New Zealand votes in favor of euthanasia, rejects cannabis legislation

By Elishya Perera

AUCKLAND, New Zealand (CWBN)_ Voters in New Zealand have voted in favour of euthanasia, while rejecting the legalisation of cannabis, preliminary numbers show. According to the results released today (Oct 30), 65.2% voted in support of the End of Life Choice Act, while 53.1% voted against the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill.

The final results on the referendums are expected on 6^th November, which will include about 480,000 special votes such as overseas and mail-in ballots, however, Justice Minister, Andrew Little, said the chances of special votes flipping the cannabis referendum result were very remote. “The probability of that is so low to be virtually non-existent,” he said.

Accordingly, under the End of Life Choice Act 2019, which will come into force in 12 months, a citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand suffering a terminal illness that’s likely to end their life within 6 months will be eligible for assisted dying. 

On the other hand, the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill was intended to establish a regulatory model that covers how people can produce, supply, or consume cannabis. This does not cover medicinal cannabis, since it is already legal under the Medicinal Cannabis Scheme. Nevertheless, the cannabis vote was a non-binding referendum, meaning, even if more than 50% of people had voted in favour of the Bill, recreational cannabis wouldn’t become legal right away.

Instead, the Government has the opportunity to introduce the bill to Parliament in order to legalise and control cannabis.

Following the preliminary results, Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, revealed she voted in favour of recreational cannabis. The Prime Minister refused to reveal the way she voted on cannabis until today.

When inquired if Labour would consider decriminalisation of cannabis as an alternative, “Only if it is considered in the public interest to do so,” Arden responded. The Prime Minister said that regardless of the outcome, she did not want to see people “unnecessarily criminalised”, and intended to ensure “young people do not end up damaging themselves as a result of access”.

Edited By Chathushka Perera