Talk:2020 New Zealand cannabis referendum

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cannabis Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles New Zealand: Politics Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Cannabis' "420 Collaboration" in 2019.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in New Zealand may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

While this is more than likely going to happen, isn't the existence of this article a little premature? As far as I'm aware, the referendum is not set in stone, and it's possible (though unlikely) that it might not happen for any number of reasons (coalition collapses, government u-turns on their promises). On the other hand, it's unclear to me why users of medicinal cannabis having to pay personal costs for Sativex is in the legality section --- is that a legal matter? Craigthelinguist (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The mere announcement proposing the referendum seems to have received worldwide coverage, so I think that alone makes the mere proposal notable. Whatever happens from now on will be a current and ongoing political and media event, if nothing else. Hence, adding a Current tag to the article. I suspect the comment about Sativex is a way to say that legally available medicinal cannabis also costs money and, since it is a monopoly supply, the price is high due to a lack of competition; simply conventional economics. - 210.86.78.126 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a bit brutal in keeping only the current situation, but frankly all the previous speculation is now moot; and the drama around National leaking the paper etc. isn't really relevant to the issue. - Snori (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for zapping content, but again, trying to boil down the actual situation - not the day to day comments of those involved. Linking to the actual cabinet paper rather than leaked one - and highlighting the reasoning behind the 20 age limit, even though 25 might in theory be better. - Snori (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text says that 50.7% of voters opposed legalization and 48.4% supported. The info box says 51.17 opposed and 48.83 supported. I can't see how to correct the info box. Can someone fix please. Canacan (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canacan, thanks for pointing this out. I've fixed it. Please let me know if you see any other issues or problems. Helper201 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently individuals and organisations which supported decriminalisation are listed with bullet points. This seems a waste of space to me and gives too much prominence to those who supported and those who didn't. It could be written like this.

The following individuals, organisations and political parties publicly announced support for the referendum: Israel Adesanya, Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand (1999–2008), Dr Hinemoa Elder, Andrew Little, Labour Party MP and current Minister of Justice, Diane Robertson, Chlöe Swarbrick, Green Party MP, Tiki Taane, Topp Twins, Sam Neill

Any objections? Canacan (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose, but not strongly. I personally find the lists easier to navigate than when written out as paragraphs, but I do understand your desires to conserve space. — HTGS (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose. A list in this context seems much more appropriate with the amount of information to be displayed. If it was one, two, or three people I could understand putting it in a sentence, but not with the amount of people and organisations we have on both sides. Helper201 (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we remove the list of individuals because who goes on the list out of the 1.4 million who voted on each side is fairly arbitrary. It could be a very long list and adds nothing of significance to the article. Canacan (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. These are people deemed notable enough to have a Wikipedia page and are cited in and by third-party sources for their views on the matter. This isn't a list of unknown and random "Joe Blogs" type people with no recognition or supporting third-party sources. Helper201 (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They may have a wikipedia page but none of them are notable because of their views on cannabis - except Chloe Swarbrick. Canacan (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter. If they are regarded as notable people and covered by well known third-party sources their views are going to have a significant outreach and have the potential to influence a lot of people. Helper201 (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that at the moment this article states the current law (which makes cannabis illegal), but does not provide any information or arguments either in favour of or against legalising cannabis. Since that's what the referendum was about, this is a significant omission. Canacan (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the article would certainly benefit from the addition of a section or subsection on the for/against sides of the referendum. I will say, I think it's important to structure this around the public debate, on what various public commentary has been, rather than on our own instincts towards what the arguments should be. I also think that an appropriate section or subsection title would be "debate" or "public debate." I'm not sure if you're new to Wikipedia, Canacan, but the reason this sort of work doesn't tend to get done is that it's just more effort than simply listing names of those pro or contra, or listing opinion polls. I very much encourage you to write up this section yourself if you feel up to the task (be bold). — HTGS (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HTGS -You encouraged me to add arguments against and in support of the referendum but removed it when I did - describing your edit as "More small corrections". What's the problem? Canacan (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry about that; I think we were both editing at the same time and my edit overrode yours as I submitted after you did. I can merge the two, or you can. — HTGS (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why have the infobox percentages been changed again? They have been changed back to 51.17% against and 48.83% for, whereas what is cited in the main text says 50.7% against and 48.4% for. The latter are the numbers cited as the official results. We should keep consistency across the article by having the percentages in the infobox at the top of the page and the table in the results section all be consistent with what is stated in the main text and be verifiable as the official result percentages given in citation 5 by the Electoral Commission. Why is this being changed to something different? Helper201 (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have corrected it. Canacan (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:CALC, the percentages are the result of basic arithmetic, so they don't have to be referenced. The difference is WP calculates the percentages excluding invalid votes, while the EC calculates the percentage including invalid votes. Hence, why I have added comments about why the two percentages are different.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 03:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see the point of including two different figures. That's unnecessary and confusing to the reader. Lets keep it simple and stick with the more accurate one - which includes the invalid votes. Canacan (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has still not been fixed. The different numbers are indeed confusing, and wrongly perpetrate the idea that the margin of loss was larger than it is. For clarity, the infobox ought to show the official breakdown of the results in no uncertain terms. I support changing it and I would argue any future reversal of such edit is vandalism. --Melonbob (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don’t think it’s that big a deal. The numbers are barely different when calculated either way, and philosophically it comes down to whether you think blank voting cards are “votes” or not. I personally think it’s likely they were submitted by people who didn’t care to vote on the issue but felt like they had to put something in the box. At the same time, I think we should give weight to the method the EC uses. Aside from that I certainly don’t think we need to label people as vandals if they come in and mistakenly correct something they think has been overlooked, but I do think the text could be made clearer than it already is while still expressing the same numbers in the same place. As Canacan notes, we don’t need a reference for calculations, but maybe a footnote would help? — HTGS (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we really include misinformative quotes like the one given next to the New Conservative Party saying “This is a mind altering drug. How can we say to kids: Stop smoking cigarettes, they are bad for you, but you can smoke cannabis...”. This is clearly misinformative as the legislation clearly states that the minimum purchase and possession age outlined in the legislation would be 20 years old. It also states there would be a ban on marketing and advertising cannabis products. In no way is the legislation telling children they can smoke cannabis. Helper201 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the NCP used inaccurate information is no where near as bad as the NZMA putting out misinformation. Misinformation is what helped produce the No vote. Canacan (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My question is whether we should include clearly misinformative information here. Other organisations may have been worse and we can also discuss what other information should or should not be included. My point is just whether or not we should include arguments that are clearly misinformative on this page. Helper201 (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Helper, I didn't think about that. I don't read RSEDITORIAL as saying op-eds should never be used, but I totally see your point. I found a couple of sources for that claim, so I'll add them in. — HTGS (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd first like to disclose I was the sole advertising creative (

Tense

Some parts of the article read as though they were written before the referendum, and haven't been updated since the 'no' vote. For example, 'Possession of any amount of cannabis is currently illegal in New Zealand' should be changed to 'Possession of any amount of cannabis is illegal in New Zealand'. Under 'Proposed legislation' 'The bill includes' should be changed to 'The bill included'.

Proposed legislation

The citation on the first para [here] is dead. Also "would have served as the new regulatory framework" in the same para doesn't explain to the average reader that the bill could have completely changed after a 'yes' vote win before it became law, due to being a non-binding referendum.

Campaigning and endorsements

The article cited in the first para [here] is out of date. This link provides the 15 registered promotors:^[1] Only two of these promoters opposed the bill, thirteen supported. The Helen Clark Foundation wasn't a registered promoter but was also highly vocal in promoting their support, as noted [here].

Supporting No vote

Additions for [here]:

• Judith Collins:^[2]
• New Zealand National Party caucus:^[3]
• Simeon Brown^[4]
• Efeso Collins^[5]
• Kate Hawkesby:^[6][7]
• Mike Hosking:^[8]
• Heather du Plessis-Allan^[9]
• James Farmer
  Queen's Counsel:^[10]
• Mount Albert Grammar School Principal, Patrick Drumm:^[11]
• David Tua^[12]
• Eroni Clarke^[12]
• Wynton Rufer^[12]

The wording under 'Organisations' [here] for 'Smart Approaches to Marijuana New Zealand (SAM-NZ)' should be balanced with this info: "SAM-NZ involves people like drug addiction and testing services, the Sensible Sentencing Trust, some family organisations, and some faith-based organisations."^[13] The full list is [here].

Public response

[This] section is biased. The fourth para should be expanded, based on the existing source. Other relevant sources are given below.

False funding accusation

On 30 June 2020, Minister of Justice Andrew Little claimed SAM-NZ's campaign was funded by US political organisation Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), via Family First.^[14] In fact the SAM-NZ collective of about 25 New Zealand groups and community leaders was 100% funded by concerned New Zealand families, and did not receive any funding from SAM.^[15]

Other relevant sources

Accusations of bias against the government:^{[16] [17][18][19]}

Accusations of of media bias:^{[20] [21]}

Accusation of misleading advertising:^[22]

Medicinal cannabis bill drawn during lead-up:^[23]

Medicinal cannabis industry reactions:^[24]

'No' campaign praise:^[25]

E James Bowman (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With no response here, I've gone ahead and incorporated most of the above into the article. E James Bowman (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]