Standing ovation for Chloe

31
2311

Can we just pause and give Chloe a standing ovation for her incredible job standing up for cannabis reform?

She won every debate, she fronted every discussion and while ACT were too frightened to engage in case conservative Epsom voters turned on Seymour, Chloe never flinched.

Chloe’s last swipe at the bewildering philosophical cowardice of the Prime Minister to not stand by her convictions is glorious…

Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick swipes at Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern for holding back cannabis view

Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick, who stood out in the campaign to legalise recreational cannabis, has taken a swipe at Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern for holding back her view. 

The Electoral Commission’s preliminary results show the majority of New Zealanders have voted against legalising recreational cannabis and questions have been raised over whether it could have gone the other way with Ardern’s support. 

“I’m in the Greens because I have the courage of my convictions,” Swarbrick said on Friday, when asked if she thought the referendum could have swung in the ‘yes’ vote’s favour if Ardern had been open about her stance. 

…Jacinda and Andrew Little should be ashamed with the speed they have ruled out any reform, preferring  to keep a racist law in place rather than  remove it.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Chloe has the political courage we wish Jacinda had.

Many respects also to The Hemp Store, Nandor, Chris Fowlie, NORML, Russel Brown, Helen Clarke and the NZ Drug foundation for getting us to this momentous position – we await the specials in anticipation only because of your mahi.

 

Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice going into this pandemic and 2020 election – please donate here.

If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media.

31 COMMENTS

  1. It’s a grey area. Had Ardern publicly endorsed decriminalising marijuana, the media would have crucified her, and twisted it – that Amy Agnes-Mary Brooke person from Nelson had already whacked the PM, I think in some Australian published outlet , for being the sort of person just likely to support it – ergo an undesirable.

    Ardern would have been criticised for trying to influence referendum outcome, and not unreasonably. Some say that her job is to lead the people, which she’s been good at in crises, but the government’s job – in theory anyway – is to reflect the wishes of the people. I don’t want any government telling me how to think.

    • I’m in agreement Snow White.
      ” Some say that her job is to lead the people, which she’s been good at in crises, but the government’s job – in theory anyway – is to reflect the wishes of the people”
      Her flair for leadership has been exactly in reflecting the wishes of the people. And articulating what she is doing and why. She speaks the truth. Ifyouknowthetruth.
      D J S

    • SW
      Ardern stuck to her principles.
      We know she encouraged people to vote Labour and that is a political mandate she has by way of her party leadership.
      The Cannabis referendum was not a political issue but one of testing the populations response to the referendum question.

      Ardern’s role had to be one of allowing that to happen without direct influence which she did.
      Whatever Chloe preferred to do is up to her and she chose to be a protagonist for the yes option. That is her choice. Chloe is not the PM.
      I cast my vote hoping decriminalisation would eventuate and I think it still can. Little has been premature in his stated opinion, before the counting is complete. Little may regret his ill considered judgement on this non binding referendum.

      • “Little may regret his ill considered judgement on this non binding referendum”.. I have a sneaking suspicion you may be right there.. It constitutes the first really obvious misjudgement I can remember of his… It took about ten minutes or so to quell the rage I felt when I heard those words… Notwithstanding that, there were some areas of concern regarding the proposal, as laid out, that I had concerns with, and displayed a lack of depth, and looked more driven by commercial gain, than the health/justice/lifestyle driven economics, which I would have thought were paramount.. The fact that legalising cannabis makes good economic sense for society as a whole is simply a collateral bonus..

        • I agree Stefan.
          If tobacco was a growth industry, if alcohol sales boomed and if cannabis use increased then the same sort of major health problem exists.
          A Lack of education and incentive to live a more healthy life supportive to others and family.
          Cannabis is rife in many areas and concentration of use tends to be in more depressed areas often with high unemployment.
          The damage done to developing brains by cannabisis a growing epidemic as well as lung damage along with cardiovascular complication later in life being a similar legacy to that of tobacco.

          Dependency creates further poverty for many smoker and cannabis if commercialised will have a similar effect for many.
          But the big one is damage to the developing brain in teenage and young adult years.

          Criminalisation is a horrific outcome for many youths and jail brings its own crushing consequences for young tortured minds.

          I oppose criminalisation but would push for much more effective public education and counseling for health problems generally.

          The myths about cannabis and tobacco not hurting anyone need to be dismissed as the evidence shows that is not true. Alcohol similarly but separately.

      • Little’s constant refrain throughout the RNZ interview I heard was that Labour said they would honour the referendum result, however close it was, and they will. If the specials shift the balance to 51% in favour, I expect he will say exactly the same thing, regardless of how the conservatives howl about 51% telling 49% what to do.

  2. Unfortunately the attitude Jacinda Ardern took on this matter suggests profound arrogance and narcissism. Did she seriously believe that everybody was just hanging out to hear the opinion of “dear leader” to adopt as their own? No one can have an independent thought without guidance from her better mind? Sorry I can’t see any other way to understand this, Jacinda Ardern appears to believe she is the conscience of the nation, and suggests a leadership mindset better suited to North Korea than NZ.

    Some of the way Chloe expressed herself suggested a teenage tantrum, but at least she is demonstrating honest emotion.

    • Some people – like the sort who go out and wave flags when Prince Harry, and Arden’s friend Meghan Markle visit – they could be influenced. But the point is, Ardern said pre referendum that it was her private business, not ours.

      The same should therefore apply post referendum, but lo and behold, it was suddenly no longer her private business after all. That’s the part that doesn’t wash – the PR slipping into John Key glib. But if she really thinks that half a street would trot off and vote the way that she said she was going to, then she needs to think again – very arrogant indeed.

      • If you really think that a declaration by Jacinda would not have influenced anybody’s vote, why are you so concerned about her reticence. The case, for and against, had already been made and there was nothing she could usefully have added; so, like any citizen, she had a right to privacy when it came to the question of which way she would vote.

  3. Adern and Little don’t know shame. As corporate players of the political game, and as self-serving liars, they don’t know ethics either. Yes, the both lie; Jacinda with a smile: Andrew with a frown.

    They are only in power because National were (are) so off-the-planet and blatantly mendacious and incompetent.

  4. Swarbrick is the Prime Minister we can only hope for. She’d lead AO/NZ from an indebted Brit/Americlone cluster fuck plaything of greed and lies to a kind of Northern European yet South Pacific independence.
    We, as a country, would and should flourish.
    People who voted against decriminalising Pot? I wouldn’t tell anyone if I were you. You’ll only embarrass yourselves since you’ll admit by disclosure that you let your ignorance speak so loudly for you.
    It’s a kind of macabre, sadistic madness made all the more so for being out in the broad day light, that people voted for a twerking rogerclone money fetishist to enable the costly old, infirm and terminally incapable to be put down like sick animals yet we can’t use cannabis, a herb designed by nature, to help us where it can.
    How fucked is that?

    • Very well put countryboy!

      I got that “you idiot” feeling when I heard the result–the true nature of around half of our fellow citizens thudded back into my consciousness–like the “Foreskins Lament” dramatic Rugby clarion call; “Whadarrrya!!”…All that dark, nasty, Kiwism.

      Will be interesting to see the breakdown re age, region, party affiliation etc. it seems 45% of Labourites were “Nopes” hence I guess our dear leader’s caution following her focus groups.

      The Govt. basically allowed the Referendum and then hung it out to dry–yes you Andrew and Jacinda.

  5. Judith Collins thoroughly deserves the election result she got for her politicising of the cannabis referendum. But do you really think Adern should have given in to Collins pathetic demands during the debate as to which way she was voting? There are a LOT of areas where the yes campaign failed, but Aderns voting position wasn’t one of them.
    But if Adern & Little think they can sweep this issue under the rug then they are sadly mistaken, and it will cost them.

    • Yes I agree with you Stan this issue will not go away and putting it to a referendum was gutless to say the least. Our politicians are happy to make all the other hard decisions, gay marriage, abortion, locking us down, controlling immigration numbers and saying who can and can’t come into our country yet they back away from the cannabis issue. I see our PM wants to serve all NZers that will be hard. However if that is the case then she should start sorting the cannabis issue out asap. And she can start with our NZ Polices policies and their criminalising of Maori. I watched the debates on the Hui and Te Marae and I found an ex policemen objecting, and he is probably still wearing his police hat and a Anglican priest, who had no problem recognising discrimination in the euthanasia act but failed to recognise this very issue in how cannabis is being policed. I find many Christian people to be the biggest hypocrites too many are very judgmental. What happened to forgiving. I can see why so many of our Maori people have rejected Christianity as well as many NZers. Lastly you can take pills when you go to a concert and our new government is looking at setting up a testing regime, really! are they going to provide condoms too, ? can anyone see the hypocrisy?

  6. If this labour government thinks it’s a good idea to ignore nearly 50% of the voting population and not create a billion dollar industry and jobs then they will collapse and loose the next election, we are walking into the greatest recession/ depression since the 1920’s , and to snub a boom industry is utter madness , the likes of Helius, Cannasouth and Ruabio won’t be holding back from rarking up the drones in the beehive

  7. Even if she did not say it, I don’t think it was too hard to know which way Ardern was going to vote. But it was a game she did not need to play – it did not come across well in interviews or debates.

    However, the fact that she kept the cannabis issue at arms length shows that she probably did not want the “Yes” vote to win. Internal polling was likely saying that it was close, so she didn’t want to push it over the line. If the “No” vote had a stronger lead, maybe she would have made her choice known.

    Ardern would have been aware that there was a chance for Labour to govern alone, and she worked towards that. Sounding “pro-dope” in election year could have jeopardised that, so it became a issue she wasn’t going to fight for.

    Like Helen White, Swarbrick can only hope that the special votes give her the result she wants.

  8. Jacinda has said she wants change that sticks, the cannabis debate is not over yet. Swarbrick has begun her ascent and may one day have her time at the top, however a long way for her to go yet.

  9. Surely the way ahead is co-operation, not competition, and certainly not conflict. Why create divisions when there is no need for this?

  10. This girl has got guts. The Gangs and the Asian Crime Syndicates will be over the moon the legalization of cannabis has been defeated as it would affect the millions of $ they make in the illegal drug trade.

  11. The NZMA’s early ‘no’ stance must have had an effect on early voting. The change to ‘neutral’ 4 days before the election was assuring. But the damage had been done.

    n

  12. Within the first week of Government this term — Andrew Little (and JA by default) pulls this…oh boy, for the 2023 elections, especially the 1.1 million voters of yes to Cannabis, will get revenge on them.
    The Labour Government got in partly due to being Covid Wardens — and not a hell of a lot more, this time last year, National was ahead in various polls, then Covid struck, and the National Party fell apart, allowing Labour to victory.
    This decision by Andrew Little to ignore 1.1 million voters wish, with the majority being either Labour, or Green voters, will result in a change of Government in 2023…if, they (Labour) does not offer to reform the Cannabis Laws ASAP…

    • Change of government in 2023, who to National? who have an extremely conservative policy relating to Cannabis reform , so not an option.
      Better to vote for the Greens ,who are the only leftist party in parliament with a more practical approach to Cannabis reform. 2023 Labour may well need the Greens to form a government and could be forced to a least decriminalize Cannabis. Interesting to note Little is no longer the minister of Justice , so there may yet be some movement.

  13. Because Labour didnt deal to the misinformation campaign, or investigate the possibility of overseas funding/help just says to me Labour wanted it to fail.

  14. Jacinda says she didnt take a stand because Labour doesn’t have a policy on harm reduction and drug reform.

    Is that supposed to be an excuse because to me that’s insane.

    Labour is one of the only partys of its kind in the world with zero policy on drug reform.
    Zero. Canadas liberals and Trudeau led the issue, the NDP, the Democrats, uk Labour, just about every soc dem party in europe supports some form of drug reform and has policy Labour and national have no policy.

    That’s just shocking. Utterly shocking.

    It’s typical of nz to ignore the hard stuff

    We’re going to have more and more and more referendums because Labour and National increasingly refuse to have any opinions on incredibly pressing issues.

  15. This is no doubt the case which is why the Greens signing up to a deal to work under neo liberal Labour is so disappointing.

  16. If the special votes ends up with 49% For and 51% Against (making a different of no more than 40,000 voters at most), and then Labour still does not act on Cannabis Laws…they deserve to be voted out in 2023 for sheer silliness from Labour (keeping in mind that most For voters are also Labour/Green voters).

    By refusing to act to reform Cannabis Laws – they (Labour) are doing National/Act job by default…and both National/Act received about 35% (after special votes — at this stage)…simply not sensible from Labour

Comments are closed.