Keep cannabis debate honest

The public has now seen a draft of the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill that outlines how the cannabis market would be regulated if the drug is legalised. Unlike the euthanasia vote held at the same time, a yes vote in the cannabis referendum is indicative, not binding.

But still, we have big issues before us – matters of life and death, health and criminality. While an argument can be made that parliamentarians should not be handing tough questions back to the public via referendums, this is a once-ina-generation opportunity to change laws directly impacting on many. In the case of cannabis, one that makes criminals of the otherwise law-abiding and empowers organised crime.

The draft cannabis law would not turn New Zealand into a permanently stoned free-for-all. Consumption of cannabis would be restricted to private homes and licensed premises. People will be less likely to get stoned at work than to drink at work. Online sales would be prohibited and no-one under 20 could buy it. Advertising would be banned.

This looks more like a regime that wants to control already existing drug use than one that intends to promote it. A comparison could be made with the successful campaign against tobacco. There would be a limit on how much could be purchased at once. The proposed limit of 14g, or half an ounce, per person per day is slightly less than half the amount allowed under Canada’s legislation regime. As journalist and drug reform expert Russell Brown has explained, it is about ‘‘the right quantity to make physical-retail-only viable’’.

Few seriously believe many people would intend to, or could even afford to, smoke half an ounce of cannabis in one go. As Justice Minister Andrew Little said, it would be like buying a bottle of vodka at 7pm on a Friday night and consuming it there and then.

Which makes one wonder about the wisdom of National MP Paula Bennett’s presentation in Parliament in Wednesday. She brandished a 14g bag of oregano to imply people will smoke enormous quantities. Does this, she asked, promote the wellbeing of New Zealanders? We might equally ask whether her questions promote the informing of New Zealanders or leave them more confused. Her tactics fit a wider National Party approach of making the proposed law appear more difficult or confusing than it is. Leader Simon Bridges said there is not enough clarity for the public to make a decision. But that decision is still 10 months away, long after a final bill has appeared.

Bridges called the referendum ‘‘New Zealand’s Brexit’’, which might come true in ways he did not intend. Britain’s post-Brexit paralysis is attributable in part to misleading claims made before the vote. It should serve as a warning to politicians everywhere of the need to present truth to the public, not ideology.