The legalisation of large-scale adult non-medical recreational cannabis use and supply in 15 U.S. States, Canada and Uruguay has reignited the international debate about the best policy approach to cannabis , 2020; Kilmer, 2019. Citizen initiated referenda have been the primary mechanism by which medicinal and recreational cannabis use has been legalised in U.S states over recent decades . Given the politically divisive nature of the cannabis law reform debate, politicians in other jurisdictions may well choose to resolve the issue via referendum in the future, allowing citizens to directly state their preferences and thereby legitimise any policy change .In New Zealand, the Green political party made holding a national referendum on the legal status on recreational cannabis use a condition of their support for the 2017 Labour and New Zealand First coalition government . The resulting 2020 New Zealand cannabis referendum was a world first in the sense that it was a national vote, as opposed to the previous U.S. state referenda, and involved voting on a detailed legislative bill , rather than a general question on whether cannabis should be legal or not . The New Zealand cannabis referendum was narrowly defeated, with 48.4% voting to support compared to 50.7% voting to oppose the CLCB . Along with the notable successes, referenda to legalise non-medical recreational cannabis use and supply have also periodically failed in some U.S. states . The narrow defeat of the New Zealand referendum raises important questions about what factors were responsible for the lack of voter support for the CLCB and cannabis legalization in general. Understanding these factors could inform future advocacy and referendum campaigns for cannabis legalisation in other jurisdictions. The existing literature has identified three main determinants of voting behaviour: self-interest , moral values , and political party identification. Self-interest would predict that users of recreational and medicinal cannabis should support legalisation to remove the risk of arrest to themselves and to reduce social stigma related to their cannabis use.
If voting is influenced by moral values, those who view cannabis use as morally wrong should be more likely vote against legalisation, as should those who believe cannabis consumption to be a significant health risk and social harm. If, after controlling for a range of demographic, behavioural and attitude factors, political party affiliation remains a significant predictor of voting intentions related to cannabis legalisation, then this would suggest that similarity in voting amongst members of a party is not only related to shared views of the world, but also by the social identity generated by association with a particular political group .In the United States, national support for cannabis grow racks legalisation has grown steadily over recent decades, from only 12% in 1969 to 64% in 2017 . Poll support for cannabis legalisation in the U.S. is higher amongst men, younger age cohorts, those who have ever tried cannabis, and left leaning voters . Multivariate modelling has found the strongest predictors of support for cannabis legalisation amongst 18–34 year olds in the U.S. are perceptions that cannabis is less harmful than cigarettes and having used cannabis in the past month . Male gender remains a significant predictor of support for cannabis legalisation amongst this age group, while age, ethnicity, education, and current social smoking were no longer significant after controlling for other variables . Multivariate analysis of state-wide data from Michigan found left of centre or centrist political views, past year cannabis use, and lifetime cannabis use were all predictors of supporting cannabis legalisation . Alternatively, older respondents, women, and those who perceived cannabis use to be risky were found less likely to support legalisation . Multivariate analysis of U.S. national data found women with greater religiosity less likely to support cannabis legalisation after controlling for a range of variables, suggesting cannabis law reform has an important moral dimension . Schnabel and Sevell come to a similar conclusion from analysing U.S. national poll data from 1988 to 2014, arguing that increasing support for both cannabis legalisation and same sex marriage over recent decades reflflects the growing acceptance of these issues as matters of individual autonomy rather than matters for government control.
In New Zealand, public polling on cannabis law reform has been conducted on a fairly regular basis for the past two decades, with as many as 45 polls conducted on the issue since the beginning of the Millennium . These polls have generally found very high levels of support for medicinal cannabis reform, with around two thirds of respondents supporting some kind of decriminalisation involving civil fines, and only a minority supporting full legalisation of recreational use . Since 2018, public polling has focused more specifically on the question of support for the legalisation of recreational cannabis use, reflecting the coalition government’s announcement of the referendum on the issue. Thirteen polls were conducted in the year of the referendum vote, of which seven found a majority in favour of legalisation, five a majority against, and one reported an even result . A poll of Māori in the same year found 75% in favour of legalisation . Basic cross tabulations of New Zealand poll results have found higher support for cannabis legalisation amongst men, younger age cohorts, Māori, and Green Party and Labour Party voters, and alternatively, lower support amongst National voters and those aged over 65 years . The only published multivariate modelling of poll support for cannabis legalisation in New Zealand to date found significant predictors of positive support for cannabis law reform were prior experience of using cannabis and other illegal drugs, a history of depression, scoring higher on a novelty-seeking measure, Māori ethnicity, parental drug use, and higher educational achievement . Predictors of more negative attitudes to reform amongst this longitudinal sample were female gender and having dependent children . As acknowledged by the authors, the sample was limited to a single birth cohort of 40-year olds, interviewing was completed prior to the announcement of the cannabis referendum, and the reforms presented to respondents referred to a range of possible liberalisation initiatives, including legalising medicinal cannabis, decriminalisation, permitting home growing, age restrictions and full commercial legalisation . The New Zealand cannabis legalisation referendum proposed a strictly regulated legal cannabis market that most closely resembled the Canadian approach to cannabis legalisation . The CLCB would restrict the purchase and use of cannabis to those aged 20 years or older ; a daily purchase and possession limit of 14 gs; sales from licensed physical stores only ; separate licensed consumption premises; no advertising or promotion; a personal home cultivation limit of two plants ; social sharing of up to 14 g of cannabis; no industry sponsorship or free giveaways; limits on the potency of products ; an excise tax based on the THC potency and weight of products; mandatory inclusion of health warnings on products and displayed at licensed premises; and no public consumption or sale with alcohol, tobacco, food or any other product . Due to conflicting views on cannabis law reform from within the coalition government partners, it was agreed the government would only run what was termed a “signposting” campaign directing voters to the referendum website where neutral information would be available, rather than actively campaigning for the passage of the CLCB .
The referendum site included short bullet point summaries and a complete version of the CLCB . A brochure on the referendum directing voters to the referendum website was also posted to all enroled voters . The coalition government purposively left advocacy concerning the relative merits of the CLCB and wider legalisation to interest groups and the media . In the months preceding the referendum vote, proand anti-legalisation interests funded substantial traditional and social media advocacy campaigns, and there was also considerable media coverage of the issue and a series of town hall style public debates . While a number of public polls were conducted to track voter support for the CLCB in the months preceding the referendum, there has been no analysis of what underlying factors explained voter support or opposition to the CLCB.Our models found that age, ethnicity, education, religiosity and even cannabis use experience were no longer statistically significant predictors of support for the CLCB once we controlled for perceptions of the health risk of cannabis use, experience with and support for medicinal cannabis use, moral views of cannabis use, and actual reading of the CLCB. This suggests support for recreational cannabis legalisation in New Zealand is not based on broad demographic characteristics, but rather specific views about the moral acceptability, health risk and medicinal benefits of cannabis use, and deep-rooted ideological perspectives. Elder and Greene found that religiosity played an important role in women’s opposition to cannabis legalisation after controlling for a range of variables, suggesting that cannabis legalisation has a prominent moral dimension for some people, similar to issues such as access to pornography and abortion. Elder and Greene included measures of religious commitment in their models, that is frequency of religious attendance and describing oneself as “born again” Christian. Our measure of religiosity covered a broad range of spiritual and religious beliefs, some of which may not hold as strong anti-drug prescriptions as evangelical Christians in the U.S. In addition, our religiosity variable was a simple yes/no response, and thus may not have captured the intensity of religious belief as Elder and Greene‘s measures.Experience of the medicinal benefits of cannabis has also been found to be one of the leading reasons for supporting recreational cannabis legalisation in the U.S. .
A recent survey of medicinal cannabis grow system users in New Zealand found the overwhelming majority reported positive therapeutic benefits from their cannabis use , and this positive experience is likely to mean this group has fewer qualms about supporting recreational cannabis legalisation. During the referendum, opponents of the CLCB strongly objected to a pro-campaign promotion that referred to the CLCB as a means to obtain greater access to cannabis for medicinal purposes, pointing out that medicinal use had already been recently legalised in New Zealand [via the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2019. In contrast, pro-legalisation campaigners argued there is significant overlap between recreational and medicinal use, and that the current New Zealand medicinal regime is too strict to facilitate all forms of cannabis use for medical and well being. In addition, implementation of the New Zealand Medicinal Cannabis Scheme has been slow with no products approved under the scheme to date . Kilmer and MacCoun have argued that in the U.S. the legalisation of medicinal cannabis facilitated the subsequent passage of recreational law reform in a number of ways, but it takes time and exposure to the new legal medical market before public perceptions and other forces improve conditions for recreational law reform. Another strong predictor of supporting the CLCB was the intention to vote for the Green political party. This is understandable given the central role the Green Party played in negotiating for the referendum to be held, and their long history of advocacy for cannabis law reform in New Zealand, including the pioneering Rastafarian Green MP Nandor Tanczos, and prominent role of Green MP Chloe Swarbrick in the pro-referendum campaign for the CLCB. As outlined earlier, support for cannabis legalisation in the U.S. has also been found to be consistently higher amongst left and centre left voters . The strong support for the CLCB amongst those who live in small towns is more difficult to interpret. Large-scale outdoor illegal cannabis cultivation has been common in some rural regions of New Zealand for decades, and this activity has been associated with gang activity, arson, property vandalism and exclusion zones where residents are afraid to visit for fear of growers and improvised security devices . Those living in small towns may view legalisation as a means to resolve these problems through permitting legal regulated cannabis cultivation. Illegal cannabis cultivation has also been identified as a critical source of seasonal income in some economically depressed rural regions in New Zealand, generating hundreds of millions of dollars per year , and legalisation may be viewed as a means to transition this illegal activity to legitimate economic development.