Thread by @publicaddress

1. Some observations on the current kvetching about the prospects for a "Yes" vote in the cannabis referendum. The first is that the most consistent factor in voting intentions, in poll after poll, is political partisanship.

2. There are current National MPs who support cannabis reform, but they are forbidden to to say so and must now pretend their private vote will be in line with that order. National Party voters have got the message that this is not their bill.

3. But that's clearly not all of it, because even on this weekend's disappointing TVNZ poll, legalising and regulating cannabis is still more popular with the voting public than the National Party is.

4. So would Jacinda Ardern publicly declaring for "Yes" the way several of her senior ministers (Robertson, Little, Clark, Twyford) have help? Yes. Research for the successful US state initiatives found that what people wanted above all else was reassurance and she is reassuring.

5. She doesn't have to campaign on it, but she can truthfully say that the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill is a thoughtful and careful work of legislation that builds on what other jurisdictions have learned.

6. The evidence for legalisation and control of cannabis is very much that world doesn't end. Overall use rises a little, the black market shrinks and use by those we know are most at risk – teenagers – declines, sometimes by a *lot*. Age restrictions work.

7. But it's not all about evidence and reason. If it was, people wouldn't be freaking about a purchase limit that's half what it is in other places. The "No" campaign has done a good job of making this a culture war. Culture wars are about the marshalling of fear.

8. Most voters aren't going to look too hard at who's running the "No" vote, but if they did, they'd find it was driven by religious conservatives who reflect the views of few of us. They'd also find two Scientology front organisations in the thick of it.

9. One irony is that the campaigning has absolutely shifted the dial on the part of our current cannabis regime that's hardest to defend: criminalisation. I regularly have discussions here with people who aver that they'd be fine with decriminalisation.

10. That's nice. But decriminalisation doesn't get you the results that regulation does. It reserves production, distribution and sales for those prepared to be criminals. No age limits, no product controls, no separation from the sale of other substances.

11. Moreover, decriminalisation doesn't seem to reduce youth use. Canada is a useful example here: up until legalisation nearly two years ago, youth use was *rising* under a permissive de facto decriminalisation regime. That rise reversed with legalisation.

12. The objection is often that legalisation would confer approval of cannabis. I think it comes down to opposing understandings of what the purpose of the law is in this case. To reduce harm and get the best public outcome? Or to deliver a moral signal?

13. The case for more sensible, humane and effective cannabis law isn't lost, but it comes down to persuading the persuadables. That shapes the "Yes" campaigning. (Just quietly, in that group human rights imperatives and the disproportionate impact on Māori don't research well.)

14. If the vote is lost, cannabis doesn't go away: it's still very much part of our culture. And the illegal cannabis market doesn't stand still – indeed, it's becoming more sophisticated and the products are getting stronger. Ignoring it won't change anything at all.

15. So if you want sensible reform, you might have to make this *your* campaign too. Talk to people, bat down the easy stuff, go look at all the information we've put on the We Do website and use it. Thanks. wedosupport.nz