Journal Articles

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/7915

Browse

Filters

20222

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Wilkins CSubject: search.filters.subject.Cannabis legalization

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Assessing options for cannabis law reform: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) with stakeholders in New Zealand
    (Elsevier B.V, 2022-07) Wilkins C; Rychert M; Queirolo R; Lenton SR; Kilmer B; Fischer B; Decorte T; Hansen P; Ombler F
    Background A number of jurisdictions are considering or implementing different options for cannabis law reform, including New Zealand. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) helps facilitate the resolution of complex policy decisions by breaking them down into key criteria and drawing on the combined knowledge of experts from various backgrounds. Aims To rank cannabis law reform options by facilitating expert stakeholders to express preferences for projected reform outcomes using MCDA. Methods A group of cannabis policy experts projected the outcomes of eight cannabis policy options (i.e., prohibition, decriminalization, social clubs, government monopoly, not-for-profit trusts, strict regulation, light regulation, and unrestricted market) based on five criteria (i.e., health and social harm, illegal market size, arrests, tax income, treatment services). A facilitated workshop of 42 key national stakeholders expressed preferences for different reform outcomes and doing so generated relative weights for each criterion and level. The resulting weights were then used to rank the eight policy options. Results The relative weighting of the criteria were: “reducing health and social harm” (46%), “reducing arrests” (31%), “reducing the illegal market” (13%), “expanding treatment” (8%) and “earning tax” (2%). The top ranked reform options were: “government monopoly” (81%), “not-for-profit” (73%) and “strict market regulation” (65%). These three received higher scores due to their projected lower impact on health and social harm, medium reduction in arrests, and medium reduction in the illegal market. The “lightly regulated market” option scored lower largely due its projected greater increase in health and social harm. “Prohibition” ranked lowest due to its lack of impact on reducing the number of arrests or size of the illegal market. Conclusion Strictly regulated legal market options were ranked higher than both the current prohibition, and alternatively, more lightly regulated legal market options, as they were projected to minimize health and social harms while substantially reducing arrests and the illegal market.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Predictors of voter support for the legalization of recreational cannabis use and supply via a national referendum
    (Elsevier B.V, 2022-01) Wilkins C; Tremewan J; Rychert M; Atkinson Q; Fischer K; Forsyth GAL
    Background A national referendum to legalise recreational cannabis use and supply in New Zealand via the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill (CLCB) was recently narrowly defeated. Understanding the underlying factors for this result can inform the cannabis legalisation debate in other countries. Aims To investigate predictors of voter support for and opposition to the CLCB. Method A representative population panel of 1,022 people completed an online survey of intended voting on the CLCB referendum, which included questions on demographics, drug use history, medicinal cannabis, perceptions of the health risk and moral views of cannabis use, political affiliation, religiosity, community size and reading of the CLCB. Regression models were developed to predict support for the CLCB, with additional predictor variables added over successive iterations. Results The most robust predictors of support for the CLCB were use of and policy support for medicinal cannabis use, voting for a left-wing political party, having a positive moral view of cannabis use, living in a small town and having read the CLCB. Predictors of opposing the CLCB were voting for right-wing parties, considering “frequent” cannabis use to be a high health risk, and lifetime use of other drugs. Age, ethnicity, education, employment status, religiosity and lifetime cannabis use were not significant predictors after controlling for other variables. Conclusions Support for cannabis legalization was not based on broad demographics, but rather specific views concerning the medicinal benefit, morality of cannabis use, health risk of frequent cannabis use, political party affiliation, and knowledge of the proposed regulatory controls of the CLCB. The influence of moral views of cannabis use on voting behaviour suggest the need to debate the right to use cannabis. The importance of knowledge of the proposed regulatory controls of the CLCB on voting underlines the need to raise awareness of proposed regulatory controls during debate.