MORE ON THE CANNABIS REFERENDUM

Dr Graham Sharpe, former President of the New Zealand Anaesthetics Association, is a long time mate and a man of libertarian views.

He’s forwarded me his recently published contribution to the debate which I’ve reproduced below.

Dr Graham Sharpe ONZM FANZCA is a specialist anaesthetist practising in Wellington. His three children will no doubt cancel out his vote in the referendum. He has the three greatest grandchildren ever born.

Here, Graham Sharpe tells us why he’ll be voting “No”.

A declaration – after much thought and reflection I will vote “No” in the upcoming marijuana referendum.

I was tending towards saying no, but the more I see of the proposal and the arguments, the more concerned I become.  The “debate” has been characterised by misleading and, at best, misguided claims by  “Yes” proponents.

I am an anaesthetist.  I know drugs, particularly sedative drugs.  Here are my reasons for voting no.

Harm Minimisation

A worthy goal, and the stated aim of the proposal.  But I am left with the distinct impression that the complex set of rules and regulations will make no difference to the inevitable increase in consumption that will follow a “Yes” vote.

Also, the maximum allowable levels of THC in cannabis products will be set at 15%.  This is 50% higher than in Canada, and their experience tells us this is difficult to enforce.

The Process 

The referendum presents us with a binary choice.  Yes or no.  Legalise, with several caveats, or not.  There is no other option, such as decriminalising possession of small amounts of marijuana.

I am unhappy with this being settled by referendum.  MPs are elected to lead the country, not throw difficult issues back to the voters.  This referendum is an abrogation of political responsibility and a failure of political courage.  The referendum is not linked to a Bill “shovel ready” (to coin a phrase) to go to the House.  If changes are made after the vote, which I think is highly likely, the referendum could be regarded as lacking legitimacy.  And if in a few years’ time we have a change of heart, the powers that be who led us to this will simply walk away.

Thomas Sowell says, “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”  Those who have initiated this referendum think that by putting the matter in our hands, they absolve themselves of responsibility.  We are the ones who will pay for this, and we will rue the day.

“Medical Marijuana” 

Medical marijuana is the herbology of the 21st century.  It is another So Called Alternative Medicine (SCAM) relying on cherry picked data from poor science to support a weak argument.  There may be some instances where marijuana has medical legitimacy, they are vanishingly few.  Anecdote is not science.  Where are the properly controlled drug trials?  Nowhere. 

Thomas Sowell again.  “All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians’ warning that correlation is not causation.”

Yes, I know the referendum is not about medical marijuana, but it is being pushed as an argument in favour of a “Yes” vote by its supporters.

Equity 

There is a disproportionate effect on the Māori community in terms of prosecutions for cannabis offences.  The best approach for this is decriminalisation.  Any overall increase in cannabis consumption would be likely to further impact on Māori – as some of their leaders point out.

Libertarianism

The argument goes that adults can decide for themselves and bear the consequences, or as Enoch Powell put it, “They are free to go to the devil by their own means.”  I have a degree of sympathy for this view, but the problem is that people do not bear the consequences.  Any adverse effects will be borne by the community, especially by the health services and in terms of financial costs.

Criminal Involvement

Do we really believe that criminals will get out of the marijuana trade once it becomes legal?  Are they going to pack up and say, “Our work here is done. Time to go home.”  Of course not.  There will still be an underage market, and a demand for higher strength marijuana.  Taxes on legal marijuana will invite a black market at lower prices.  Canada still has 50 to 70% of its marijuana sales through criminal channels – I doubt New Zealand will be any different.

Consumption Levels

The use of marijuana will increase in the event of a “Yes” vote.  Experience in Canada tells us this will be in two groups.  One is in people of my era – late middle age to elderly.  But more worryingly, is the increase the young, and this has been shown to lead to large increases in cannabis related harm in those same young people.  The fact remains – early use of marijuana doubles the likelihood of other drug use later in life.

The Outcome

How will we measure the success of this policy if it is implemented?  Or more importantly, what will failure look like?  As with many initiatives in the social area, by the time it is apparent there is a problem it will be too late to “put the genie back in the bottle.” 

Money

The most cynical aspect of this matter is that of revenue collection.  We are told that legalising cannabis will result in a tax goldmine.  So, Government coffers will be swollen by the increasing consumption of cannabis, at the same time the official policy is, apparently, harm reduction.  One thing I have learnt about predictions of taxation revenue – they are always wrong.  Canada again – the anticipated taxation income is less than half of that predicted, mainly due to the continued black market undercutting the legal products which generate excise.

Health

The health aspects of an increase in cannabis use are understated by “Yes” vote supporters.  As a doctor, I have real concerns about these.

Make no mistake.  Cannabis is not a benign drug.  It has severe potential for long term harm, especially when used by the young.  The Surgeon General in the US is on record as saying, “I don’t want anyone to mistake what I’m saying as implying that these products are considered safe for general adult usage.”

Cannabis use by youth and young adults increases the risk of psychotic illness later in life.  Long term use can cause a chronic lack of motivation, with resulting effects on education, employment, and the care of children.

Cannabis use in pregnancy has long term potential for harm, including psychiatric illness later in the baby’s life.

Legalisation in Colorado saw a 100% rise in ER attendance for acute marijuana intoxication.  This was of particular concern in accidental ingestion by young children.

We are moving towards a smoke free country but voting to allow more widespread smoking of cannabis.  This does not make sense. Prof Richard Beasley, a leading New Zealand health researcher (and, for openness sake, a friend of mine) says smoking a single joint is the equivalent of five cigarettes in terms of lung damage.  Vaping cannabis as an alternative delivers large doses of THC very quickly, with attendant risk of sudden intoxication.

Then there are the questions of driving, operating dangerous machinery and making important decisions under the influence of cannabis.  Or for that matter giving an anaesthetic or performing surgery.  These will all inevitably increase following a “Yes” vote.

I find it fascinating that psychiatrists, a professional group not exactly renowned for reactionary views, are not advocating legalising cannabis.  Our mental health services are under chronic strain through lack of funding and staff.  Increased use of cannabis can only make this worse.

To Sum Up

I will vote “No” in the referendum.  My reasons are largely health related, but the more I look at this, the wider my concerns become.

15 Comments

Great article, Thanks Bob.

Thank you for this post. Dr Sharpe makes excellent points. I am involved in employment law and more and more work places require drug testing and head contractors are often asking for drug free staff from the sub contractor. When an ocean going trawler can not put to sea because of a crew muster testing drug positive. The rest of the crew who are generally on a payment based on a share of the catch miss out. In marine, fishing industry and construction it is an employers nightmare to have doped staff on the job given the serious hazards. WORKSAFE and the Maritime Safety people are not sympathetic.

Dr Sharpe is right to point out the will to work is grossly affected by cannabis use. In fishing it leads to not getting out of bed, not working, not paying the lending on the vessel and then bankruptcy and misery for the family. A real shame when the Maori man I was acting for had great ideas, competency and a good future

The New York City Journal carried this story last week. It touches on employment but also that fact that the back door vendors do not go away: https://www.city-journal.org/new-jersey-marijuana-legalization.

There are enough problems with illicit use and alcohol without adding more. The law change may suit some belt way iPad liberals who wish to indulge but they are not at the coal face. It is like the Daisy scenario in The Great Gatsby. People never accountable for the harm they cause.

Thank you Dr Sharpe. You have reinforced all my misgivings. I too shall vote ‘no’

I am confused. How is the stated “best approach”, decriminalisation, served by voting “No”?

Seems to me only a “Yes” vote will lead to any effort to address the existing problems and minimise new ones.

Not very sharp from Dr Graham. Anaesthetists are notorious for drug use, getting high on substances with high risk. Leaving cannabis as an illegal substance is very backward thinking.

Dr Sharpe absolutely on the money

There are few articulate articles advising to seriously consider the “No” vote. Thank you for including Dr Sharpe’s views, he highlights many of the problems which will compound were this ad hoc referendum pass with a majority.

This is a little ‘off topic’ but I’m thinking ahead until next Monday, October 19. If the referendum ( unfortunately in my view) should be a ‘yes’, what do people think will take place next week? There are no mechanisms in place, not a word from the Govt or Police…does anyone really think the drongoes who smoke cannabis are going to wait for legislation next year? There will be havoc, and the excuses will be ‘ but it was a yes vote’! There WILL be many people wandering the streets, driving cars…whatever…stoned out of their trees. Thanks greens. Thanks ardern. My only hope is that the PM next week is Judith Collins as she would instill some sense into the situation having been a former Police minister and married to an ex-policeman.

markscreaminggoosearmstrong October 12, 2020 at 3:39 pm

NB Anyone who puts THC in the same box as anaesthetics is may as well put drinking fizzie in the same box as smoking P.

What really pisses me off about this referendum is the millions that the Gov’t is spending on promoting ‘their’ Yes vote. The ads on TV, and in the papers that have all these pro cannabis stories. The popups on YouTube all the time. The likes of the Drug Foundation etc, etc.It is all on taxpayer money. No money for an opposing view on the weed use.

All of this is irrelevant except the “adults should be free to make their own health decisions rather than wowsers who want to control your life” argument. And nothing in the article doesn’t apply equally to alcohol. Despite the potential for harm, if someone else wants to make their own decisions about what they want to do to themselves then they should be allowed to do so.

    I agree 100% with you on the following grounds. A list of optional activities would include the following :- smoking, alcoholism, drug use. If you are, take part in any activity of your own choice you get ZERO state/tax payer health. No hospitals, no mental health, no welfare etc etc. Your choice, you suffer the consequences.
    Get lung cancer, scramble your brains with drugs, pickle your liver with alcohol your problem. Stay home and die. Might actually bring about the personal responsibility which has evaporated from NZ.
    Then I will vote with you. But as Covid has shown – No one is allowed to die anymore …. even 90 yr old dementia patients, so my position is moot.

      I was trying to explain this to someone the other day. The state will come and save you when you make all sorts of bad decisions. Poor choices with drugs, alcohol, investments, having a family, the list goes on. There’s no rationale for singling out this poor decision among all the others. So, I agree with you, but you need it to apply to everything or nothing, to be consistent.

Leave a Reply to Patrick Kerr Cancel reply

%d bloggers like this: