Ron Strider
Well-Known Member
If the recent reports in the media are correct, New Zealand may have a referendum on legalizing cannabis for personal use by 2020.
Such a move would be consistent with recent polls suggesting that many Kiwis desire change in this area, with 65 per cent of those questioned believing possession of cannabis for personal use should be legalized (28 per cent) or decriminalized (37 per cent).
Such a move would also be consistent with the New Zealand tradition that direct democracy is better than delegated democracy. Earlier generations of Kiwis knew this and were much better at determining, via referendums, issues such as how alcohol should be regulated, dealing with questions from total prohibition through to the closing time of pubs.
In the case of currently illegal drugs, the need for citizens to address this issue directly is necessary because the evidence shows that, despite attempts at prohibition that began in the early parts of the 20th century, in the 21st century the demand for illegal drugs is increasing at the same time as their supply is expanding, their price is static or falling, their diversity widening, their potency growing and the harm they cause is not being reduced.
The need to change is most evident with the lower-risk illegal drugs, such as cannabis. The exemplar of this approach is the United States, where the citizens of 16 individual states have voted to legalize cannabis for medical and/or recreational uses.
This approach is built on the foundation that if legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, both of which are much more addictive, and both of which cause more damage to the individual and surrounding society, are legal and regulated, then why not deal with lower-level drugs, like cannabis, in exactly the same manner?
At the most basic level, while alcohol is responsible for about 700 deaths in New Zealand a year, and tobacco-related cancer more than double this, all of the illegal drugs in New Zealand kill fewer than 100 people a year, and most of these are due to heroin, although, of late, the recent spike of 20 deaths related to synthetic cannabis may expand this total.
Wanting change is not a surprise, as in our country, with the third highest per-capita rate consumption of cannabis in the world, just under 15 per cent of citizens — around 279,400 citizens — consume this drug each year. When viewed over a longer time frame, well over half of the population may have had some experience with this narcotic. The New Zealand rates are a subset of the global figure of 182.5 million cannabis users.
There are three options to consider if this matter is finally put to the population to decide
The first is to maintain the status quo. This approach is justified by the fact that cannabis, which is increasing in potency, is clearly unsuitable for some people with psychological difficulties and may have negative implications for long-term users.
The second option is decriminalization, by which the user is kept innocent, but the product, illegal. The argument for decriminalization is one based around individual liberty, in which an informed citizen should not be punished for the choices they make. They should not have to risk a criminal conviction (as received by 1726 people for cannabis possession in 2015) or jail for their choices. This option would also save time and capacity for the police, judiciary and jails as small-time users will no longer merit attention.
The third option is legalization and regulation. Regulated products, such as tobacco or alcohol, have quality control, no unauthorized adulteration and come with unbiased warning labels and state sponsored education programs deterring their use. They are sold only in authorized areas, and, critically, only to adults. Unregulated products have none of these safeguards. Such an approach not only protects consumers, it also reduces crime.
Broad estimates of the size of the global market in all illegal drugs put it at probably somewhere between US$400 and $650 billion a year. Although each country is different, the revenue stream from illegal drugs makes up, probably, somewhere between one-fifth and one-third of the income for organized crime.
Legalization could do more than many other activities to damage organized criminal activity in New Zealand (with gangs expanding their market share in all illegal drugs, with cannabis alone going from 19 per cent to 34 per cent under their control between 2009 and 2014) by removing one of their most important revenue streams.
Finally, regulation produces tax. Estimates suggest that if tax was charged on cannabis, the Inland Revenue Department would collect somewhere between $70 million and $150 million a year, although this may be an underestimate. Colorado, in the United States, with a population slightly larger than New Zealand, has already created 18,000 full-time jobs in this industry and collected over $US500 million since their regulation of cannabis began in 2014.
The correct answer to which of the three above options on the cannabis issues best suits New Zealand is — let the people decide by referendum for themselves.
News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Referendum right way to decide on cannabis, rather than political pot luck | Stuff.co.nz
Author: ALEXANDER GILLESPIE
Contact: Contact Us | Stuff.co.nz
Photo Credit: Getty Images
Website: Latest breaking news NZ | Stuff.co.nz
Such a move would be consistent with recent polls suggesting that many Kiwis desire change in this area, with 65 per cent of those questioned believing possession of cannabis for personal use should be legalized (28 per cent) or decriminalized (37 per cent).
Such a move would also be consistent with the New Zealand tradition that direct democracy is better than delegated democracy. Earlier generations of Kiwis knew this and were much better at determining, via referendums, issues such as how alcohol should be regulated, dealing with questions from total prohibition through to the closing time of pubs.
In the case of currently illegal drugs, the need for citizens to address this issue directly is necessary because the evidence shows that, despite attempts at prohibition that began in the early parts of the 20th century, in the 21st century the demand for illegal drugs is increasing at the same time as their supply is expanding, their price is static or falling, their diversity widening, their potency growing and the harm they cause is not being reduced.
The need to change is most evident with the lower-risk illegal drugs, such as cannabis. The exemplar of this approach is the United States, where the citizens of 16 individual states have voted to legalize cannabis for medical and/or recreational uses.
This approach is built on the foundation that if legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, both of which are much more addictive, and both of which cause more damage to the individual and surrounding society, are legal and regulated, then why not deal with lower-level drugs, like cannabis, in exactly the same manner?
At the most basic level, while alcohol is responsible for about 700 deaths in New Zealand a year, and tobacco-related cancer more than double this, all of the illegal drugs in New Zealand kill fewer than 100 people a year, and most of these are due to heroin, although, of late, the recent spike of 20 deaths related to synthetic cannabis may expand this total.
Wanting change is not a surprise, as in our country, with the third highest per-capita rate consumption of cannabis in the world, just under 15 per cent of citizens — around 279,400 citizens — consume this drug each year. When viewed over a longer time frame, well over half of the population may have had some experience with this narcotic. The New Zealand rates are a subset of the global figure of 182.5 million cannabis users.
There are three options to consider if this matter is finally put to the population to decide
The first is to maintain the status quo. This approach is justified by the fact that cannabis, which is increasing in potency, is clearly unsuitable for some people with psychological difficulties and may have negative implications for long-term users.
The second option is decriminalization, by which the user is kept innocent, but the product, illegal. The argument for decriminalization is one based around individual liberty, in which an informed citizen should not be punished for the choices they make. They should not have to risk a criminal conviction (as received by 1726 people for cannabis possession in 2015) or jail for their choices. This option would also save time and capacity for the police, judiciary and jails as small-time users will no longer merit attention.
The third option is legalization and regulation. Regulated products, such as tobacco or alcohol, have quality control, no unauthorized adulteration and come with unbiased warning labels and state sponsored education programs deterring their use. They are sold only in authorized areas, and, critically, only to adults. Unregulated products have none of these safeguards. Such an approach not only protects consumers, it also reduces crime.
Broad estimates of the size of the global market in all illegal drugs put it at probably somewhere between US$400 and $650 billion a year. Although each country is different, the revenue stream from illegal drugs makes up, probably, somewhere between one-fifth and one-third of the income for organized crime.
Legalization could do more than many other activities to damage organized criminal activity in New Zealand (with gangs expanding their market share in all illegal drugs, with cannabis alone going from 19 per cent to 34 per cent under their control between 2009 and 2014) by removing one of their most important revenue streams.
Finally, regulation produces tax. Estimates suggest that if tax was charged on cannabis, the Inland Revenue Department would collect somewhere between $70 million and $150 million a year, although this may be an underestimate. Colorado, in the United States, with a population slightly larger than New Zealand, has already created 18,000 full-time jobs in this industry and collected over $US500 million since their regulation of cannabis began in 2014.
The correct answer to which of the three above options on the cannabis issues best suits New Zealand is — let the people decide by referendum for themselves.
News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Referendum right way to decide on cannabis, rather than political pot luck | Stuff.co.nz
Author: ALEXANDER GILLESPIE
Contact: Contact Us | Stuff.co.nz
Photo Credit: Getty Images
Website: Latest breaking news NZ | Stuff.co.nz
