Highs and Lows: Breaking Down the Cannabis Referendum
By Hannah Jang
At this year's General Election, New Zealanders will have the opportunity to vote in the Cannabis Legalisation and Control referendum.[1] The question is whether voters support the proposed Bill which legalises the recreational use of cannabis. The Bill aims to reduce cannabis-related harm to individuals, whānau and communities by establishing a regulatory regime which controls the cultivation, processing, sale and consumption of cannabis.[2]
To bring to light a broader, non-politicised perspective, the Equal Justice Project hosted an online symposium to discuss the Bill. Professor Mark Henaghan moderated the panel, and the panellists were Associate Professor Khylee Quince, Dr Marta Rychert, James Farmer QC and Associate Professor Chris Wilkins. The panellists presented the highs and the lows of cannabis reform, concerns regarding legalisation, and provided advice for voters.
The current law
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 regulates cannabis, classifying it as a Class C drug. Those convicted of possessing cannabis without holding a medical license could be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or a maximum fine of $500.[3]
What does the Bill propose?
The Bill would permit individuals to possess and consume cannabis in limited circumstances. Essentially, a person aged 20 years or older would be able to:[4]
Buy up to 14 grams of dried cannabis (or equivalent) per day from a licensed outlet;
Enter licensed premises where cannabis is sold or consumed;
Consume cannabis on private property or at licensed premises;
Grow up to 2 plants, with a maximum of 4 plants per household;
Share up to 14 grams of dried cannabis (or its equivalent) with another person aged 20 or over.
What are the highs of the reform?
Public education surrounding the reform can serve as an efficient tool of prevention. From a legal perspective, Associate Professor Quince states that the 'current prohibition regime does not work'.[5] In her view, illegality does not provide a barrier as 80 percent of New Zealanders still use cannabis at some point in their lives while 20 percent use it regularly. Therefore, legalisation can potentially normalise conversations around cannabis, encouraging and increasing access to public health education.[6]
The reform could help reduce the adverse criminal justice outcomes regarding conviction, criminalisation and imprisonment. There was much discussion around the proportionality of the current penalties among the panellists. Certain communities, such as Māori in particular, are disproportionately impacted for a long time by what some argue are 'needless convictions'.[7] 41% of the people charged for minor drug offences are Māori.[8] The Bill seeks to redress these issues of social inequality. Not only will it reduce arrests, but specific provisions oblige not-for-profit and community-oriented operators to partner with communities that have been disproportionately affected by the current prohibition.[9]
How about the lows?
The panellists were concerned with the execution of the Bill. While the prohibition of cannabis is simple in a legal sense, regulating and legislating its use presents challenges. Its execution in New Zealand is unable to be aided by overseas research due to the lagged nature of health and social effects.[10] Associate Professor Quince mentions that legalisation may also conflict with other public health goals such as Smokefree 2025, and it is unclear as to which policy will take precedence.[11]
What are the health implications?
Contrary to common belief, cannabis has a much lower health risk than tobacco and alcohol. Associate Professor Wilkins reports that the majority of the harm depends on the frequency of use and any pre-existing conditions[12]. Among the population, youth are a particularly vulnerable group. Early on-set users may develop a dependency, which in turn can impact education and employment prospects.[13] While the Bill ensures recreational use of cannabis would remain illegal for those under 20, Associate Professor Quince is concerned that normalisation and contamination of adults using cannabis in their households may cause health implications for children.
Is there the potential for cannabis to become commercialised?
Some panellists express concern for the potential of an alcohol-style market. Experience with alcohol and tobacco demonstrates that incentives to increase the market motivate the commercial industry to push back on restrictive measures such as age limits.[14] In order to mediate future conflicts between health and commercial interests, Associate Professor Wilkins emphasises the importance of seeking middle-ground options which control commercialisation.[15] Dr Rychert further suggests the involvement of non-profit organisations.[16]
Will the black market turn to heavier drugs?
While the black market may have cost advantages, Associate Professors Wilkins and Quince agree that there is not enough research and evidence in the field to support this fear of a gateway into heavier drugs.[17] They are of the opinion that new users and sellers are unlikely to enter the black market upon the legalisation of cannabis as the meth market is smaller and more competitive.
What are some key things people should consider when voting?
Associate Professor Quince notes that on balance, the legalisation of cannabis provides an opportunity to address justice and equity outcomes. Therefore, it is crucial that 'irrespective of which way you vote, you know what is in the Bill, you know what the options are and what you are voting for'.[18]
Similarly, Associate Professor Wilkins advises voters to consider the effects on social justice. He encourages voters to ask themselves the following questions:
Are the current penalties for using cannabis appropriate, fair and proportionate; or
Could we as a nation and society do better by regulating cannabis instead of prohibiting it?
On James Farmer QC's view, there are two main things he hopes voters will consider.[19] Firstly, voters should be clear of the health harms related to using cannabis, and secondly contemplate whether legalisation will enhance or reduce these problems.
As cannabis is not a harmless product, Dr Rychert encourages voters to think about the different criteria which underlie the debate of cannabis. These include the black market, criminal enterprises, personal choice and public health.
Conclusion
The intersection of issues and interests reflects the complexity of the cannabis debate. The Equal Justice Project hopes that by providing a diverse range of perspectives, voters will be able to make an informed decision in the upcoming Cannabis Legalisation and Control referendum.
The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.
Featured image source: Needpix.com
[1] “Vote Yes: Cannabis Control Bill” (2020) NZ Drug Foundation <https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/policy-and-advocacy/vote-yes/> .
[2] “Cannabis legalisation and control referendum” (2020) New Zealand Government <https://www.referendums.govt.nz/cannabis/index.html>.
[3] Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(2)(b).
[4] Above n 2.
[5] Interview with Khylee Quince, Associate Professor at AUT (Mark Henaghan, EJP Virtual Panel, 20 August, 2020) at (10:59).
[6] Quince, above n 5, at (56:32).
[7] Interview with Chris Wilkins, Associate Professor at Massey University (Mark Henaghan, EJP Virtual Panel, 20 August, 2020) at (51:05).
[8] “Why is this an issue for Māori?” (2020) Health Not Handcuffs<https://www.healthnothandcuffs.nz/why_is_this_an_issue_for_maori>.
[9] Interview with Dr Marta Rychert, Senior Researcher at Massey University (Mark Henaghan, EJP Virtual Panel, 20 August, 2020) at (44:13).
[10] Chris Wilkins, Simon Lenton and Tom Decorte “It could take up to 10 to measure the impact of legalising week - should New Zealand’s proposed law be even stronger?” (2020), The Conversation <https://theconversation.com/it-could-take-10-years-to-measure-the-impact-of-legalising-weed-should -new-zealands-proposed-law-be-even-stronger-144271>.
[11] Quince, above n 5, at (20:16).
[12] Wilkins, above n 7, at (46:30).
[13] Wilkins, above n 7, at (47:25).
[14] Rychert, above n 9, at (43:00).
[15] Wilkins, above n 7, at (1:35:24).
[16] Rychert, above n 9, at (1:47:00).
[17] at (1:03:50)
[18] Quince, above n 5, at (1:49:09).
[19] Interview with James Farmer, QC (Mark Henaghan, EJP Virtual Panel, 20 August, 2020).