sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Preliminary referendum results: 65% of voters support legalising euthanasia; 46% support legalising recreational cannabis use; Labour won't pursue other drug law reform

Preliminary referendum results: 65% of voters support legalising euthanasia; 46% support legalising recreational cannabis use; Labour won't pursue other drug law reform
Image sourced from Pikrepo

New Zealanders have said yes to legalising euthanasia and no to legalising recreational cannabis use, according to preliminary referendum results.

65.2% of voters supported the End of Life Choice Act 2019 coming into force. 33.8% opposed it.

Meanwhile, 46.1% of voters supported the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill. 53.1% opposed it.

Around 480,000 special votes (17% of the total vote) are yet to be counted.

The final results will be announced at 2pm on November 6.

Justice Minister Andrew Little said the results were "pretty convincing".

He said about 70% of the special votes would have to be in support of the cannabis bill for the preliminary result to change. 

Because the End of Life Choice Act has gone through the parliamentary process and has been given Royal Assent, it will come into effect 12 months from the final results - on 6 November, 2021.

Assisted dying remains illegal until then. The Act will be administered by the Ministry of Health. For more information on the Act, see this government website.

Decriminalisation also off the cards

Little said: "The Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill will not be introduced as legislation by the Labour Government this term.

"Subject to the release of the final results on 6 November, the incoming government will respect the result of both referendums. This will mean that recreational cannabis use will remain illegal in New Zealand...

“We have no other plans in terms of drug law reform. We’ve done some reform in the last term of government - changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act and an encouragement to the police to take a health-based approach rather than a punitive approach.

“We’ll continue down that path, but there are no other plans that we have for broader law reform.”

A spokesperson for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern revealed she voted yes in both referendum questions. 

ACT ecstatic 

ACT leader David Seymour said support for the End of Life Choice Act was "a victory for all New Zealand, as we become a more compassionate and humane society".

"Thousands of New Zealanders who might have suffered excruciating deaths will have choice, dignity, control, and autonomy over their own bodies, protected by the rule of law," Seymour said.

"It is also a victory for ACT. If our party stands for one thing, it is freedom under the law. Today’s result shows what one ACT MP, assisted by our now Deputy Leader and MP-elect Brooke van Velden, can achieve.

"This term, we have 10 ACT MPs. They are already working hard every day to make sure ACT keeps growing."

Swarbrick still hopeful

On cannabis, Green Party spokesperson on Drug Law Reform Chlöe Swarbrick said: “Today’s result shows what we had long assumed, that it was going to be really close and that we need to wait for the specials to be sure of the result.

“We have said from the outset that this would always come down to voter turnout. We’ve had record numbers of special votes, so I remain optimistic.

“New Zealand has had a really mature and ever evolving conversation about drug laws in this country and we’ve come really far in the last three years.

“Many who have traditionally felt disenfranchised by the political system may have their voices heard at the specials. We’ll wait to see how that plays out next week.”

National: 'A victory of common sense' 

National’s Drug Reform spokesperson Nick Smith said: “This is a victory for common sense. Research shows cannabis causes mental health problems, reduced motivation and educational achievement, and increased road and workplace deaths.

“New Zealanders have rightly concluded that legalising recreational cannabis would normalise it, make it more available, increase its use and cause more harm.

“I acknowledge the many academics, medical doctors, school principals and industry groups that spoke out against legalising cannabis, particularly the Nope to Dope campaign.

“I would also like to thank the Ombudsman for requiring the Justice Minister to release the BERL reports on cannabis legalisation that were the pivotal turning point in the campaign. 

“Democracy requires that proponents of cannabis legislation like senior Government Ministers and the wider Parliament respect today’s decision. New Zealanders have so far rejected legalisation of recreational cannabis and signalled opposition to the softening of drug crime.

“The way forward on drug policy is a firm approach on dealers and gangs to restrict supply, increased access to treatment and rehabilitation for users, expansion of specialised drug courts and improved education on drug harm.

“National will continue to work constructively in these areas.”

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.



Bummer, the conservative oldies aren't ready for the "evils of whacky-backy" yet.

At least they can die without suffering too much :)

If stuff is right, there's an estimated 480,000 special votes to be counted, or 17%. You never know...

i think they'd need more than two thirds of those to be yes votes

Those that have lived abroad might have more progressive tendencies than the NZ populace. An outside chance I think

People who live overseas shouldn't get a say in the laws that govern New Zealanders who actually live here. The local electorate has rejected it. That should be end-of.

Should be, but it aint. Just like foreigners becoming politicians here.

That's different. They come here, live here, they pay taxes, they contribute. People who pop back once every three years for a holiday or for a Waiheke wedding but have otherwise likely declared they have no enduring ties to the country (.e.g. for tax residency purposes) shouldn't get a say in how it functions.


That would just result in even dumber results. The best and brightest kiwis are the ones that leave.

I feel comfortable with my views if this is the kind of arrogant contempt ex-pat New Zealanders hold those of us in who live here and keep the country ticking over. You're not gods, get over yourselves.

Ex-pats are citizens that have the talent and the drive to be out representing New Zealand on the world stage.

Arrogance is thinking you have the right to disenfranchise them. Tall poppies comes to mind.

Representing NZ on the world stage?
Total rubbish its not the All Blacks.
When i worked in Finance in London or Sydney or worked in the US I represented myself. Not NZ.
Expats should not get to vote on local issues.
Foreigners such as Julia Ann Genta and Golriz Ghahraman etc should not be allowed as MPs either if they are citizens elsewhere. We should implement the same rules as Australia. See section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits parliamentarians from having allegiance to a foreign power, especially citizenship.

By virtue of being a kiwi you also represented New Zealand.

Kiwi citizens have the right to vote in their own country. It's sad this triggers some people.

I am only half kiwi. Also the people I worked with in the UK didn't care where you were from or ask about it. Just how much deal fees you could make. In my direct team there were Russians, Spanish, British, Scottish, Irish, Italians, One Aussie and a few Germans in the UK. The only time nationality came up was Soccer world cup time. I was the only kiwi but there were some in other parts of the organization.
I wasn't representing NZ I was representing myself and my bank account trying to get as many pounds as possible!
I didn't vote while abroad but as time went on I would not have qualified either until I returned here.
They should not have a say while paying tax offshore!

You're only half kiwi? Why should whole kiwis care what you think then!

Are you full kiwi? I don't think anyone is actually fully from NZ if you go back a little bit!
Your a loud and proud kiwi and good on ya. But I am not. Stopped watching the All Blacks and all Rugby after living overseas for a period of time. Never went back to it so I get to vote just like you. But I am a mongrel of a few countries but born in NZ.

Can't stand rugby, boring as hell.

I just thought it was hilariously hypocritical to out yourself as "half-kiwi" while wanting to deny born and bred kiwis the right to vote in their own country.

I think you are a bit of a simpleton.
Half kiwi means one Nz parent. My other parent came to Nz in 1960.
So this notion of born in bred applies to me the same as you.
I have lived in Us, uk, and australia and back here since 06 but attended school here as well as university.
Your own country comments sound very strange as well as your comments re third world replacements. As far i can say they work hardand do jobs the kiwis refuse to do as they are too good for it. Nobody owns the country and born here or Nz citizen by other means are all the same.

Well you may think I'm a "simpleton", but you're the one conflating tax residency with citizenship.

Just because you live overseas you can still be tax resident here in NZ.
I am not conflating the two at all.
Your the one on a rant about third world replacements and born and bred rights. You sound like a nutter spouting this stuff.
Born and bred vs come and live here and get residence and then get citizenship have the same rights. Born offshore to a kiwi parent also are automatic citizens.
You were ranting that some how the best and brightest are offshore. This is a joke. This is who is coming back right now as if you cant pay your way overseas they dont treat you kindly

Nothing like casual racism to show you're the brightest star eh.

I think the argument is that they are not currently resident in NZ so why be able to have a say in legislation. It's a reasonably coherent argument regardless of whether any of us agree or otherwise. Especially might it be true if one has been gone for many many years.

Your argument makes it sound like only a brain surgeon can hop on a plane and leave the country.

Uh huh. Which race did I allegedly slur?

There is already legislation that says you can't vote in New Zealand unless you have been present in the country in the last three years.

If they're such an asset they can improve their country of residence and stay out of NZ's current affairs. They have no business meddling in or affecting decisions in a country they have left.

I think those that bother to vote are those that are planning on living here again. I was in Sydney last election and voted for labour and them being in government definitely helped in my decision moving back. Unfortunately they didn't introduce capital gains tax which NZ would have benefited from my share portfolio gains (as Australia did). This was behind the better NZ I wanted to live in.

I think you are over emphasizing the caliber of lots of kiwis overseas.
Sure some are successful but plenty in London when I was there live in cramped conditions getting pissed as much as possible and flying around Europe doing the same when they have the cash.

It's possible to be both successful and have great fun in London.

Brock Landers, I hope you writing that comment from outside NZ. If not, you need to follow what you saying or have you just accepted you are dumb so should stayed behind. Anyway country would be better without people like you.

Jian Yang - former CCP spy trainer. Golriz Gharaman - trying to take on refugees from a war we weren't responsible for. Get my drift?

On nz citizens (ie nz passport holders or eligible for) should be able to vote.. permanent residents should not be able to vote... need to be more privleges for nz citizens over permanent residents... there are virtually none except for the nz passport...

maybe there should be a bill entered into the ballot for that GV...

Yes, but even so very unlikely. If 60% was required I would say there was a chance.

All good! I can't stand the thought of more dope-heads on our roads.


Now we just need to get drunk drivers off the road. I will start an alcohol prohibition referendum to see if NZ is full of hypocrites. I trust I will have your support.

Stupid thing is, probably most of them have tried it at least once in their lives and they would have for years have voted "no" to prohibition of alcohol that we used to vote on at every election until 1987. I am picking a large number of the "no" votes on cannabis were simply anti-green ones.


i think chloe has been smoking something if she thinks specials will over turn the result


Have another drink.


Why can't we have a referendum on 'lowering house prices' this effects far more people than wacky baccy or the euthanasia ejection/injection seat.

There is a mechanism in New Zealand law to get a non-binding referendum. It requires a lot of signatures however.

What would the actual proposition be?

Good idea, why don't you start it by selling your house for one tenth of its CV

While we are on the subject of restricting voting only to those who pay sufficient tax...

Or perhaps next only property owners get to vote? Brock what do you think?

That's actually how it used to be.

Why not go the full monty and your wealth determines your number of votes.

Direct plutocracy.

I would imagine that would be severely opposed mostly by those with the most votes, as then it would be obvious just how little the have nots have by comparison.

So anyone on whatever the equivalent of an invalid's benefit gets no say. Why don't we just go the whole hog, and only the landed gentry can vote, maybe that should be just male landed gentry.

Yvil doesn't pay sufficient tax.

I was just trying to tease out the nutty ideas brock has going on. Dont take my comment seriously!

Nutty ideas like citizens having the right to vote? Lock me up in the nuthouse! Insanity!


Nick Smith "Research shows cannabis causes mental health problems, reduced motivation and educational achievement, and increased road and workplace deaths"
So does does work.
Irrational old people voted. We'll get them with the other one. ;)

I'd love to see some research on his contribution to society lol


Wait until Nick hears about alcohol...


I personally don't like it, but can't see how its any different than alcohol, tobacco, or even social media with regards to those factors.



And I don't like Pavlova. But instead of dictating that to others, I just don't eat Pavlova.

Eating excessive Pavlova results in all kinds of health issues. Time to ban it!

It's a good result. Smith is right too. There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers showing that cannabis consumption increases the likelihood of developing mental illness , here for example. There are placebo controlled double blind studies, longitudinal cohort studies, and meta analysis and overwhelming majority say the same thing.


We're extremely lucky none of those issues exist now hey fp...

Smith is a dinosaur, so good to see him lose his seat this election, why it took so long is beyond me but better late than never.

The point is teenage consumption would likely increase, at least according to the reliable overseas data. That means more people would develop schizophrenia who wouldn’t have otherwise. That means more life long sickness beneficiaries. Not to mention the cost to the families involved who have to support their mentally ill children for the rest of their lives.

Actually in Canada it dropped post legalization so I don't think you can make this claim.

My understanding is that was low quality (Low sample size) data. The Canadian alcohol and drug survey showed a 22% increase in 17-19 year old consumption in the year following legalization. It’s intuitively obvious that teenagers will smoke more if the government green lights it, and it becomes available in every corner shop.


All true.

Doesn't stop people from doing it in NZ and they will continue to do it after these results blow over. Price will be cheap enough, no quality controls, will support the gangs that control the supply, who also want to create customers for meth and P, so will encourage those customers to get into the more expensive and damaging drugs (I have former friends who have gone down that road...).

So specials would need to fall at least 68% to yes to flip the referendum. Unlikely but not impossible I guess.

Im going to go out on a limb and say a lot of those special votes would come from the progressive types who have left NZ for other opportunities in more progressive countries. Could be a surprise how many come in favour

What countries do you consider more progressive?

I can give you the State of Califorina, or City of Portland Seattle, but its not working out too good.

Look at how Joe Rogan has moved to Texas.

I said progressive, which isn't necessarily better. You did cherry pick the two worst examples but yes I'd rather live in Texas too.

According to General Philip Sheridan, if offered the choice between Texas and hell, he would opt to live in hell and rent out Texas. Things though, change.

Texas rocks.
I lived in Texas ...DFW from 92 to 98.
Still go back. Very friendly people and the place just continues to grow with new developments and 8 lane roads to keep up with development.
Where Joe Rogan moved to in Austin is one of the best parts. Quality of life is better than a lot of NZ. Bigger houses for way less money. Universities have awesome facilities. I enrolled to attend UT Austin but came back to NZ for Uni. To many tall distractions there!

.... and those votes should be immediately discarded. A clear local preference against something overturned by Kiwis who don't live here is the kind of affront to democracy that might get us finally talking about why we allow people who don't live here to have a say in how our country is run.

I agree. And the same goes for any foreign interference from individuals, corporations or governments alike.


So in your view all the born and bred kiwis driven out of New Zealand by its lousy economy, housing, social policies and brain-dead island mentality shouldn't get a say in changing the things that pushed them overseas?

But their non-citizen third world replacements should?

I'm saying the people who actually live in NZ should get a say in how it is run. If you want to project your race-based insecurities onto that, then be my guest.

That seems like very narrow minded thinking GV... what about having a say on things that will affect your family and friends. Not everything is about you or for you. Also paying tax has nothing to do with the right to vote, do we also strip the right to vote from those on the benefit/acc because they're tax burdens??...

GV has a very good point and an easy way to filter vote eligibility - no contribution no vote. If you don't pay tax in this country then you have no stake.
If things are going to affect your family and friends then it's up to them to vote

We already have a better system to capture who is a kiwi and who is not. It's called citizenship.

For voting, you only need to be a permanent resident.

What a hypocrite. Can we also take away the right to vote from people running businesses that helped themselves to the government subsidy during the pandemic when they knew they did not need it and never gave it back, like yourself Hook?

Cindy locked up the country on rubbish data 80,000 were going to die so businesses deserved the money. Plenty should have been allowed to trade. But were are the Socialist Republic of New Zealand
There is never any admission that the data was total bollocks.

Why are other countries still locking themselves up?

USA is not.
Land of the free.

Haha his voters are dropping like flies. He's a murderer by neglect.

You've finally done it. Won't be paying much attention to your posts, henceforth.

If you aren't happy with how our covid 19 tactics have worked out, you can always take yourself to somewhere the thing is rampant. I am sure you will be far happier there.
PS it's pretty hard to prove a negative and going by the way the virus is resurgent around the world, maybe that 80,000 with nothing done, as per the USA, would not be so wrong. This ain't over.

I've provided significant support to services I'll never avail myself of. Time for the recipient of that support to return some to me directly. Are any wage and salary earners handing back the subsidy?? NO - so why should I?

They already do get a say.

I’m finding it extremely ironic that we’re talking about current tax contribution and the right to vote given that we know that it’s super annuitants that voted this referendum down.


Very pleased with both results.

Alcohol is a legal drug which already creates immense harm in our communities so legalising cannabis would have just compounded the social problems.


Nah, cannabis is already here and widely used so any harm is already being incurred. Now we get none of the benefits (taxation, regulation, control) and the gangs and black-market can continue to profit from it. Nice job!

The problem is that making it legal normalizes it. Also ironic that NZ wants to be 'smoke free' in a few years, and all the illnesses and taxpayer costs with smoking, but if this was voted in, it would contradict it. If the laws were tougher and it was enforced, except for medical use, then there wpouldn't be a need for black-market stuff, which isn't necessarily safe anyway.


" If the laws were tougher and it was enforced, except for medical use, then there wpouldn't be a need for black-market stuff"


I assure you , go to any house party, older lads car, park at night-time or anywhere where 16+ year olds congregate - its very normalised, exciting even because its illegal. Make it normalised and it becomes boring and not dangerous or exciting.

You don’t have to smoke it at all to consume cannabis

I think that it’s well accepted that the tax component of a pack of cigarettes makes a smoker a net contributor.

I feel the gangs and black-market can profit from it despite what the result is going to be.

..gangs have moved away, more interested in meth. That is one reason I'm not so bothered now, used to think legalising might hit the gangs, but not now.
Having it illegal remains a handy street sweeping tool for cops. Most of the time they will ignore, if you're an A hole its a handy way to get you in the paddy wagon and off the street.
Life will go on..people will still smoke. The Courts will discourage dope smokers being charged as a waste of Court time.

Yet there are still 3000 convictions a year for it.

3000 for using?, or 3000 for supplying? or 3000 for growing

Cannabis only offences below puke, ten years since it was 3000 sorry.

Convicted of cannabis offences only
2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020
3,249 2,714 2,472 1,772 1,478 1,379 1,196 1,094 923 591

Convicted of cannabis possession and/or use only
2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020
1,714 1,316 1,066 744 607 515 452 399 331 230

Running out of brown people maybe?

Majority of cannabis possession charges are 'clip on' charges for more serious offending. Not many sole charges for possession these days, its all warnings and the quantity tends to be quite generous.

Yep, the gangs are more like the Mexican cartels now.

I have a cousin in the US producing cannabis on a large scale at two locations. He does not retail it. But to his buyers Gangs are the biggest competition as they pay no state tax, payroll tax, medicare, federal tax, licensing, testing of THC levels and so on.
In the last 5 years its only increased. This idea that gangs would disappear is false. They would produce more potent product and not pay income tax and gst and acc and paye any other licensing costs.

And it's that kind of delusional view that has kept the gangs quite happy.

I wonder what the gangs would do if they lost cannabis as an income stream?

I thought hard about that. I figure the easy money for them was to buy it legally and then sell it to school kids at a massive profit.
Other obvious option is harder drugs.

This was one of the important issues that didn't seem to be addressed by anyone.

"Something", is always going to be marketed as an illegal attraction at a premium to its basic cost. So better to keep it as 'harmless' as possible.
Take legalising pornography. Once the naughtiness factor had been satisfied, the next steps had to compete on an ever escalating scale of adventurism.

I read a research report somewhere that said the black-market trade doesn't go away. It's a lot cheaper on the black markets with no tax etc, like cigarettes. Also, your basic stoner just wants it in simplest form but those more affluent consumers want drops or patches. No one rolls and smokes it, that's not where this was going.

It's even cheaper to plant a few seeds in the veggie garden. So I don't think that continuance of a black market argument would have come to pass here.

Recall when prostitution was decriminalised, no argument with me on the virtues of that, but instead of becoming better regulated in safer environments it rather unexpectedly was allowed to spill out even more on the streets so to speak. And alongside that in the shadows, were the pimps, standovers, druggies et al that have made some neighbourhoods nightmarish for ordinary folk. The question therefore is would a free for all on marijuana create its own societal problems in its own way? Just asking

A country could always reduce societal harm from such substances with good policies and enforcement.

That being said, I am not to confident about our ability to do that simply because alcohol consumption is becoming a bigger societal problem for us with health issues and public indecency stemming from it on the rise, and we have done nothing but raise concern about it for years.

Really, I reckon prostitution is less in your face than it used to be!

I think the closeness of the result reflects how many grappled to find the lesser of two evils.

Pot stocks taking huge hits atm.

Bounced back a bit too. Maybe gambling on the specials?

3 years of hard grind ahead for Cannasouth and especially RUA Bioscience.

Would be interesting to know how many people actually read the bills. The end of life bill was surprisingly short for the importance of the issue. Frankly I was shocked with how few key terms in it lacked clear legal definitions within the bill.

It amazed me how many people didn't realise they were voting for an actual bill in the euthanasia referendum. The same bill the select committee stated was unworkable:

"After 16 months of investigation involving more than 38,000 submitters, the Select Committee has now reported that the Bill is unworkable in its present state and they are unable to agree that it be passed," Hickey said. "This should be ringing serious alarm bells, and it points to the fact that this Bill is irremediably flawed."

This is the same with anything to do with politics in NZ. All the information is dumbed down. No substance. The lection debates were solely about personality, and not policies, as there weren't really any. People don't know what they are voting for. I think the mainstream media is also to blame for the lack of information as they have their own narrative.

Mainstream media is Facebook now. I warn my kids that if they don't work hard at school the only option they'll end up with is being a journalist.

Oh well, just reinforces my lack of respect for the law.

I think after special votes are counted it could be possible, but it's going to be very very close.

Surely being not legally binding works both ways? Considering how close that vote is likely to be. Why not send it to Parliament? Although I guess that'd make it harder for Jacinda to forever sit on the fence.

New Zealand has had a really mature and ever evolving conversation about drug laws in this country and we’ve come really far in the last three years.

I voted in favour for legalisation but the dialogue from the pro-legalisation masses was rather silly. Often studies on medical cannabis, which is already legal in NZ, were misquoted as social benefits.

Then there were those who suggest alcohol is worse, so everything less harmful should by default be decriminalised for recreational consumption.
In arguing so, these commentators also contradict their own stance that legalising a substance means we have total control over consumption practices.

Sensible people were never going to give the ok to cannabis while the police didn't have the cannabis-equivalent of an alcohol-breathalyzer in place. Cannabis does adversely affect driving ability.


But the kinds of people who are going to smoke weed and drive are the kinds of people who are going to smoke weed regardless of the law.

The reason for the NO vote for cannabis is crystal clear. On one hand we have huge pressure on people to give up smoking tobacco as sucking in smoke into the lungs is irrational. On the other hand you have those who want to allow smoking cannabis where sucking in smoke into the lungs if supposedly rational. No it is not rational and the good people of NZ were not fooled by the Leftie Greenies push to make everything legal no matter how harmful.


It was legalisation of the substance not the method of consumption.
you dont have to smoke it.


The only thing that's crystal clear is you don't know the difference between tobacco and cannabis.

BigDaddy, yes or no question for you.

Have you ever seen the drug harm scale?

I'll save you time, no he hasn't.

Everyone would still had the option to not to consume, the same as you can choose between having a soda or rum and coke, it was the right to do so what we were being asked.

Tobacco smoke and cannabis smoke have quite different profiles for carcinogenicity and frequency of use.

You can also eat cannabis if smoking (or alcohol) isn't your thing.

Having a little enjoyment in life is quite a rational thing.

Sad results on the euthanasia bill, at the moment it's the thin end of the wedge. I bet in five to ten years that euthanasia law will be 'relaxed' to the point where people can bump off their old folks to get at their inheritance early. Time to change your will. Still I'm sure the Estate Agents will be over joyed.

They should have brought up better kids!

I guess it's one way to tackle house prices. And it's not like NZ is being gradually sold of to a country with one of the worst human rights records in the world. Oh well best keep my European passport up to date.

It's only available if a doctor believes you are terminally ill and likely to die within 6 months.
So your grasping relatives would have to be *particularly* impatient to see the back of you for this to be an issue.

I'm talking about when our euthanasia law becomes 'relaxed' in 5 to ten years time. We could be seeing cases where perfectly physically health people who have mental health issues are allowed to be euthanasia. This has happened in other countries that have assisted suicide laws.
BBC The troubled 29-year-old helped to die by Dutch doctors. She was suffering from depression.

To be honest, 83 people with mental health issues tormenting them all their lives travelling to a country to be allowed to die in a controlled environment does not worry me much. How would you have them do it if they really had had enough of their miserable existence? Some physical (chemical) brain conditions simply can not be fixed.

Does the risk of those 83 lives lost (by their own free will) mean we should stop many thousands who are in physical pain and who have no hope of living past a week or two should suffer till the end? I really don't understand your logic.

My concern and a lot of other peoples concern is that this new euthanasian law doesn't have sufficient safe guards, not to mention that it's likely to be relaxed in the future. In the end it a way to dispose of vulnerable people.

The safe guards sound fine to me. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, look it up. As far as I can see, most of the dissent comes from those who honestly believe a man in the clouds has set this world up perfectly (cancer sickness and all) and if we humanely help speed up the dying process it might negatively affects our chances of a prosperous afterlife. Ideas full to the brim with logical fallacies.

AND - the big kicker for me to vote yes was physically unable to look after yourself - which essentially means to me, physically unable to do the job yourself.
We all have the choice of this already, even though its perhaps not nicest way to do it.

The number of conditions that need to be met all at the same time to be eligible make it basically impossible to exercise the right according to the draft, everything else is speculation.

There are not enough safe guards its still too easy to bump people off with this new euthanasian law.

Where in the world has it 'progressed' to being anything like that? I bet your wrong.


Thanks to Chlöe for trying so hard. She has to be one of the top performing MPs at the moment, winning Auckland Central was an amazing achievement.

For crying out loud
Lets not re-litigate it here
Go knock yourselves out
Personally I dont give-a-shit

But if you ever turn up at the hospital all smashed up and off your brain I hope they triage you to the back of the queue


You been to A&E in the weekend? It isn't the stoners taking up all the beds, and threatening the staff.

oh well - will have to go see the doctor and pay through the nose for my sore back medication - not - legal status or not cannabis use will remain as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow however the cops can still use the spurious excuse of its possible existence to persecute people they deem worthy of it. nice work all the hypocrites who avow personal responsibility and voted against this bill.


Boomers gonna boom.

Boomers are not 53% of the population
They aint making them anymore either
Try something else


Ok boomer.

Suck eggs! It's a NO for cannabis and Chloe S. is acting like a sore loser; the left are always bad losers. The chances of the YES getting more than 67% of the special vote is just another pipe dream.


ah the irony...

What's the saying, only one thing worse than a bad loser, that's a bad winner.

Time for someone to take their meds.

Swarbrick is acting like a spoiled child who is used to getting their own way. Show some class and at least say that it is more of less over.

I’d agree if it wasn’t for the fact that specials are far more progressive. Will it be 70% - unlikely. But it could be close.


What were you watching that she was acting like a spoiled child? She sounded like an intelligent, confident young woman to me during her press conference. Yes, she is upset that they didn't win (yet, it's not all over), but a spoiled child would be a lot more disrespectful, willful, arrogant and overly proud - see how Trump acts.

And if they do, will you respect the will of the people and accept the legislation being passed, or will you be an equally sore loser?

why so long to bring in the euthanasia bill, i feel sorry for those people that have to go through the pain in the next year and i hope nobody gets prosecuted for helping relieve suffering for family members in those final days.


Shame about the final result, voted YES for both. Cops wasting time on the weed when they could be spending it on violent crime or domestic abuse, close result but doesn't really matter if your going to smoke it your still going to smoke it. Sometimes I wonder if half the buzz is the fact that its illegal.

Congratulations David Seymour, well done!


Little is ruling it out for the “foreseeable future “. But it’s a progressive policy, surely it’s obvious that it’s going to rapidly gain more support. Remember when gay marriage was a 50/50 call - now I reckon it would be 90/10. Women not allowed to vote, prostitutes getting locked up, it all seems so stupid now doesn’t it?

I was pretty pissed off with Little’s absolutism.

The young can't have houses and they can't get legal weed either haha lol blame boomers boom boom

If they didn’t eat so much smashed avocado they could enjoy a tinny from the local gang pad.

I was chatting to a police officer family friend who told me something quite extraordinary. Every single fatal crash that's been past his desk in the last two years has involved cannabis, meaning that someone involved had THC in their blood or urine. I queried it and said you mean the majority right? No he said - every single one.

Sample size? Detectable for 30+ days after use.

Could just be proof that lots of people are smoking it regardless of the law, in which case why have the law.
Regardless we can’t make everything that affects driving illegal can we?

Fat pat with a nice own goal there.

As I've been saying, it's already everywhere. People who assume it's not already are naive at best and idiots at worst. We should have minimized harm (as per international medical evidence), instead we'll prosecute people and waste resources for on a minor drug. What a clusterf**k NZ.

You're saying that if you legalise, and regulate then teenagers and motor vehicle drivers will consume less. They're absurd beliefs that are inconsistent with international data from countries like Canada which actually legalised it.

No, he’s saying that they’ll continue to use it just as much but that there won’t be an increase in accidents on the road because correlation isn’t causation.

The only point you’ve made is that people who die in car accidents are likely to be in a car or crash into someone that has had cannabis in the last month or so. That’s broadly in line with ~20% of people using pot semi regularly anyway.

Given that cannabis affects time perception and slows reflex it's not hard to imagine someone who's high pulling out in front of an oncoming truck. In this case correlation probably is causation.

Cannabis Campaigners
The Pro-Cannabis YES-team ran a well-funded social advertising and well orchestrated Talk-Back Radio campaign
"Many have been campaigning on top of day jobs, with funds coming from donations. “We had an enormous amount of people who were donating $4.20 a week to us, directly into our bank. We had a small number of people who would do larger donations of $420”

Did the NO-Team run an Anti-campaign? Did they have donations?
Would the result have been the same if they had

The no team have plenty of other advantages such as the existing illegality, the boomers, the rumours down at the local bowls club, etc. I didn’t watch all of that Patty Gower series but he could have very easily swayed the vote either way.

'No' was also funded by conservative US lobby groups and other marginal group like the scientologists.

And anecdotally the liquor industry through the PACs you’re mentioning.

Perhaps if there had not been a referendum the now clear majority Labour government could have been lobbied by the Greens to introduce and pass reform legislation in its own right, this term. But unless the specials defy logic, the referendum result has stymied that opportunity for now and probably much longer. That being the case, for the Greens at least, it has turned out to be one of those hoist by your own petard stories.

Looks like I will just stick to benzos

Ever been to the Netherlands?

I think the move to commercialisation was too much to ask. Had I been voting on decriminalisation, it would have been a resounding yes. Commercialisation worried me. As once you go that far it's pretty much impossible to claw anything back if you realise it was a mistake.

Like alcohol then?

Ha it's funny. The argument against legislation - because look at the social harms and normalised acceptance of alcohol - would suggest that alcohol should be made illegal.

The majority of NO voters have highlighted their hypocrisy, ignorance and lack of rational intelligence.

Maybe we should have referendums on the social harms and normalised acceptance of debt enslavement, excessive wealth, social media, and the normalised acceptance of fear mongering and shame based advertising.

Sounds good to me

people split 50/50 on the weed, with me voting yes, my wife voting no, my dad voting no, the next person has a good chance to be a yes

Karens now line up for your standard measured regulated age restricted location restricted drink - you fucking hypocrites

and if synthetics poison killing kiwis was called synthetic gin instead synthetic cannabis you'd probably give a toss about that too and not confuse yourself further

weed is medicine whether taken for aches and pains or recreation

please note: i have no affiliation to petro-corporations, big pharma, textile industry, fat dairy, special ops spending, justice department, booze cartels or shares in prisons, so my views may be dissimilar to your own

President of Property 420