The enactment of recreational cannabis legalization in Uruguay, Canada and 18 U.S. states has reignited the international debate about the preferred policy approach to cannabis , 2020; Hall et al., 2019. In previous decades, a range of cannabis decriminalization regimes were enacted in over 30 countries, notably in the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Australia, and Germany ; however, further reform involving permitting legal production and retail sales remains controversial. In New Zealand,activism against the prohibition of cannabis and related enforcement operations, such as the annual cannabis crop eradication operation, has been going on for decades. Yet unlike neighboring Australia, where several states implemented cannabis decriminalization during the 1980s and 1990s , the prohibition of cannabis has remained largely unchanged in New Zealand, vertical rack system apart from minor cannabis offences being included in a general criminal justice movement away from prosecution to use of diversion and formal warnings for minor offending .
In 2017, the New Zealand Green Party, which had advocated for cannabis law reform for many years, secured a commitment to hold a referendum on the legal status of cannabis in New Zealand as part of its support for the new Labor government. A national referendum on a proposal to legalize recreational cannabis use and supply was held in 2020 and did not pass . The New Zealand referendum was notable as it was the first to be held at the national level and to involve voting on a detailed proposal setting out a specific framework to establish a legal market for cannabis rather than a general question about whether cannabis should be legal or not . Despite the rejection of the legalization referendum, debate about the legal status of cannabis has continued in New Zealand and alternative proposals have been put forward , including a petition to introduce decriminalization . The evaluation of cannabis legalization in U.S. states is further complicated by the continuing federal prohibition and related regulatory gaps and barriers to doing business.
In addition, it has been recognized that how individuals and groups normatively value different cannabis re- form objectives and outcomes influences their preferred reform option . Drug policy researchers have long pointed out there are a range of alternative ‘middle ground’ options to cannabis policy reform be- tween prohibition on the one hand and unrestricted commercial markets on the other mobile grow rack. These include home cultivation, social clubs, not-for-profit community trusts, government monopolies, heavily regulated markets and “for-benefit ”companies . However, these middle ground approaches have received less mainstream media and political attention than the familiar alcohol- style regimes implemented in U.S. states. For example, Uruguay passed a largely non-commercial supply sys- tem for recreational cannabis use in 2013, although it has taken some time to establish the registration system and pharmacy retail supply . Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis is a group decision making method used to help resolve complex and controversial public pol- icy decisions characterized by uncertainty and incomplete information . For example, it has been used to assess nuclear waste management and the risk- benefit ratio of prescription drugs .
MCDA has previously been employed in the drug policy field to assess the harms of different drug types and different policy approaches to drug access and control . MCDA al- lows decision-makers to break down complex problems into simpler and essential components, facilitates the combining and integrating of the knowledge of many decision-makers with a range of expertise, and supports collaborative problem-solving and consensus building, particularly where there is conflicting experiences or perspectives . While MCDA has been utilized in the drug policy field, it is also acknowledged that the outcome of an MCDA analysis is influenced by the composition of the decision-making group . MCDA of drug policies to date have largely involved small groups of health and academic experts. As a result, there have been calls for broadening these decision-making groups to provide wider perspectives on policy reform .