As someone who campaigned for an evidence-based yes vote in the referendum for much-needed reform of our drug laws, I am currently pretty devastated.
What an opportunity for reform we have missed, although the special votes still to be counted may prove me wrong.
Most of all, though, what a lost opportunity for those marginalised and vulnerable communities who will continue to bear the brunt of our outdated drug laws that are no longer ‘fit for purpose’—this is what absolutely crucifies me, we have failed them, we have voted for a system that continues to marginalise, stigmatise and criminalise them, and for me, anyway, it feels like too much to bear.
I feel saddened by the result mainly because after more than 20 years of working, teaching and researching in the drugs field, the evidence is very clear: that drug law reform is consistently positive, that adolescent use does not rise, that cannabis does not ‘cause’ mental health problems, and the sky does not fall in.
The evidence is also very clear that our drug laws are outdated and in need of reform, that criminalising people for low-level drug offences is damaging, that prohibition has not stopped the use of cannabis and other drugs, that it has not reduced harm, that it has not protected young people or those with mental health issues and addictions, and that it has entrenched stigma towards those who use drugs made illegal in our society, stigma that makes it harder for people who have problems with drugs like cannabis to get help.
Nowhere was stigma so clear than in the advertisements of the no campaign—based on outdated, moralised notions of those who use drugs, influenced by right-wing religious groups from the US. This is one of the (many) devastating things about the result, that the playing field was never level, that absolutely fantastic academics, community groups, organisations and campaigners, many operating on shoestring budgets, in their own time, who sought to educate, to inform, to circulate evidence, fought to get their voices heard in among swirling misinformation and misdirection.
Perhaps it’s true that cannabis and other criminal justice-related issues should never be decided in referenda—they are just too open to misinformation based on sensationalism, particularly in an era of fake news and clickbait headlines.
I am also finding it hard to forgive a Government who avoided the issue and did not publicly back their own bill—how different the result might have been if they been behind this from the start. Yes, in an era of COVID, Governments (as well as the rest of us) had a lot on or plates, but their lukewarm approach was damaging and left a gap that was filled with misinformation.
This is unforgivable for the communities that suffer the worst harms from our existing drug laws, for Māori who make up around 16 percent of the population, over 50 percent of the prison population (about 40 percent of those in prison for drug offences), and who are three times more likely to suffer legal problems than Pākehā due to their cannabis use. The result also doesn’t help those who have to live with the stigma of drug-related convictions. Consider the person who, in a recent research project, said that “the worst thing about having a drug conviction is that if forces you to live on the margins”.
It is for these people I want to remain optimistic, to be positive that in campaigning for a yes vote we have changed the conversation around cannabis dramatically, that the evidence is out of the bag and cannot just be shoved back in again, that the fight is not over—to believe that even those who voted no are keen for drug law reform in terms of decriminalisation.
I’m finding this difficult, though, in the face of the Government announcement that no further reform will be considered, and I am angered at Andrew Little’s comment that "the electorate has spoken, they are uncomfortable with greater legalisation, and I would interpret it as [also] decriminalisation of recreational cannabis".
Decriminalisation is completely different to legalisation and it shouldn't be ruled out unceremoniously. Drug law reform is now more urgent that ever if we are to address the harms that come with criminalisation, as well as effectively address the harms from cannabis use—especially since these harms will carry on unchecked under the current regime.
The comment that finally tipped me over the edge into despair was "[the no vote] will ensure New Zealand is healthier, safer and more successful"—how will it do this? By leaving cannabis in the underground market? By guaranteeing that young adolescents (those most vulnerable to harms from cannabis) will be able to access high-strength cannabis from the illegal market with no problems at all? Or that those who find relief in cannabis for medical problems will forever find it out of their reach financially unless that want to break the law?
Those people who voted no were led to believe that it would reduce harm, that young people would be protected, that drug-impaired driving and mental health issues from using cannabis would be prevented—sadly, under prohibition young people are not protected, as cannabis use is already widespread and normalised. Voting no hasn’t changed this.
Issues like drug-impaired driving will continue on as they always have done under prohibition, and the minority of cannabis users who suffer from problems related to their use will continue to suffer. The harms related to cannabis (and other drug) use and criminalisation will carry on unabated for generations to come unless we and our governments have the courage to face them.
Associate Professor Fiona Hutton is in the Institute of Criminology at Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington.
Read the original article on Newsroom.