2020 New Zealand cannabis referendum
The 2020 New Zealand cannabis referendum was a non-binding referendum held on 17 October 2020 in conjunction with the 2020 general election and a euthanasia referendum, on the question of whether to legalise the sale, use, possession and production of recreational cannabis. It was rejected by New Zealand voters.[1][2][3] The form of the referendum was a vote for or against the proposed "Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill".[2] Official results were released by the Electoral Commission on 6 November 2020 with 50.7% of voters opposing the legalisation and 48.4% in support.[a][4]
See also: Cannabis in New ZealandThe results of the cannabis referendum would not have affected the legal status of medicinal cannabis or licensed hemp production, both of which were already legal.[5] They would also not have affected laws regarding driving under the influence of drugs, or workplace health and safety (e.g. being under the influence of cannabis at work).[2]
Response[edit]
Green Party MP Chlöe Swarbrick, a campaigner for drug reform, sarcastically told the winning No campaigners "Well done. It [cannabis] still exists" and said she would continue her fight for legalising cannabis.[132] She labelled as hypocrites the majority of parliamentarians, who refused to publicly state they supported legalisation.[132]
After preliminary results for the referendum were released, prime minister Jacinda Ardern revealed that she had voted Yes in the referendum, and subsequently faced criticism, with Swarbrick suggesting that Ardern's refusal to offer public support showed she was not willing to stand up for her convictions.[133][134] Aaron Ironside, spokesperson for SAM-NZ (who endorsed a "No" vote), agreed that Ardern's silence contributed to the result and said she had done the right thing letting voters decide, as that was the point of the referendum.[135]
National MP Nick Smith described the preliminary result as a "victory for common sense" and that New Zealanders had "signalled opposition to the softening of drug crime". Family First director Bob McCoskrie of the "Say Nope to Dope" campaign said that he was "pretty stoked" with the preliminary referendum results and that New Zealanders "understood the perceived benefits of legalisation were not greater than the harms that were going to come on society". Ironside said that he was happy that New Zealand younger people would not be enlisted in a "social experiment."[133]
Writing on Stuff, columnist Damien Grant pointed out that previous governments had ignored referendum results and thought the new Labour government should do the same. He said: "Not only is the idea that the electorate should decide any particular issue impracticable, the closeness of the cannabis vote means that the prohibition of the drug is now unworkable" and argued that parliament should, "consider the ethical merits of subjecting the minority of otherwise law-abiding citizens to criminal sanctions for smoking dried leaves at the behest of a puritan majority".[136]
Parmjit Randhawa, director of Christchurch-based medicinal cannabis company Greenlab was glad the referendum didn't pass as he didn't think there was enough clinical evidence supporting recreational cannabis. Speaking of research and development into medicinal cannabis he said "Before we start running, we should start walking."[137]
Victoria University Associate Professor, Dr Fiona Hutton, said she thought the No campaign advertisements were "based on outdated moralised notions of those who use drugs, influenced by rightwing religious groups from the US". Hutton also thought "the playing field was never level, [and] that absolutely fantastic academics, community groups, organisations and campaigners [...] sought to educate, to inform, to circulate evidence, to give people clear and balanced information, fought to get their voices heard amongst swirling misinformation and misdirection".[138]
NewstalkZB radio broadcaster Mike Hosking spoke about research showing the media bias in favour of the Yes campaigners, saying "36 percent of all headlines promoted yes, 18 percent were for no. In other words, twice as much of what you saw was for one camp." Similarly figures on the number of reported quotes from advocates showed "the yes position was quoted twice as often as no". He said "worst offenders were The Spinoff, Stuff, Newshub, the Herald, TVNZ, and Radio New Zealand" and that he thought TVNZ & RNZ had "a statutory obligation to be fair and balanced".[139]