Did misinformation influence the cannabis referendum votes?

Carefully selected data, half-truths, misinformation, misrepresentation, even threats of violence, have abounded in the run-up to the cannabis referendum. Jo McKenzie-McLean Take a look at the accusations, accusations and if it played a role in the votes of the people.

Flood the area. A Donald Trump strategy for “effective” political communication, which basically creates a field of misinformation that makes it difficult for people to know what is right.

It was this tactic that Professor Joseph Boden, from the Department of Psychological Medicine at the University of Otago, says that non-activists used to successfully influence the votes against the legalization and regulation of cannabis.

“No Campaigners employ many techniques to try to fool people. Flooding the area would have absolutely impacted how people voted. Misinformation abounds and people know how to use it. “

READ MORE:
* Referendum results: ‘devastation’ for supporters of cannabis legalization
* Referendum results: Cannabis legalization narrowly loses votes
* Cannabis referendum: anxious waiting for results after long and grueling campaigns

While special votes are yet to be counted, it would take an overwhelming majority in favor of yes to overturn the current count, revealed Friday, which shows 53.1 percent of New Zealanders voted against legalization and 46 , 1 percent in favor.

Boden, a member of the prime minister’s expert panel, had investigated cannabis-related harms for about 15 years and voted in favor of legalization.

“It tells me what my own research has found and what other research has found. Legalization is the only way to get it off young people’s hands. We have seen that prohibiting is ineffective in reducing access ”.

However, “misinformation traders” had performed so well around the world that it was very difficult to get a purchase with arguments based on facts and reasons, he said.

“If you are fighting a tide of misinformation, you have to be disciplined with your message and not play their game trying to disprove every point. Their tactic is to flood the area and leave you drowning in details. “

Boden says he got more baffling when he realized Scientology was behind some of the Vote No.

“A lot of money was invested in say No campaigns, connections with anti-cannabis lobby groups in the United States and important contributions from pharmaceutical companies. They had tons of money behind them while the 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 appeared early on mental health-related billboards.

“They dominated the information space because not much else was coming out. The worst was the Kia-Ora Dopey ad. It was completely misrepresentative of what a regulated system would look like … even displaying a sign announcing the sale of cannabis under the bill would be fined a quarter of a million dollars.

“I was appalled at the Chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority’s grievance board. It didn’t even make it to the board. The president stated that there was no reason to proceed. I can’t imagine anything more worthy of at least a discussion. “

Often, No activists presented information out of context and omitted elements to support their position.

“Everyone can choose well and probably both sides are guilty. The data from the US and Canada was very clear, youth use has not increased in any of the legal territories; in fact, it is more likely to have decreased. Those who did not campaign proceeded as if it had not happened. “

They had used other studies to back up the arguments that if cannabis were legalized there would be an explosion of use and the roads would be a bloodbath, he said.

“There is no evidence of any increase in traffic accidents as a result of legislation and regulation in the territories where it has occurred, I think people were influenced. The whole objective of the Non-Campaign was to generate fear and it was not really focused on politics, it was fear of change and I think it worked very well ”.

The New Zealand Medical Association had also swayed the votes and been negligent in the way it had handled the referendum process, he said.

“The NZMA should reflect deeply on how it handled this problem. We spent a year with the impression that they had considered the bill and opposed it, and that opposition was reflected by its member doctors. Then finding out very late in the article that none of that was true, they hadn’t even considered the bill, it was a real breach of duty, and they basically disappointed the country. “

Unfortunately, it took too long for many public health experts to speak out in favor of legalization, leaving the way clear for non-campaigners to “describe the proposed reforms and regulations as deviant and opposed by health experts,” he said.

“As expert voices were brought in, it became quite clear that reform, legalization and regulation were the winners.”

Say No to Dope spokesman Aaron Ironside rejected the idea that campaign messages had misinformed the public.

“What [the Kia-Ora Dopy advertisement] It was, it was artistic, ”he said.

“We had to do something that moved people’s hearts. The community hated that the dairy turned into an alcohol shop. We simply pose the question: what if that iconic store turns into a cannabis store?

“If people didn’t like it becoming a liquor store, they certainly don’t want it to become a drug store. I don’t think there is anything misleading.

“I think the people most delighted with the possible scandal were already the yes voters … Many more people were convinced after discovering that medical cannabis was legal and the changes to the Drug Abuse Law. We think that’s what influenced people to consolidate a position of No. “

Proponents of the had not worked hard to be heard and believed it was a “David and Goliath” battle with only two recorded No referendum campaigns and nine Yes campaigns, he said.

“Certainly, we were very aware of both the number of messages and the number of pieces of the media that seem to be in favor of the yes position… I think at the end of the day, pushing both sides only touches the periphery. I think most of them know what they think about these issues. “

The referendum showed that it was difficult for a subculture to make cannabis use related to ordinary kiwis, he said.

“The Yes campaign insisted that 80% had tried cannabis. [those people] they were upset at being included in the group that thought cannabis should be legalized. There was no narrative. Most tried and decided that it is not something they want to use. “

The No campaign had been funded by “common kiwis,” he said.

“We have not needed to raise corporate or foreign funds.

“We didn’t like having to continually reject accusations that we were financed by the United States. It just wasn’t true. We don’t get a single penny. “

Make it Legal campaign spokeswoman Sandra Murray agreed that the battle had been on the proportions of David and Goliath, but they were David.

“Our entire team was made up of volunteers who had day jobs at the same time. We had very little money. “

Yes activists had also faced threats of violence, eviction, and 50 percent of their banners were torn off and destroyed.

The disinformation was particularly effective against the older generation who were already indoctrinated with the historic “war on drugs” propaganda that came out of the United States, he said.

Younger people tended to be more social media savvy and had been taught to be critical thinkers, so they were more supportive of the reform, he said.

For them, when they see something in print, they see it as the Bible. “

In addition to misinformation, there was a level of misunderstanding among the general public about the bill, he said.

“A lot of people thought the cannabis law was rushing in, but it was just the beginning of the process.”