Cannabis debate
-
@JC election night is a preliminary count so that NZ and the politicians can start planning and preparing based on those results, so only the election votes are counted. Over the weeks following, all the specials are checked for legality, and everything is then recounted.
The referendum is less important since it doesn't have a legal time frame to return the writs which is the legal foundation for MPs forming Parliament and subsequently the government.
It takes longer afterwards because there are a lot less staff than on election day.
-
@Godder said in Cannabis debate:
It takes longer afterwards because there are a lot less staff than on election day.
That job ...would be like being a cricket umpire without any decisions. Just counting to 6 (or 10), over and over and over again.
-
@nzzp said in Cannabis debate:
@Godder said in Cannabis debate:
It takes longer afterwards because there are a lot less staff than on election day.
That job ...would be like being a cricket umpire without any decisions. Just counting to 6 (or 10), over and over and over again.
Piles of 10 when I did it, and then someone else checking. The main decisions are what constitutes a valid vote.
-
@Godder So close, a real opportunity lost there. Can the Govt take the result that half the population are for it and let science and experts make the call going forward?
I can only assume if you did this 20 years ago it would have been 20% for, and likely in 5-10 years you will have more than 60% for. How long do Govt have to wait before they can make a call on this or is it out of bounds for a certain period?
-
@chimoaus scientists have no skin in the game. I love science, and think it's awesome, but that doesn't make them decision makers. Ultimately the shitty,ill educated masses have to decide what they want in their communities.
Gareth Morgan is an example of why science isn't always the answer. If you care about native birds, killing all cats makes sense. However, A LOT of people line their cats... How do you reconcile that?
So, yes to science, but yes to people making decisions who have accountability on tough decisions
-
@chimoaus said in Cannabis debate:
@nzzp Yeah fair call, how do you make an informed educated decision, or do you simply have to wait for public opinion to change as it likely will?
I voted yes, but if the majority aren’t ready for legalisation that’s fine.
Personally, I don’t think this should be a referendum at all. We elect politicians to make decisions, even unpopular ones. We did it with prostitution and that turned out well.
-
@Kirwan said in Cannabis debate:
@chimoaus said in Cannabis debate:
@nzzp Yeah fair call, how do you make an informed educated decision, or do you simply have to wait for public opinion to change as it likely will?
I voted yes, but if the majority aren’t ready for legalisation that’s fine.
Personally, I don’t think this should be a referendum at all. We elect politicians to make decisions, even unpopular ones. We did it with prostitution and that turned out well.
good call fella. I was a 'yes' voter, but not at all pro cannabis. It's just less harm.
... and now I agree with the Greens on something. Love 2020 eh
-
On anything apart from National Sovereignty issues and voting reform, I tend to think Referendums are an expensive waste of time.
In Representative Democracies, politicians should be prepared to make tough, not always popular, decisions and then be accountable to the electorate for them.
-
@sparky said in Cannabis debate:
In Representative Democracies, politicians should be prepared to make tough, not always popular, decisions and then be accountable to the electorate for them.
I agree in principle, but that's not how it works in reality. Voters punish you. FFS, he prime minister wouldn't tell us the way she voted until afterwards. Leadership? Hmmmm. Reasonable and rational response- absolutely.
-
I personally feel there wasnt enough information put out there for the regulation side of things, drug driving etc.
People shouldnt have to go looking for the information, because they wont.
Saw an interview on TV earlier and a dude was saying that it will likely come out it was the over 60s that voted no, yet they are the demographic of people whose use increased in countries where they decriminalised it
-
@Kirwan said in Cannabis debate:
@chimoaus said in Cannabis debate:
@nzzp Yeah fair call, how do you make an informed educated decision, or do you simply have to wait for public opinion to change as it likely will?
I voted yes, but if the majority aren’t ready for legalisation that’s fine.
Personally, I don’t think this should be a referendum at all. We elect politicians to make decisions, even unpopular ones. We did it with prostitution and that turned out well.
Absolutely this! I made the same point to some mates today. As if the Gov would ask the public opinion on a change to alcohol regulation. This isn't a moral argument. Just do your job.
-
@voodoo yeah I think sometimes they need to make the decisions, they are elected to do what is in the best interest of the country, they will have access to all the science, all sorts of other data that Joe public doesnt, they will debate it to a much higher level than Johnny up the road.
Did they do a referendum when they reduced the drinking age to 18 or when they increased the licence age to 16?
-
I want to grow hemp. Such an amazing plant - can make textiles, rope, food, biofuel, and so much more. It probably comes with a set of steak knives. It is good for the soil, can grow in, and break up clay, grows incedibly quickly and will get rid of kikuyu. Actually weeds won't grow with it.
It has basically no THC but because it is related to cannabis it is difficult to get seed or plants. They also have to be tested for THC levels. It is very frustrating.
-
As the old line goes, if you're explaining, you're losing. The argument in favour of the No vote was an easy moral argument of Cannabis bad, vote No. The argument in favour of the Yes vote was nuanced because it wasn't as easy as Cannabis good, vote Yes, which meant explaining, which meant losing.
-
I voted yes because I think if we can sort out laws and regulations, safe consumption, safe driving, appropriate sale and purchase etc etc for alcohol, punish those who go overboard or cause harm, while letting people who like a wee tipple in the privacy of their home have at it, then we can do the same for cannabis.
The morality police doom and gloomers piss me off, because they are the same bloody people who squawked that the sky would fall if we had legal prostitution or gay marriage. It never fucking falls. We just end up having better protections for a vulnerable group, and nobody else's life changes one bit.
-
@Mokey said in Cannabis debate:
legal prostitution or gay marriage
We didn't have referenda on those did we?
The people that we trusted with our vote made the decision on those I think, and they voted accordingly in the house of power? Perhaps they should have this time too but the people have spoken.