Thread by @SteveTransform

THREAD
the Draft Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill for New Zealand's upcoming referendum has been published here today: referendum.govt.nz/cannabis/index…

It's only a draft, and still has lots of sections in progress but a few initial thoughts (not on everything - its 65 pages)
1/

There's actually a shorter (16 page) summary version of the draft policy positions here for those with better things to do (but misses some possibly important details):

referendum.govt.nz/materials/Summ…
2/

Mostly its pretty sensible, & unsurprising given what we already knew.

Its similar to the Canadian model in most respects, trying to balance various often competing interests interests of public health (esp vulnerable groups), police, business, users, & political necessity
3/

There's some very welcome elements, and a few very obviously dumb bits (file under political necessity).

Hopefully some of the latter can get ironed out before its voted on.
4/

The statement of purpose framing in health and harm reduction terms is wise and appropriate - even if predictably politically framed (in ways that will probably annoy cannabis activists but needn't - they'll be important to get the referendum over the line with others)
5/

The early acknowledgement that 'Maori interests are to be considered throughout the legal regime' is important & 'prioritising social equity outcomes through decisions on market allocation and authorisation requirements' in part 4 is a welcome evolution from Canada
6/

The detail on the equity provision are still being thrashed out so opportunity for advocates to weigh in and make sure they are all they can be.
7/

Expungment not present (yet) but may (apparently) be included is separate clean slate law.

This would be a shame - New Zealand have a great opportunity in primary legislation to show how it should be done right, for all others that follow (and where Canada messed up)
8/

Good to see home growing provisions but less good to see a two plant limit (or 4 plant household limit). Seems churlishly low (esp for med users) & asking for trouble, but the tiered fines (lower for under 10 plants) suggests the lower limit is political posturing?
9/

personal possession limit of 14g (& daily purchase limit of 14g) - reasonable in one sense, but not sure why there needs to be a limit at all (there isn't for alcohol or tobacco) - so ultimately a bit pointless and inconsistent. Cant see this one being too vigorously enforced
10/

No cosumption in public spaces: fine for smoking indoors, but over restrictive for outdoors/parks. certainly shouldn't be more restrictive than tobacco smoking ordinances.
11/

all the institutional stuff - regulatory agency (if you get the right people running it), advisory group (if you get the right people on it), and tax (if its enforced properly) all look basically fine, pending detail....
12/

No supplying under 20s
This is too high IMHO. In the US a 21 limit at least matches the drinking age. In NZ drinking age is 18 - so youre preferencing booze from 18-20 > bad health & CJS outcomes likely

(see also Quebec's recent idiot move to raise cannabis age access to 21)
13/

Maybe more seriously - the penalty for supplying under 20s is up to 4yrs prison & a $150,000 dollar fine
This is classic political posturing - & utter BS from any reasoned perspective
For alcohol its a max $2000 fine (with all manner of exemptions) legislation.govt.nz/act/public/201…
14/

There's no reason why supplying a minor with cannabis should incur a fine 75 times higher than alcohol, AND a prison sentence.

This is political tough on drug posturing at its absolute worst (Canada did something similar - its just so lame & infuriating)
15/

Recall that the opening purpose statement of the draft bill includes:

"ensuring that responses to contraventions of the Act are proportionate, encourage compliance, and incorporate a focus on reducing overall
harms"

Hmmm. 4yrs + $150 fine for passing a joint to a 19yr old?
16/

.... (Have to pop out - will finish this shortly) ....