Why I’m Voting ‘Yes’ in the Cannabis Referendum
In my youth I held some pretty idealistic views. I’m fairly confident that I’m not alone in this. Nor am I ashamed. We will always need radical views to help us improve things in our shared role as co-creators of our world. We also need conservative views to help refine and future-proof those world-changing ideas. We often find our individual views and ideas gravitating towards the moderate and towards maintaining the status quo as we age like a sort of ideological roll-together. We’re especially likely to do this when we believe that the status quo is working out pretty well for us as individuals.
One of the more extreme views I held as a youngster was around cannabis prohibition. What was unique in this case was that my extremist view on cannabis prohibition was the status quo. And it still is!
In hindsight, my prohibitionist stance was based on faith. Not in a spiritual sense mind you, but faith in government! “Cannabis must be super harmful, and prohibition must reduce that harm, otherwise the government wouldn't make people criminals for it!” Of course that's horrendously bad circular reasoning—“it should be illegal because it’s illegal”—and naïve.
It would be equally naïve of me to believe that my Christian faith didn’t also play a part in my prohibitionist stance. Not that I have any recollection of reading about prohibition in the Bible, hearing prohibition preached at church or talked about at home, but I certainly held an assumption that supporting prohibition was the Christian thing to do. But why?
I hate to speak for even a sector of Christians, let alone all of us, but I have certainly found that in general Christians are largely opposed to using the force of government to impose their religious beliefs upon others. That tends to be something we look at in places like Iran with great sympathy. This aversion to theocracy is an aspect of Christianity to love and treasure. It is part of the light that draws people to Christ.
However, I’ve noticed that there is still a reactionary streak that seems to subconsciously resort to criminalising sin. We’ve seen it time and time again with the consumption of alcohol and cannabis, same-sex relationships, pre-marital sex, and even the rights of women and minorities to vote, or to own property, etc. Whenever the desire to criminalise these ‘sins’ has succeeded politically, it has failed to achieve positive outcomes. Time and time again, we see backtracking, regret and the wisdom of hindsight.
I remember this reactionary streak in myself, and I still hear it occasionally from people when they feel they’re speaking to a receptive audience. If I’m truly honest with myself, a fear of change often sits at the heart of it. Acknowledging that the force of government shouldn’t be used to impose religion is easy enough, but having to acknowledge that the status quo is broken means having to advocate for a seemingly unknown future.
The case for cannabis prohibition isn’t usually presented as bluntly as: “God said intoxication is sin, go directly to jail, do not collect another pay cheque ever due to your criminal record.” We see it in two much more reasonable arguments: “Prohibition works to minimise harm” and “Prohibition sends a valuable message.”
Let’s be clear about what we’re voting about in this referendum. We’re not voting about whether we like cannabis or whether cannabis is good, evil, both, or neither. Nor are we voting about whether or not cannabis will be widely available. We’re voting about which is the better mechanism for managing cannabis. The status quo, or regulation?
As a younger man I bought into the prohibitionist argument about harm reduction. I believed prohibition worked to minimise harm. Of course, this ignored that alcohol prohibition increased harm from alcohol. It ignored that cannabis prohibition either nudges people towards more physically and socially harmful legal relaxants/pain relief or towards an unregulated, illegal supply of cannabis. It ignored that for the vast majority of people, a criminal record does much more harm than cannabis consumption. It ignored the barriers to treatment built by prohibition for the minority of consumers who struggle with psychological addiction. It ignored that any associated health issues are better dealt with by the health system than by the police and prison system. It ignored that prohibition has little to no effect on supply or demand.
More broadly, it ignored how extreme it is to make unhealthy consumption a crime. No one should be a criminal for consuming sugar, no matter how many people die from obesity related causes. No one should be a criminal for eating peanuts no matter how badly a minority of people react to them or die from them. No one should be a criminal for standing in the sun, no matter how many people get cancer. In these cases, aren’t those who suffer from obesity/allergies/cancer better served by the health system? And everyone else better off being left alone? Even if you believe there's a place for criminalising consumption, surely you only do it for the most toxic, deadly substances?
“But what about the children?!”—I hear my 17-year-old self pleading with me. Excessive cannabis consumption is not good for young people. That’s a given. The thing is, I’ve worked as youth worker with young people for many years, and they all tell me it’s easier for them to get cannabis than alcohol. It seems regulation works better than prohibition at restricting their access.
In places that have regulated the use of cannabis, none of the fear-mongering about rampant youth consumption has played out. In regulated jurisdictions there’s been a decline in use by under 18s. One of the reasons for this is that when black market demand shrinks, so does the black market supply, and it becomes harder to access along with the other “goodies” they have to offer. While youth consumption won’t be legal under the proposed bill, youth consumption will no longer be dealt with by handing the child a criminal record either. Another reduction in harm for young people.
In fact, the small increase in cannabis consumption post-prohibition is mostly amongst 40+ year olds. It makes sense that the people who had slightly more difficult access to the black market under prohibition are switching out some of their alcohol consumption. That's a win for everyone. (Except the alcohol industry. No prizes for guessing which way they want you to vote. Nor which side of this debate they’ve put their money behind across the globe.)
My 20-year-old self reaches for the next bag of arguments, full of good intentions—“Surely we shouldn’t normalise cannabis consumption! Prohibition is about sending a message even if it has no real effect on consumption. And surely prohibition can’t really cause that much more harm. No one actually gets a criminal record for possession and use any more.”
80% of kiwis have consumed cannabis, including my 39-year-old self. That deterrent message isn’t getting through. The normalisation ship hasn’t just sailed, it’s nearly finished its journey. Good. I’m sure I’ll lose some people here but yes, good. We all use drugs. Caffeine, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, nicotine, cannabis, sugar—it’s normal. We should normalise cannabis as a less toxic, less addictive alternative AND normalise sober methods of socialising and relaxing after work. Alcohol is not irrelevant to this referendum—just ask the alcohol industry. The toxic message we are currently sending is that it is preferable for you to choose alcohol. We should also normalise treating health issues from drugs as health issues. We most certainly should normalise using evidence to determine policy rather than ideology. And, according to New Zealand’s recent Mental Health and Addiction Inquiry, we should normalise allowing adults to put what they want into their own bodies without being criminalised for it.
In 2019 there were 5740 charges for cannabis offences, 59% of which were for possession/use. These charges were also disproportionately Mãori. Criminal records harm employment opportunities, travel opportunities, and financial opportunities. All for choosing a less toxic relaxant. I certainly don’t see any justice in that. And what good did it achieve? Studies into cannabis use in New Zealand over 40 years have shown that even those who have been convicted do not reduce their consumption afterwards, in fact some increase it.
My 24-year-old self is clinging to some flimsy arguments—“It’s a gateway drug. What about Smokefree 2025? There’ll be more intoxicated people, including at work and on the roads.” My 24-year-old self knows as well as I do now that these arguments don’t hold water, but admitting that he’s wrong is scary. Admitting that things need to change is also scary.
Treasury calculated in 2016 that $400,000,000 of our money is spent each year enforcing cannabis prohibition. Prohibition removes the personal freedom to choose a less toxic relaxant/pain relief without being a criminal. Prohibition increases harm. Prohibition soaks up police time, energy and money. It's only sensible that we ask ourselves, “What good does it achieve? How has prohibition made our lives better? What has made it worth all of that money, all of those policing hours, and all of the lives damaged by criminal records, damaged by encouraging toxic legal drugs like synthetics and alcohol, damaged by dodgy black market cannabis?” Surely after all this time, energy, and money that could’ve been spent on larger issues there would be some evidence of prohibition’s success. I’ve tried finding it. I now demand that evidence of anyone encouraging me to maintain the harmful and unjust status quo.
In case you haven’t figured it out already, I’m not a writer. When I was asked to contribute this piece I was immediately a bit nervous. The only reason I should be nervous about having this published is the quality of the writing, yet I’m more concerned about one of my employers (current or future) reading it and declaring me unsuitable for employment as a result. Or potentially the police. If I was to up my game to the point of being a “problem” as many great Christians do, how could this article be used against me?
If you’ve read this far and can agree that prohibition is both harmful and unjust but still hold fear that regulation will be worse, thank you for reading an opinion piece that possibly challenges your current opinion. I recommend some more reading. Instead of relying on cherry-picked agenda-driven stats from either side, have a read of the full government reports from Canada, Colorado and anywhere else that has moved to a regulated cannabis model. University of Otago Professor Joseph Boden was in charge of a 40 year long study into the harms of cannabis and he is publicly advocating for a “Yes” vote as a result of this. Have a read of that study and his opinion pieces. Remember that huge New Zealand Mental Health and Addiction Inquiry a couple of years ago? Have a read of the conclusions reached about prohibition.
I can no longer support the criminalisation of people who have chosen to consume cannabis nor the unregulated free-for-all it has created. Nor do I support the other extreme of an unregulated legal model. Either way, my views have moderated with age and I’ve found myself near the middle of the mattress currently being hogged by the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill.
~
David Gerbault lives in Hawke’s Bay. Due to the content of this piece, he cannot specify who he currently works for.