UPDATED: This is what the Government calls “Control”. Do you?

By May 1, 2020 Recent News
The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • Research shows that adolescents access alcohol and tobacco primarily through friends and family, not from retailers. Why would cannabis be any different? Given the draft law allows cannabis growing for personal use, it is highly likely that legalisation will result in increased access through young people’s social networks, and through the gangs / black market operating outside their school gate.
  • By legalising the drug, young people will see drug use as normalised, their perceived risk of harm related to drug use will decrease, and their use will increase
The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • That’s anywhere from 30–40 joints you can buy, per person – per day!
The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • Once again, that’s 30–40 joints per person. And these limits will be virtually impossible to police. Do we stop and search every person?
The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • The problem with private homes being used as ‘grows’ is that dope dealers will simply stay under the radar with multi-location grows, and children will be exposed to drug cultivation – right in their backyard.
  • Products can be diverted to the black market
  • A dealer could grow up to 9 plants and the fine is between $500 and $1,000. But according to the police, one mature processed plant could be worth approximately $1,000 street value.  
  • Home grows are not subject to quality control, potency controls or labelling requirements.
  • Allowing plants at home will increase access for young people and even children.
  • The Police Association admit that the legal grow limits would be hard to police.

How many joints can be produced from indoor home grows

Obviously these numbers are very general because grow techniques vary, but conservatively one marijuana plant in a hydroponic indoor set-up could produce a harvest about every 110 days and from that harvest the grower would get between 198 grams and 311 grams of buds (Median 254.5grams) and also about 198 grams to 311 grams of leaf (Median 254.5grams) .  In NZ the buds are desired for smoking because they have the highest amount of THC and the leaf is also smoked.  However now in the U.S with legal states whether medicinal or recreational Leaf is now most commonly used by individuals to make concentrated THC by way of Butane Hash Oil (extremely high potency THC), which is also on a side note causing a lot of explosions and fires in the U.S.

Therefore annually one plant could be producing a median of 1,527 grams smokable product per annum.

We estimate that the mean weight of marijuana in a joint is 0.32 g (95% Bayesian posterior interval: 0.30–0.35).

So even if you were generous and said that .5 grams per joint then essentially one plant would yield as a Median 3,054 smoking joints per annum equivalent to 8.36 joints per day. 

NZ Legislation is proposing up to 4 plants can be home-grown 

4 plants the median would be 12,216 smoking joints per annum equivalent to 33.46 joints per day over the year of the psychoactive substance THC

The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • “Social sharing” is allowed as long as there is no ‘material benefit’ – but this is not defined, and how is this policed? This simply equates to “cash deals” and “under-the-table” dealing. And remember that up to 40 joints can be shared – per person – per day!
The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • Many of these products are targeted at young people. Every other overseas jurisdiction has been engulfed with edibles, either through the legal market (Colorado, California), or through the black market (Uruguay, Canada (now legal in Canada)). The market share of bud has fallen and the market share of THC-infused edibles and THC concentrates continues to rise.
  • Allowing edibles will encourage people to use cannabis who otherwise wouldn’t have – especially young people. Banning specific child-friendly edibles like gummi bears won’t make any difference. The industry will simply adjust their product.
  • Allowing edibles can lead people to consume too much. Because the effect may be delayed, it is harder to judge when to stop.
  • THC concentrate is mixed into almost any type of food or drink – not just gummi bears. The potency of edibles (several times that of an average joint) and their attractiveness to kids have led to serious problems in legalised states.
  • Because of legal home ‘grows’, the ability to make high-THC edibles and dabs – for example, butane hash oil – will occur and will be very difficult to police.
The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • SmokeFree 2025 – but a joint or edible in the home is fine – along with “social sharing” with other users.
  • This sets a terrible example to young people and children about drug use, and risks their welfare if parents and others are under the influence of drugs in the home
The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • These will be drug venues (cannabis coffee shops) including BYO cafes where cannabis consumption is normalised and effectively encouraged.
  • These venues allow cannabis, cannabis products and accessories
The Government proposes:


The problem:

15% IS 'STRICT'?

  • According to the legislation, THC levels (the psychoactive chemical in cannabis) are initially set at 15% THC for smoking. This is significantly higher than the Woodstock Weed of 2-4%.
  • When the potency is limited, this will simply empower the black market and the gangs who will provide high-THC products demanded by users
The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • A legalised market simply opens the door to a powerful industry focused on maximising profits, not health.
  • As we know from the past actions of the tobacco industry, any restrictions on the cannabis industry’s ability to advertise their product will either be flouted, lobbied against, or they will look for alternative ways to target their customer base.
  • Faced with limited advertising options, ‘Big Marijuana’ overseas are turning to cannabis ‘influencers’. Advertising agencies use ‘influencers’ with tens of thousands of followers to those with millions of followers in order to dodge regulations, and to market their products.
The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • There is no explanation of what those specifically are – and the cannabis industry (like the tobacco and alcohol industry) will be desperate to understate the harms. For example, there is no mention of using terms such as psychosis, depression, anxiety or addiction.
The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • The internet is notoriously difficult to police, and it won’t be difficult for consumers to find dealers with high potency products available for purchase who will flout any regulations.
The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • That means checking every home grow, every user for their age, testing all potencies, all licensed premises, management of associated waste products, offences and penalties for non-compliance – the list goes on. This means that the police will be just as busy – if not busier.
  • The Police Association are concerned that one of the proposed benefits is to free up police resources, but that is not likely to happen. And if the ‘legalisation and control’ was be to closely monitored, that would put more demand on the police.
  • Tax and pricing could also be a problem. If you can’t drive the price down, that is not going to get rid of the black market


The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • It’s this tiny device that’s quickly taking over cannabis consumption – and young people love it, especially because it’s so easy to hide, and produces little-to-no smell when consumed. You simply screw it into an inexpensive, rechargeable pen and inhale. One recent US study showed increased use by 14-18 year olds of newer forms of consumption – vaping and edibles.
  • The only concern expressed in the bill is primarily around emissions from vaping
The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • Local councils in consultation with their communities should be given the power to control the location of these drug retailers, and the power to ban them altogether, if so desired. This has been left to the Cannabis Regulatory Authority (s16)
The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • The rights of people to be safe on the road outweighs the privilege of smoking weed. If a person has THC in their system, we don’t want them on the road endangering other drivers and families. Roadside drug testing and the likelihood of increase in drivers driving stoned and causing fatalities on the road are being ignored. A Colorado survey in 2018 found 69% of marijuana users have driven under the influence in the past year, and 27% admitted to driving high almost daily. A New Zealand study found that habitual users of marijuana have about 10 times the risk of car crash injury or death compared to infrequent or non-users.
The Government proposes:


The problem:


In the US, marijuana legalisation has had serious ramifications for businesses. Increased marijuana availability and use has increased the number of employees testing positive for marijuana in the workforce. In NZ’s bill, there is no provisions relating to dealing with the added costs to the workforce in absenteeism, accidents, healthcare, additional workplace training and insurance premiums. Studies consistently show marijuana users have significantly lower levels of commitment to their work than non-users, and are absent more often.

The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • The US National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that 28% of women living in low-income areas tested positive for marijuana use during pregnancy. Up to 60% of these young women continue marijuana use throughout pregnancy due to a decreased perception of risk and stigma.
The Government proposes:


The problem:


  • ‘Prevention’ is used in the context of preventing harm from use (s21) or over-consumption (s202)
  • ‘Education’ is mentioned only in the context of addressing harmful cannabis use (s21), and to promote responsible use (s12)
  • ‘Drug-Free’ is missing

Join the discussion 100 Comments

  • beth says:

    I believe in all that you do too

  • Anthony Benson says:

    Great set of points, logically written and easy to understand.
    Why would anyone, in their right mind, want to put these chemicals into their system?
    It’s one thing to have freedom of choice, but when it impacts the innocent in society, the government has a responsibility to act.

  • Tony Palmer says:

    How does this proposed action fit with the aspiration to full employment, revitalisation of the manufacturing sector, improving educational outcomes, better outcomes for mental health, ending homelessness, safety while travelling, and safety in public spaces. Consider Tucker Carlson’s lament for the decline of his home town of San Francisco related to the liberalisation of cannabis and other drugs. What the government is proposing is a small nation absolutely awash with high potency cannabis, and they are offering to the next right wing government, in drug users, the perfect scapegoat for a multitude of social ills.

  • Thomas McCallum says:

    This Government is showing its true colors. They are trying to sneak all this into the system like they did with abortion debate. They are doing a good job on the Wuhan disease but no more than any other responsible Govt would be doing. We expect a high performance from our leadership no matter what party background. As for this weed proposition , it is just insanity. Here we are after decades of opposition against smoking , replacing it with something 10 times worse. Tobacco smoking driving never killed anyone but this will. There were very good reasons for making Cannabis illegal before now and those reasons are rock solid sensible and have not changed. We have enough problems in society now without adding another one. I dont think Bloomfield would approve of Cannabis. WE should listen to Doctors not left wing green pot heads in power at present

  • Thomas McCallum says:

    This Government is showing its true colors. They are trying to sneak all this into the system like they did with abortion debate. They are doing a good job on the Wuhan disease but no more than any other responsible Govt would be doing. We expect a high performance from our leadership no matter what party background. As for this weed proposition , it is just insanity. Here we are after decades of opposition against smoking , replacing it with something 10 times worse. Tobacco smoking driving never killed anyone but this will. There were very good reasons for making Cannabis illegal before now and those reasons are rock solid sensible and have not changed. We have enough problems in society now without adding another one. I dont think Bloomfield would approve of Cannabis. WE should listen to Doctors not left wing green pot heads in power at present

  • Roger Stratton says:

    Its a poison the country doesn’t need but no one seem to be asking what is the real agenda of Left Wing Governments?

  • Miss Anne Doherty says:

    Agree with the above. I’m apprehensive for the Healthsystem that it would be even more overburdened with the fallout.! Especially for the vulnerable, beneficiaries, it’s the gateway to drug oblivion too🥺

  • Thanks for highlighting the severe problem that could be hitting New Zealand if people do not wake up to the
    problems which could arise if this crazy legislation passes . It is quite unbelievable what is being offered in this Referendum. I so worry about our young people . ” I f something is legal then it must be alright . ” I believed this as a young person so who is to say that this could well be the thinking of today’s young . It will definitely be a NO from me .

  • Matt Cameron says:

    I hear young people’s research saying it is safe and does no harm… We need more messaging on psychosis, depression, anxiety or addiction that this drug causes

  • Ron Pengelly says:

    Has the Government, or Doctor Bloomfield, been invited to respond specifically to each of the above comments or queries? Any chance of a reply before September this year?

  • Anna Bartlett says:

    Thank you for your thorough investigation into the damage of legalizing the use of cannabis in our society will cause and the shortfalls of the government’s current proposed legisation.
    I will help spread the word.

  • shane walden says:

    Legalizing pot in my view is a violation of the H&S Act which we are all to abide by.
    This is a blatant neglect of the duty of care from the governments perspective and will increase work place accidents, people will either be on pot at work or numbed by its effects from the night before and commit actions that will either harm or kill fellow work mates or themselves.
    Possible solution every work place stipulates that workers need to be drug free and are drug tested if they are not drug free the the politicians pay out of their own pocks to rehab them.
    I have been at the bottom of the cleft helping people pick up their lives after they have being ravaged by drugs. Not a pretty sight and not for the faint hearted.

  • Anon says:

    I am very concerned about recreational cannabis for a lot of reasons; drug driving, holes in people’s brains with continued use, Psychosis/schizophrenia in some, respiratory problems for all, I am allergic to it, it gives me instant sickness, it is also a Xenoestrogen for women – smoking anything is. This causes all sorts of issues for women such as polyps which can be cancerous.

    If I catch a whiff of someone at the beach or a neighbour etc I get sick. Please do spread the word – everyone, we must stand up for what is right & not let such a terrible thing happen to our country. There should not even be a referendum about something wrong that harms innocent passive smokers & everybody in some way.

    I have not had children yet & it is hard enough at my age & circumstances, how am I supposed to do this if cannabis is legalised. Many/most are uneducated, & some selfish & foolish the potential suffering is huge & will rob people of a good future including me. Please stand up against this, we must each do something.

  • Gaylene says:

    What a sham! This is absurd that the government would even consider such a move. What a joke they are when they can run around like chooks with their heads cut off over the youth drinking culture and alcoholism and ‘what can we do about it’ then propose to bring in legislation like this. One has to wonder where their thinking is coming from. Suretly the experiment in Colorado and resultant statistics is enough to give one cause for concern. What we need is a government prepared to stand up for what is right!

  • Mike Power says:

    At a time when the government is pouring money into mental health – a growing problem apparently – some MPs want to add another growing problem – marijuana. It does not seem logical to an ordinary citizen like me. What do the clever people think?

  • Margaret Arthur says:

    How opportunistic and dishonest of the government to be working away at this proposed piece of timebomb legislation, while the rest of the country is consumed with being in lockdown, consumed with economic survival, with sticking to the rules and saving lives. How ironic to be a nation of people working together for the health of the nation, only to have the government – which is imposing the lockdown restrictions and playing god with the economic fallout – prioritise legislation which, if passed via the referendum, enables the distribution and consumption of a self-indulgent, destructive, health and judgment-impairing drug which can only lead to deaths, mental illness and a general moral decline in the users. So we now have it out in the open. We have been imprisoned by the government while they quietly work away at creating a monster that will surely destroy more lives in New Zealand than COVID19 ever could have.

  • Janice says:

    Thank you for such a detailed study of the proposals. One thing I haven’t seen mentioned much is the mixing of dope with alcohol or other substances. I have often heard people comparing dope with alcohol, but there won’t be a lessening of alcohol just because there is more marijuana. Both will be consumed together (and more). Has there been study on what the combined effects will be? Unlikely; because as study of combinations, just as in pharmaceuticals, is much harder than study of individual substances.

  • John says:

    I can’t see how this will benefit NZ with the workplace and driving issues not to mention mental health. It’s all very well to say they will increase support in these areas but as things are the government is having problems with staffing. I think it plays into the hands of drug users and distributors only

  • Jeanette & Gordon Ansell says:

    Having been Business Owners until retirement recently, the onerous requirements of the NZ Health and Safety legislation on Employers, combined with the possibility of the Referendum returning a Yes Vote is positively terrifying.
    We’d hate the prospect of negotiating ‘this’ minefield. How many potential Business Owners will decide against going into business when expected to carry the H&S responsibility with fines and worse in the offing, if an employee under the influence has an accident at work?
    Is the Govt going to gut the Act’s requirements on Employers when it comes to Employee cannabis use? Also, since it’s a fat soluble drug, it continues to affect the user far longer than water soluble alcohol.
    The drafters of this Legislation must have been under the influence themselves. Criminal!

  • Jeanette Ansell says:

    I totally agree with your points.

  • john says:

    I guess this is what you get with a Nanny government deciding what’s good or bad, ignoring the people they “represent! They are using taxpayer money promoting this idea. Who on earth are they surveying to determine 80% of New Zealanders smoke?! A cockeyed sampling. If you want a subdued, weak population then it’s a great idea.
    “Bread and Circus”

  • G Spooner says:

    Yes i agree with all the comments on this, people do not realize how serious this is it is also just opening the door once more to the ever growing drug scene, we still have a Nanny Government carrying on from the Clark error you cant do this, you cant do that, however we will ban smoking, and you cant smoke here or there, and now this what is it if it is not smoking you tell me as i must have missed something somewhere.
    What a pack of absolute Plonkers half the present Government appear to be spaced out even now , and it not legal the Greens who are spending so much time on saving the planet well they wont even know if it is raining or if the sun is out it wont matter to them. Just what is the World coming to this is so sad.
    However i do not have a problem with this being administered to people with severe and serious health issues as a medication to ease the problem through the correct channels.
    God Protect NZ

  • Keryn says:

    It’s difficult to comprehend how a government could push another addictive substance into society when we are spending so much money and time trying to stamp out nicotine – as it burdens our health system……I have seen the psychotic effects it has on people and it is really scary and a major mental health concern. Precious lives ruined.

  • Andrew Salter says:

    This bill, if passed will have a major detrimental effect on neighbourhoods. Imagine living next door to drug users and and drug sellers. We do and its not very nice. It has affected our health and potentially our property value. We have to put up with the stench of cannibis use and the continuous stream of undesirable people visiting this address daily to get their “stuff”. The police are unable or unwilling to take action so imagine how it will be under the proposed free for all use of this dangerous drug. Family First needs to emphasise the effects this law will have on neighbourhoods and how neighbours will have absolutely no say or control of the use of illicit drugs in their street. The neighbours mental and physical health, and their property values will be affected and the police will be stretched to keep control of an increase in anti social behaviour.

  • Mark Polglase says:

    Quite astounding. The proposed levels of 14 grams p/day for an individual is absolutely absurd. As a previously quite regular part time “social smoker” of weed, (haven’t had any for some years now) that amount would have lasted me 1-2 months.
    The proposed 14 grams is not “social” smoking by any stretch of the imagination and anybody smoking this amount would be in a virtual coma all day every day. It would be like raising the drink driving level from 250 to over 1000 and hoping for the best.
    I am not completely against cannabis and there are clearly studies where it has proven beneficial, however i have also seen the damage it can do, and the effects it does have on individuals. Not all are effected the same way and i know people that still function okay after a smoke but others i have seen it completely change their personalities and ultimately destroy their relationships with others, and their lives and careers.
    There is no way to regulate this safely and the whole concept of this bill is absurd with clearly NO consideration given to the overall NZ population when considering what they are proposing.
    Why is it that at times of crisis we don’t see bills being pushed through government that improve our society and it always seems to be the ones that will have a negative effect overall that become the priority?
    I can state from very personal experience that our Mental Health system is completely unable to deal with our issues in society around drug addictions and their methods literally rip families apart. My 23 yr old daughter was removed from my care while i was trying to help her recover from drug addiction of prescribed medications. (codeine etc) which was a problem that our own health system created.
    They (Mental Health services) came to my home, interviewed my daughter privately, and arranged for her to leave without consulting with me whatsoever as to what had been going on for the previous 10 years and refused to even talk with me or my wife about it.
    When i tried to get in touch with her the day she went into their care to see how she was, they told me it was none of my business and i wasn’t entitled to any information and they wouldn’t even tell me if she had arrived there or where she was. That was 2 years ago, haven’t seen her since although i received 1 txt msg on my birthday last December.
    She is now on P and other heavy drugs from what i have heard. As for mental health being able to help, well they lost control of her the day they arranged for her to leave my care and she never even made it to their facility. The guy involved (Paul *****) was a rude and arrogant prick (one of our highly trained specialists in this area of drug addiction) that had no idea of what he was dealing with. I consequently wrote to every head of department in our health system including the minister of health and the prime minister and the only reply i received was to be referred for group counselling for myself as this might help ME deal with the situation. Absolutely NO accountability to our so called professionals in this field.

    Now the government proposes that we legalise more harmful drugs at ridiculously high levels of it which can only make the overall impact on society even worse. They have completely lost control of the drug situation as it currently is in NZ, and they want to fix that by legalising one of the fundamental starting points of addicts? Absolutely pathetic!!

    Anybody who deems this bill to be a benefit to society has their head in the clouds (probably literally). There is absolutely NO benefit to this and the result will only be further social deterioration and increased harm to this country.

    The government is wanting to put out the “Fire” of our drug problem in this country by in effect pouring petrol on it. When will we as a nation learn???
    This is an absolute and categorical NO from me! As a nation we are not equipped to deal with the resulting issues that will arise and we have to make a stand for the benefit of all NZers.

  • Elizabeth Hanmore says:

    I ask? What is behind this move. There are enough studies and other countries information concerning the detrimental effect legalise cannibis has on the population, why then does our government not take notice? We are already seeing the effects of smoking dope. We have many counselling groups set up to offer help with the addictio
    costing the country money in many ways. I am appalled at the lack of integrity in our government – they are voted in to carry out the populations needs not their wants.
    To run a country for the benefit of all, we as a small country should not be trying to compete with the world, we have a unique opportunity to be different, to be clean and green to top the list of the most happiest people, not through drugs alcohol or any other addiction but through working, all of us for the good of all to make New Zealand God’s own country again.

  • Christopher J H Hill says:

    As usual, Family First are on point with their messaging around this important issue. Thank you Bob for all that you and the team do. I can’t help but wonder if we need a voice on the inside to advocate for these issues. Has there been enough water under the bridge since Mr. G.C. damaged the Christian brand in politics? A year ago I stood ready to support Alfred Ngaro. Unfortunately it is looking like a landslide for liberal views this year, but I would love to put some horsepower into the conservative view next term if the opportunity arises.

  • David & Elizabeth says:

    If the country says ‘NO’, would the government push it through regaurdless? Who will make them accountable for their action? Who are the lobbyists trying to make sure this bill is passed?
    This will not ‘free up’ the users; it will tie them up in a grotesque way of life. At what point does a drug user become ‘free from his/her addiction’ if the government continues to encourage their use by saying – ‘We have CONTROL over its use’?
    Of great concern is for the employers who want drug free employees. Consider the horticultural industry and those using heavy machinery. Is there any doubt as to why they look overseas for personnel?
    Will law suits be put against such employers for not accepting drug users on/in their workplace? So who wins?

  • Andrew Livingston says:

    Destructive and deadly legislation being pushed by an equally dangerous left wing socialist coalition government. The inmates are running the asylum. This proposal needs no discussion. It has absolutely no redeeming features. Just as alarming as the proposal itself, is the thought that someone in a position of considerable power has been funded by the tax payer to formulate such nonsense. It is, in fact a Trojan horse and worse will follow. It simply requires being kicked back into left field whence it came. One would have to be a complete imbecile or twisted or some combination of both to propose such illogical, harmful and callous legislation.

  • Rawiri Julian says:

    as a ex marajuana smoker of 14 years i spent alot of time and money smoking cannibas . i think this bill is rediculious and would do nathang good for nz . i was a addict of marajuana for 14 years and found it extremly difficult to give up it made me paranoid and gave me anxiety and depression . i hope that this bill doesnt get passed cause it wont be good for our younger society and the people of nz . i pray for nz please stand up and vote against this .

  • Me says:

    Unfortunately under this government namely Labour we have seen legalised
    gay marriage
    abortion on demand
    and now pushing for
    All of the above may have been supported in some way by the other parties have we heard a definite NO from any of them. Do we need to start a ‘Sick of it’ party.
    They seem hellbent on destroying the good healthy values in life by destroying the people themselves especially the family unit and the young.
    All comes down to greed the more ill people the more money in the pockets of the people who really run the world.

  • Leeanne Graham says:

    The argument always comes back to alchohol being available and so this being just another entitled recreational drug.
    It’s well known the effects of marijuana stay in the system much longer and make permanent changes in the brain chemistry.
    As if we don’t have enough mental health issues.
    It’s also well recognised the apathy marijuana use creates which just grows as the addiction grows.
    Depending on personal situations time on marijuana reaches a point where that user looks for something more to achieve escapism from whatever it is they feel they need to escape from to that incorrectly perceived ‘happier place’ devoid of any responsibilty.
    This bill is another that has been hijacked for political agenda – an apathetic population is less challenging as they hand over control of their lives without question.
    On the back of perhaps more effective medicinal assistance sought at heart wrenching times for extreme pain, seizures, painful dying days (this consideration understandable) – this hijacking by politicians is the worst kind of destruction.
    Just because we accepted unlimited alcohol use to be ongoing at a time of our brains still forming (i.e. from 18 years of age) and apparently accept the community destruction that decision invoked – doesn’t mean we should continue on that path accepting yet another proven most destructive ‘recreational drug’ ……. It’s really time to stop these politicians promoting and supporting the populace to disappear into a mindset of apathy and loss of control of their own lives ………..

  • beth says:

    let every one not no get addicted to alcohol, smoking, drugs it will make a better life style

  • Colin says:

    1.Firstly the proposed question to be included as a referendum (Do you support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill?) is somewhat ambiguous and would leave an impression in someones mind that the government is going ahead with it whether you like it or not – should rather be “Do you support the legalization of recreational cannabis – Yes/No”
    2.Secondly I heard that there could be a monetary spin-off of 1/2 Billion $. – So let’s call it what it is – “Drug Money” – this is State legalised Crime – but of course it wouldn’t be a crime then as it would be legalized.
    3.Thirdly – the money spend on trying to police this monster is going to be astronomic!
    4.Fourthly this will become a Nation of Potheads – Something we can all be proud of! tut tut!
    This government is weak on crime – they have no moral courage to put their foot down! They just bend like a reed!

  • Digby Gemmell says:

    I can not believe this government is willing to legalise this drug . originally it was only fpr medicinal use now it seems it is for the whole complete use of all this dangerous drug it is so stupid. Maybe the powers that be need to talk to the places where it has been legalized and see the problems they have encountered, dramatic rise in road accidents, the tax they thought they were going to get has not happened because the illegal market is still strong and supplying the stronger drug all the hop heads want, so I will be voting NO.

  • Michael Nolan says:

    Please be consistent with your arguments, you claim that 1 plant can produce $800-$1000 worth of bud, which is about 2.5 ounces or 70 grams, then you say one plant can produce between 198 grams and 311 grams of buds in one harvest, which is way off the previous amount. Also consider that most alcoholics aren’t going through a whole bottle of vodka by themselves in a day, so should they be limited to buying a third of a bottle instead? Are most tobacco smokers going through a whole pouch or pack a a day? No they aren’t, so should they only be limited to daily amounts as well? No one wants to have to make a trip to the dispensary/liquor store/corner store or supermarket everyday just for weed/alcohol/ciggies, so that’s why you can buy so much of each. Additionally, the joints in your first picture are substantially more than 0.32 grams as you claim the average one is, they look to be 3-4 times as much as that, using the papers for scale. The amount of misinformation around this is insane, you just have to look to other comments on this page to find someone claiming that long term use ‘puts holes in your brain’. This is ridiculous, has no medical basis, and is just serving as extra propaganda against a plant that at this point, should be legal. I hope this comment doesn’t get censored, because if that’s the case then it’ll be even more clear that no actual discussion is supported here, just an argument stating false and inconsistent points, with no rebuttals allowed.

  • L Fleming says:

    Your readers are misinformed, some badly. Sensible people research both sides of the argument, hence my reason for being here. We have a chance to make an informed decision. Do the research. You might be surprised. Ps it seems like some of the feedback and financing is coming from U.S anti cannabis lobby. This is unacceptable. NZ doesn’t need foreign interference in our referendum. A no vote is a green light for gangs to continue selling cannabis, and making massive profits. It’s not going away. We need to legislate and regulate.

  • Nate says:

    Say nope to dope is the stupid. Fill our prisons and wasting police resources on a plant that has many medical benefits. You would rather you loved ones are doped up on opiates before they die leaving them in a state of confusion, distress and cravings/ withdrawals. Cbd has many medical applications and you small minded people obviously have done no research of your own or even read the preposed bill for yourself if you believe this american propoganda. No1 has ever died in nz due to marijuana use alone. No1 in NZ has ever been seriously injured or killed in nz by a stoned driver.
    Family violence um ok think you read about methamphetamine not dope. All the so called facts on this page are lies. The creators of this page are national supporters who wish to continue the monopoly I’m which thier rich mate who own the CBD and medical cannabis industry’s that are already in new Zealand. National to make the poor poorer.

  • Bmf says:

    Show me the stats of someone thats high on weed crash or die alcohol is way worse than driving on weed im a smoker and it dosn’t affect my family in anyway shape or form chur

  • Anonymous says:

    think it should be legal a lot off weed these days is laced with p to get people hooked on p to make more profit witch leads to bigger problems. if weed where legalized it would prevent a lot of that happening. its a lot safer than alcohol people dont get violent on it less domestic problems and driving on it is a lot safer than alcohol.

  • slaaty bardfast says:

    This site has a clear anti-cannabis agenda, which fits with its ultra-orthodox right-wing conservative Christian values. Sadly research the facts doesn’t. The actual peer-reviewed science tells quite a different story but that clearly doesn’t fit neatly with the narrative pushed on this site.

    So in short, while this and the other stories look and read nicely, they are a mix of ill-informed and frequently incorrect opinion. The science tells another far different story.

  • ffokcuf says:

    I have to admire your scare tactic posts. These are misleading and actually factually incorrect. I have notified the advertising standards authority who will be in touch shortly to issue a cease and desist order.

  • chloroquine tablet https://chloroquineorigin.com/# lupus wikipedia english

  • Cettounse says:

    http://buysildenshop.com/ – viagra legal

  • PatrickCet says:

    cialis alternative generic cialis

  • Clienty says:

    http://buytadalafshop.com/ – tadalafil generic vs cialis

  • chloroquine otc canada chloroquine pills hydroxychloroquine sulfate tabs 200mg

  • is plaquenil an immunosuppressant ama hydroxychloroquine define chloro

  • PatrickCet says:

    cialis online generic cialis

  • Lypeemism says:

    https://buystromectolon.com/ – stromectol cost

  • Autobre says:

    https://buypropeciaon.com/ – propecia the crack ho

  • Cialis says:

    Pyridium Prodium Cleveland

  • biden hydroxychloroquine hydroxychloroquine for covid 19 plaquenil drug class

  • Propecia says:

    Acheter Levitra En Fr

  • z pack mg dosage is zithromax a strong antibiotic is zithromax an antibiotic

  • aralen chloroquine plaquenil pill hydroxycloquin

  • Tonjurl says:

    http://buylasixshop.com/ – lasix pay online american express

  • side effects for hydroxychloroquine what is plaquenil what is hydroxychlor used for

  • Priligy says:

    viagra informacion

  • anaxems says:

    https://buypriligyhop.com/ – walmart priligy

  • buying accutane online uk safe

  • Консультация психолога онлайн.
    Профессиональные психологи Заказать консультацию психолога.
    Цены на услуги и консультации психолога.
    Психолог в Харькове, консультация.
    Профессиональные психологи.
    Консультация у психолога. Онлайн-консультация у психолога.

Leave a Reply