Flooding the zone misled voters, Yes campaigners say
Cherry-picked data, half-truths, misinformation, misrepresentation – even threats of violence – were rife in the leadup to No vote in cannabis referendum. Jo McKenzie-McLean reports.
Flood the zone. A Donald Trump strategy for ‘‘effective’’ political communication – basically creating a field of misinformation that makes it difficult for people to know what is right.
It was this tactic Professor Joseph Boden, from Otago University’s department of psychological medicine, says No campaigners used to successfully sway votes against the legalisation and regulation of cannabis.
‘‘The No campaigners employ a lot of techniques to try to bamboozle people. Flooding the zone absolutely would have impacted on how people voted. Misinformation is rife and people know how to use it.’’
While the special votes are still to be counted, it would require an overwhelming majority in favour of yes to overturn the current tally, revealed on Friday, which shows 53.1 per cent of New Zealanders voted against legalisation and 46.1 per cent for it.
Boden, a member of the prime minister’s expert panel, had researched cannabis-related harm for about 15 years and voted in favour of legalisation.
He said to counter a ‘‘ tide of misinformation’’ required discipline to stay on message, and not try to refute every point. ‘‘Their tactic is to flood the zone and leave you drowning in detail.’’
Boden says Scientology was behind some Vote No campaigns, as well as anti-cannabis lobby groups and pharmaceutical companies in the United States. ‘‘They had tonnes of money behind them, while Yes groups were scrapping the bottom of the barrel.’’
We Do campaign spokesman Russell Brown said some of the most egregious misleading information from No campaigners came out early on billboards relating to mental health.
‘‘They dominated the information space because there wasn’t much else coming out.
The worst was the Kia
Ora Dopey advertisement. It was utterly misrepresentative of what a regulated system would look like ... even displaying a sign advertising cannabis for sale would, under the draft bill, attract a fine of a quarter of a million dollars.
‘‘ I was appalled with the Advertising Standards Authority complaints board chair. It never even got to the board. The chair declared there were no grounds to proceed. I can’t imagine something more worthy of at least a discussion.’’
Often the No campaigners presented information out of context and omitted elements to support their stance.
‘‘There is no evidence of any rises in road accidents as a result of legislation and regulation in territories where it has happened, I think people were influenced,’’ says Brown. ‘‘ The whole aim of the No-campaign was to generate fear and it was really wasn’t focused on the policy it was fear of change and I think it worked really well.’’
The New Zealand Medical Association had also influenced votes and had acted negligently in how it had handled itself in the referendum process, he said.
‘‘The NZMA should reflect deeply how it handled this issue. The fact we went for a year with the impression they had considered the bill and opposed it, and that opposition was reflected by its doctor members. Then to find out very late in the piece none of that was true, they had not even considered the bill, was a real failure of duty, and they let the country down basically.’’ Unfortunately, many public health experts took too long to speak out in support of legalisation – leaving the path clear for no-campaigners to ‘‘ depict proposed reforms and regulation as deviant and opposed by health experts’’, he said.
‘‘ As expert voices came on board it became quite clear most favoured reform and legalisation and regulation.’’
Say Nope to Dope spokesman Aaron Ironside rejected the idea that campaign messages had misinformed the public. ‘‘What [ the Kia-Ora Dopey advertisement] was, was artistic,’’ he said.
‘‘We had to do something that would move people’s hearts. The community hated the dairy becoming an alcohol shop. We simply posed the question: What if that iconic shop becomes a cannabis shop?
‘‘If people didn’t like it becoming a booze shop, they are certainly not going to want it to become a dope shop. I don’t think there is anything misleading.
‘‘I think people most delighted in the potential scandal of it were already yes voters . . . Much more people were swayed after discovering medicinal cannabis was legal and changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act. We think that’s what swayed people consolidating a No position.’’
The No campaigners had worked hard to be heard and believed it was a ‘‘ David and Goliath’’ battle with only two registered referendum No campaigns and nine Yes campaigns, he said.
‘‘ Certainly, we were very aware both in terms of the number of messages and number of media pieces that seem to be in favour of the yes position ... I think at the end of the day, lobbying either side only touches the periphery. I think most know what they think about these issues.’’
The referendum showed it was difficult for a sub-culture to make cannabis use relatable to ordinary Kiwis, he said.
‘‘The Yes campaign harped on that 80 per cent had tried cannabis – [those people] were annoyed to be included in the group that thought cannabis should be legalised. There wasn’t any narrative. Most tried and decided it is not something they wish to use.’’
The No campaign had been funded by ‘‘ ordinary Kiwis’’, he said.
‘‘We have not needed to raise any corporate money or overseas money.
‘‘We didn’t enjoy having to continually rebuff accusations we were US funded. It simply wasn’t true. We didn’t receive a solitary cent.’’
Make it Legal’s campaign spokeswoman Sandra Murray agreed the battle had been of David and Goliath proportions – but they were David.
‘‘ Our entire team were volunteers who all had day jobs at the same time. We had very little money.’’
The Yes campaigners had also contended with threats of violence and eviction, and 50 per cent of their banners were ripped down and destroyed.
Misinformation was particularly effective against the older generation who were already indoctrinated with the ‘‘war on drugs’’ that emerged out of the United States in the 1970s, she said.
Younger people tended to be more savvy with social media, and had been taught to be critical thinkers, which was why they were more supportive of reform, she said.
On top of misinformation, there was a level of misunderstanding within the general public about the bill, she said.
‘‘ A lot of people thought the cannabis bill was being rushed through, but it was just the start of the process.’’