Table of Contents
Information
Opinion
Let’s start with Andrew Little. The referendum should have been a simple question, something like “Do you agree that cannabis should be kept as an illegal substance.” or “Do you agree that cannabis should become a regulated substance.” Instead what we got was retarded legislation.
Why do I say it was retarded? When you move away from prohibition you start with the most restrictive position short of prohibition. You then loosen until you find the sweet spot between prohibition and free-for-all. Further, each step must be measurable and reversible. Instead, we got legislation that allowed weed shops straight out of the gate.
Let’s talk about the NZ Foundation, an NGO that seems to be more about “Te Reo” and following the “principles” of the Treaty of Waitangi than meaningful drug law reform. Now you may have heard of “NORML”. NORML is an international organisation dedicated to the reform of cannabis laws. They’ve got the experience, and they’ve got the knowledge. The cannabis reforms in the US you can mostly thank (or blame depending on your position) them for.
The NZ Foundation told them, the NZ branch of NORML, to back off, and told them in typical Jacinda fashion,”We’ve got this.” Yes, you read that right. They told perhaps the most experienced and powerful organisation in cannabis law reform to “back off”.
It was only in the final week or so that NORML was able to get involved, corresponding with a significant increase in support for the “yes” vote. But hey, I’m sure that was just a coincidence.
But that’s not the only retarded thing the NZ Foundation did. Remember how they framed the argument for reform as getting cannabis under “control”? The problem with that is it implies that cannabis is so harmful that it must be bought under “control”. The fact is cannabis does not have to be brought under control and is also less harmful than alcohol. The basic argument should have been “Keeping it illegal isn’t worth the hassle”. Concise, simple, and most importantly, appeals to everyone’s self-interest, even if you’re someone who has never smoked a joint in your life.
Let’s talk about the Greens, and by that, I mean Chlöe Swarbrick. Some readers may disagree but I quite like Chlöe. Unlike some other members of the Greens she is smart, works hard, and thoroughly deserved to win the Auckland Central seat. I also believe that she is the future leader of Greens (not that I believe being the leader of the Greens is necessarily a good thing).
But she lacks wisdom. If she had wisdom, she would never have got in bed with the NZ Drug Foundation and she never would have pushed their “we have to get cannabis under control” argument. Instead, she would have understood what people’s concerns were and addressed those concerns.
To be fair, since the referendum was just barely lost it’s difficult to put the blame on any particular organisation, group, or person. But Little, the NZ Drug Foundation, and the Greens certainly didn’t help.
