[ad_1]
One of the key arguments of the legalization campaign and one Swarbrick reiterated about the program was that it will be easier to regulate cannabis if it is legal.
Like we regulate alcohol.
Except we don’t regulate alcohol very well. You’re not supposed to drink and drive, but people are.
You are not supposed to buy alcohol if you are under 18, but my daughter and her friends used to buy alcohol in their school uniforms, 15 years old, at our local bottle shop.
They would buy pre-mixed alcohol intended for young drinkers.
You are not supposed to serve someone in a bar who is drunk, but who has ever been denied a drink for being drunk? I do not have
You can buy enough alcohol to commit suicide at any liquor store. There is no warning to an unsuspecting and naive teenager that if they drink the entire bottle of vodka they just bought, they will probably die.
Our health service deals with a variety of alcohol-induced injuries, from drunken stupidity to overdose and driving under the influence of alcohol.
I’m not convinced that we can regulate cannabis properly when clearly we can’t regulate alcohol, despite thinking that we can.
I don’t smoke drugs, I don’t like it, it leaves me in a comatose state that I don’t really enjoy. I know a lot of people who do, and I didn’t believe the offer argument Swarbrick alluded to again in The Nation.
Not everyone who buys drugs gets it from an unreliable dealer in a small house who will try to lead them to something more difficult. That happens, I have no doubt, but the people I know who smoke it get it from someone who is as white, middle class as they are.
Should they be able to smoke drugs without worrying about prosecution if caught? Probably, but not because they are concerned that they will move on to something more difficult, it just isn’t going to happen.
Swarbrick said on Newshub Nation that cannabis was still here. The negative vote had not eliminated cannabis.
“Sorry guys, cannabis still exists,” he said, addressing himself directly to the camera.
“Well done. It still exists.”
However, no attempt was made to eliminate cannabis. No one who voted against it thought it would disappear. They just weren’t sure that legalizing something that was illegal was the answer.
They say that the voter is never wrong and that perhaps Swarbrick should have a little more respect for the negative vote.
I have lost friends to cannabis, a friend of mine has smoked it since he was 14 and is permanently high now in his 50s.
He has never had a job or relationship and used to borrow money often. Watching him spend his life in a drug fog has been sad.
What support will there be in New Zealand if we legalize the drug for other people who become addicted?
Personally, I don’t think we should have had a referendum to legalize cannabis. We pay politicians to make tough decisions.
I think the referendums are a way out. Stick to a mandate, tell people that if they elect you you will legalize cannabis and then if you are, do it.
There were too many emotional arguments and too much misinformation for people to vote. My older neighbor told me that she was not voting to legalize marijuana because she did not want to pass the people who smoked it on the street when she took her dog out. I told him it would still be illegal.
As Swarbrick said, the referendum has opened a conversation about drugs and that is a good thing. And I hope that the debate on the legalization of cannabis does not disappear. The arguments for legalizing cannabis could surely apply to a variety of other drugs.
If we are going to legalize cannabis and the arguments are strong, voters would like to know what is going to be put in place to regulate the market.
What will prevent underage children from buying marijuana as easily as alcohol?
What support will there be for people who become addicted?
Maybe if those questions are answered, next time I could step out of line.
Mark Longley is the editor-in-chief of Newshub digital.
