Bobby P Smyth1,2, Grant Ig Christie3,4. 1. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland. 2. Adolescent Addiction Service, Bridge House, Cherry Orchard Hospital, Dublin 10, Ireland. 3. Department of Psychological Medicine, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, New Zealand. 4. Community Alcohol and Drug Services, Waitemata DHB, Auckland, New Zealand.
In their commentary on the decision of New Zealander's to reject the legalization of cannabis in a recent referendum, Fischer & Hall suggest opposition to legalization is largely based on moral grounds [1].Although morality may have been a factor for some voters, we propose that science-based reasons were a driver. As Hall is aware, having produced a substantial body of evidence pointing to the potential health harms which have arisen in North America following legalization, the public health case for legalization remains equivocal at best [2,3].So far, legalization has coincided with increases in cannabis use disorder amongst young adults, cannabis potency, cannabis related emergency department attendances as well as possible escalation in road traffic deaths [2]. Murray and Hall also highlight the potential risks which legalization poses for mental health, particularly regarding psychosis [3]. Furthermore, if the experiences of North America translate to other locations, the public of New Zealand and other countries have good reason to be wary that politicians may begin to prioritise commercial and financial factors, in addition to public health [4].New Zealander's have been praised for embracing science in their successful societal response to the COVID-19 epidemic and are generally secular and liberal in their approach to political issues [5]. Rather than taking a moral position, voters opposed to legalization may have just been unconvinced by the public health arguments supporting it. Indeed moral issues, such as the right for individuals to be self-determining, possibly play a bigger part in pro-legalisation arguments.
Authors' contributions
Both authors contributed to the drafting of the manuscript and agree to its content.
Role of funding source
The authors’ employers had no role in the drafting of this manuscript. The content represents the views of the authors and should not be taken to indicate the views of their employers.
Ethics committee approval
Not applicable
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare. The authors have received no funding from the alcohol, tobacco or cannabis industry. The authors have received no funding from any of the wealthy international donors who are funding both support for and opposition against cannabis legalization.