the job.
      I say this knowing a high profile and very successful lawyer who is the biggest stoner in my circle of friends.

      As to driving
      Young males have always been the bigest risk on the roads they take more risks and drive more.
      They are also the most likely to smoke
      Correlation is not causation
      A blood test does not measure impairment it does not even measure active chemicals in cannabis it simply tells you if they have smoked in the last month or so.
      When they allow for age and demographics the link between cannabis and accidents disappears.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  6th October 2020

        ”Again we have conservatives bring up employment law.”

        That’s a throw away line. The employers I heard this morning were reasoned. Some outlined how they would proceed legal wise if cannabis is legalised. They already have problems with
        dope heads. So nothing much will change for them.

        Reply
        • Griff.

           /  6th October 2020

          Rofl
          Corky
          You already know how little I think of you
          Tell us again that you are a libertarian who wants to controll what recreational drugs people use in there own time.
          At least ,Al is consistantly with his purported ideology
          You don’t even know what the word means
          Employers already have the ability to exclude drug users from there business
          Its called an employment contract and has plenty of precedent to guide you.
          Some stupid employers will continue to use blood testing and limit thier potential employee pool.
          Others will switch to more informative methods of testing employees and gain a competitive advantage
          Isn’t a free market grand.

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  6th October 2020

            ”You already know how little I think of you.”

            Yes, that makes me sad. I always wanted to be popular.

            ”Tell us again that you are a Libertarian who wants to control what recreational drugs people use in there own time.”

            Eh…you have short memory. However, that short memory is good for your argument. What you have written is a complete lie. And you know it.

            ”At least ,Al is consistently with his purported ideology
            You don’t even know what the word means.”

            Rhetoric..you are moving away from the argument. Alan is a National supporter? I’m a Libertarian who supports National as the next best thing to a Libertarian Party. If there was a Libertarian Party, I wouldn’t want a bar of National.

            ”Employers already have the ability to exclude drug users from there business.”

            Wow! Live and learn. That must have past me by while I listened to employers on talkback.

            ”Isn’t a free market grand.”

            What free market?

            Reply
            • Harry

               /  8th October 2020

              Corky – I often upvote your posts, but on cannabis you are 100% wrong, and you have no business calling yourself a libertarian if you want the government to decide what people can do with their own bodies.

            • Corky

               /  8th October 2020

              ”And you have no business calling yourself a libertarian if you want the government to decide what people can do with their own bodies.”

              Let me explain again:

              I am personally opposed the legalisation of cannabis because I know what it has done, and will do, to Maoridom.

              However, as a Libertarian I will vote in favour of legalisation because as you say, I have no right to tell other people what to do with their bodies.

              Please post if you understand, or want more clarification.

            • Harry

               /  8th October 2020

              Corky – thanks for your reply. There was no reply button below your post, so I am trying here.
              How do you define “Maoridom” apart from being a mixed race special interest group? Why do you imagine cannabis has a special effect on Maoridom, and why do you think that in any way justifies prohibition?

            • Corky

               /  8th October 2020

              ”How do you define “Maoridom” apart from being a mixed race special interest group? ”

              Starting with physical features and anyone identifying as Maori. Moving on to folk who participate in Maori activities and Maori organisations.
              Brown coloured people who are racist. People on the Maori electoral roll.
              People with Maori land claims.

              ”Why do you imagine cannabis has a special effect on Maoridom, and why do you think that in any way justifies prohibition?”

              I don’t imagine..I know. There’s something about dak that just resonates with Maori like nothing else. I have written before that many Maori treat herb like a sacrament. I don’t know why that is.

              It’s well known herb saps your body and soul and takes away your motivation. The case is ten times worse for Maori…many who have little motivation to start with. Add that to low self esteem and you have dynamite waiting to go off.

              Under a Libertarian government all drugs would be legalised. But:

              1- No welfare
              2- Severe consequences for actions under the influence.
              3- No free healthcare and help.

              At the moment a druggie can get all of the above and carrying on with his habit.

              Now people say (mainly European), that they can hold down a job, are law abiding and still enjoy a dak after work without consequences. I know people like that. And it’s true.

              But I have also noticed some of these people start to hang-out towards the end of their work day. They also don’t socialise much. Their whole life seems to revolve around getting that hit after work. Nothing different to a person waiting to get home to drink you may say. But there is..and I can’t put my finger on it. Boozers, mostly, like company. Dakers are more solitaire individuals.

              Bottom line. If they are law abiding and looking after their kids, I’m not going to quibble.

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