A few weeks ago I wrote about Jacinda Ardern and her refusal to tell us where she stands on the Cannabis Referendum. Since then the issue has gained a lot more traction and it was even mentioned in the last Leader’s Debate. Now Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick has entered the battle with a scathing attack on Jacinda and other MPs who are refusing to tell us where they stand. Newshub reports.
Chlöe Swarbrick has taken a swing at the Prime Minister and MPs of both major parties, labelling them “the most risk-averse group [she’s] ever met” and their stewardship of New Zealand’s cannabis laws “utterly abhorrent”.
[…]She says most Labour MPs refuse to make public which way they’re voting in the cannabis referendum on October 17, while National MPs have simply adopted the party line: a blanket ‘no’.
It comes as a recent poll shows support for cannabis legalisation has sunk to a low of 35 percent, while 53 percent of Kiwis plan to vote against it at next month’s referendum.
[…]Swarbrick believes it should be an obligation for MPs – despite it being a secret ballot – to express where they stand on the issue of cannabis legalisation.
She’s joined National leader Judith Collins and a chorus of politicians and media commentators in calling for the Prime Minister to reveal her position on the referendum.
[…] If we are to meaningfully grapple with what is currently a system that’s not working, I do believe our Prime Minister – despite not having to campaign on the issue – should express where she sits on it.”
[…National MP Dr Smith] shares Swarbrick’s frustration that the Prime Minister refuses to make clear her position on cannabis.
“The Prime Minister’s position is completely political. She knows that by stating her position clearly, she will alienate part of her support base.“
That’s exactly it.
Ardern wouldn’t respond directly to Swarbrick’s criticism, but her office told Newshub she’d set out her approach to the referendum “a long time ago”.
“It’s her view that it’s up to New Zealanders to decide on the issue – and Labour is committed to implementing whatever the end result is,” a spokesperson for Ardern said.
[…]I have frequently said before that there are very strong arguments on both sides,” she said.
“I’ve never wanted to see people criminalised for cannabis use, but equally I’ve always been concerned about young people accessing it.
You can make an argument that both options are seeking to prohibit and reduce use.”
The reason Jacinda won’t state her position is because, contrary to what a lot of people think, she is clearly voting no and doesn’t want to alienate her Left-wing voting base, the majority of whom are voting yes. How can I be so confident in saying this?
Firstly, in the last leaders’ debate she shot down the argument that we should legalise cannabis because Maori are disproportionally arrested for cannabis offences by saying we should fix the justice system instead. Leaving aside that her argument is wrong (how long have we had to fix the system?) if she were voting yes she never would have raised it as an argument.
And secondly her insistence that there are “strong arguments on both sides”. There are no strong arguments for voting no, absolutely none, and she knows this. She would (or should) have read all the reports concluding that a regulated and controlled cannabis market is infinitely better that what we have now.
If you are intending on voting no here is something you deserve to know. Groups opposed to the legalisation and regulation of cannabis are lying to you. They are not only lying to you, they are using scare tactics and fear mongering to manipulate you into voting no. And they reason they are lying to you and using fear mongering and scare tactics is because they have nothing, zilch, nada.
Take for example the claim that cannabis will be sold in dairies. This is a lie as the proposed law means that cannabis will be sold only in licensed R20 premises with very plain signage and no advertising. Groups making the claim know this as they would have read the proposed Bill, hence they are lying to you.
Another example is the idea that we will have hundreds of cannabis outlets all over the country. We already have hundreds of cannabis outlets up and down the country. They’re called “tinny houses” and every one of them is unlicensed and generally run by gangs.
What about people turning up stoned for work? First, we are very unlikely to see any significant increase in the rate of cannabis use as a result of cannabis being made legal and regulated. Second, those irresponsible enough to show up work stoned are also irresponsible enough to show up work drunk or hungover. Should we therefore ban alcohol?
Stoned driving? All based on dodgy stats that compares driving while impaired by alcohol to simply having cannabis in your system.
Or what about the argument that cannabis hasn’t been legal overseas long enough and that we should wait to see what happens. This argument is disingenuous. My question is how long should we wait? Another three years? Five years? Ten years? What? The fact that no one raising that argument has even bothered to think about how long we should wait is proof to me that the whole argument is BS. In fact it’s just a variation of the much maligned “precautionary” principle.
The simple fact is cannabis should never have been made illegal. When it is all done and dusted, Prohibition will be seen to be one of the most radical and expensive failed experiments in the history of the modern world.
If you enjoyed this BFD Article please share it.