He seemed to be missing the logic that anti-smoking campaigns only work because smoking is legal
An excellent point. In my defence, there were a lot of claims that needed addressing in 11 minutes.
I think that’s a really important part of this – we really need a system that allows for change as we figure out what works well in NZ and what doesn’t. Too often we establish a law and then leave no ability to modify it as we learn.
I agree strongly with this. I'd be happy enough with a fairly conservative change to allow us to see what happens – and with the potential for further reform clearly signalled.
This, to an extent, is what's happened in other jurisdictions. Colorado authorities realised they had a problem with the way edibles had hit the market, and the Canadian government has been frank about wanting to monitor the initial reforms before allowing commercial edibles, concentrates and vapes. (The vape ban does seem ill-advised and wouldn't make sense under NZ Smokefree regulations.)
It would have been odd for the question to seek repeal. The question for the referendum and proceess for holding it started well before the law was passed.
Fair enough, I did puzzle over how to phrase it. Would "didn't seek a specific legislative outcome" be closer?
Interestingly the Uruguay model, a country whose population and primary products based economy is very similar to NZ, does not get discussed. Since its implementation, it wiped out the black market, by offering lower prices and standardization in quality.
Good point. Although there are a few differences between there and here. Quality was much more of an issue in Uruguay as I understand it, with a lot of bad, adulterated weed coming in from Paraguay. The government was also the monopoly producer and supplier of hard liquor for most of last century, so there was a precedent for a state weed monopoly.
I'm waiting to see who will be driving the design of the referendum, how the parties in parliament will collaborate on that design (or not), how public input will be called for, etc.
Heh. You're not the only one waiting for that :-)
Chris Bourke’s tribute is pitch perfect – what a terrific writer he is.
Yeah, I made a point today of emailing Chris to tell him how good it was.
Cheers Robert. Curse of the freelancer – going from no jobs to all the jobs at once. I managed to find a clear afternoon!
A typically thoughtful editorial on the matter by Philip Matthews.
A very good, thorough story on the Trump drug flim-flam by Samuel Oakford at The Intercept.
Confirms to me I got it right in that RNZ column yesterday.
Interesting note from Ross Bell on Twitter:
US diplomats in Vienna overnight had already begun to walk back on the statement, acknowledging it's not a formal UN document and that the US will continue to focus on #UNGASS2016 and 2009 Political Statements
So the whole thing is just classic Trump bullshit.
Peter Dunne has a big old vent on The Spinoff, which underlines what I wrote: it's not Labour diverting from New Zealand's established stance on global drug policy, it's National.