David Cormack: Reefer sadness

The times they are a'changin' when it comes to drug law. Now it's our turn. Photo / 123RF

COMMENT: By David Cormack

We have a lot of problems. New Zealand is not the idyllic utopia we like to think it is. In fact the Prime Minister touched on this when she said that she wanted to use "radical transformation" to turn New Zealand into the country that we believe it to be.

Inequality, a housing shortage, domestic violence, teenage rape clubs, low wages, failing infrastructure, filthy water, beaches you can't swim in, an unfair tax system, climate change, robots stealing our jobs. The list is long and depressing. The Government can only do so much, and there's a case to be made that of the things they can control, they haven't done enough. But in among the weeds of all these problems is the cannabis debate.

From the Netherlands having its cannabis cafes, to Portugal decriminalising every drug in 2001, to the multiple states in the USA making cannabis legal, the times they are a'changin' when it comes to drug law. Now it's our turn.

Next year, on the same day as the general election we'll get to vote on what the legal status of cannabis will look like. So does that mean that between now and then we can look forward to well thought out debate and serious policy discussion?

Not a chance.

To start with, it shouldn't be a referendum at all. The reason we have representative democracy is so people don't have to traipse out to make decisions like these. We elect people to do it on our behalf. To nobody's surprise, the Green Party is pro-reform. To its credit ACT seems to be shaking off its ridiculous conservatism and it too has taken the principled stance of changing the legal status. Labour seems ambivalent. But while New Zealand First likes making controversial statements, it doesn't actually like making controversial decisions. So it keeps trying to turn responsibility over to the general populace. And so we get a referendum.

National has made Paula Bennett its spokesperson on this. She's already shown us how seriously she's taking the issue by "hilariously" tweeting that she went to the "Taupo summer concert with Louise Upston. Smelt a bit of weed. Feeling sleepy". Causing us all to ask if whoever smelt it, dealt it.

Bennett also posted an abusive message she'd received on Facebook, prefacing it with "Here's the argument for legalising marijuana". The message was idiotic and unnecessarily abusive and nobody should have to put up with that, but Bennett framed it as though this was representative of the people who believe our current cannabis laws are stupid. It was almost as if she was saying 'oh look these are the sorts of people who want to make cannabis legal. Aren't they awful? Therefore isn't cannabis awful?'

And frankly we deserve better.

Taupo summer concert with @LouiseUpston. Smelt a bit of weed. Feeling sleepy pic.twitter.com/hVROpRX1mr

— Paula Bennett (@paulabennettmp) January 26, 2019

Simon Bridges has come down on the anti-legalisation side because he's worried about the harm cannabis can do to communities. Harm in communities is actually a reason to support changing cannabis' legal status. Get it out of the crimes act and make it a health issue. Then if people need support they can seek it without fear of prosecution. But Bridges has taken the same mentality to cannabis reform as he has expressed for abortion reform, the regressive one that flies in the face of evidence.

Because evidence the world over shows that yes, cannabis can create health problems - there is a potential link between early cannabis use and worse schizophrenia symptoms - but that this is a reason to make it legal. Making it a crime to consume doesn't actually stop people consuming it. But it does stop us from educating children at a young age with proper information. It also keeps the supply coming from tinny houses who don't care if the buyer is 18. But if it was a regulated market with age-controls then the people selling would be afraid of the consequences of selling to a minor.

I'm not so naive as to suggest there is nothing harmful about cannabis. There is. But that's precisely the reason to give it controls, regulate it, make sure that if people are going to consume it, it's done as safely as possible.

Chloe Swarbrick from the Green Party is making a good attempt at trying to make this an evidence-based debate, but I don't hold out much hope for the others.

So come on politicians, if you're going to abdicate your primary responsibility and ask us to make policy decisions for you, don't argue in bad faith. Present us with proper evidence and supporting reasons for your stance, not just empty emotive rhetoric.