Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I came to this Parliament to make policy on the basis of the very best science and evidence and what's concerned me in listening to this debate at the third reading stage is how little people are prepared to debate the science and the evidence of this issue. People want—whether it be cannabis whether it be other substances—to live in this simplistic world where it's either all good or it's all bad. Actually if we take an honest assessment of drugs both those that are used for medical purposes and those that are used recreationally drugs can be both; that is if they are tightly regulated like those that are used in medicines such as morphine they can provide tremendous good. But equally so if ill regulated they can be the cause of tremendous harm and anybody that looks at the number of fatalities from drug use in the United States of America and sweeping through the Western world right now is concerned about the proliferation of drugs and the harm they are doing in their society.So my first point is that drugs can do good and they can do bad and the duty on this Parliament is to regulate it in such a way that it is good for our society. The test for us with this bill which specifically amends our drug laws is: is it well-thought-out law that will carefully regulate the use of cannabis so that it does good? The overwhelming answer to that has to be No."I do want to refer to some science because it concerns me that the sort of touchy-feely politico arguments around the issues of all sorts of psychoactive substances is not based on evidence. I do refer the House to the comprehensive study by The Lancet one of the world's most respected medical journals that goes into the very issue of whether cannabis is in fact of great value in dealing with chronic pain. And I can only draw the conclusion from that study in July 2018 when it concluded that there was no evidence that cannabis use reduced pain severity or interference and that was done in independent trials—that is blind trials—that actually cannabis was not found to have many of the attributes that have been claimed.It is equally significant that the Medical Council the organisation that represents those people who study the human body for years who are dedicated to the well-being and health of people submitted so strongly against this bill at select committee. I say to members opposite: why do you find it so easy to dismiss the views of doctors and those who study medicines and human health for so long?One of the most famous and one of the most thorough medical studies that's internationally recognised of which all New Zealanders should be proud is the longitudinal study that's being done by the University of Otago going all the way back to the 1970s. It provides us with very clear data as to the impacts of cannabis use. Let me remind the House of what that concluded. It concluded that people who use cannabis regularly have a far higher risk of mental health. Now why is it when we have a Government that's so focused on trying to reduce the harm of mental health we would ignore the longitudinal study that shows that cannabis contributes significantly to mental health issues? It is also very clear that cannabis is absolutely associated with lower educational achievement. Do I want to vote for a bill that's going to result in lower educational achievement that's going to dumb down our country? I say and I express caution—Hon Stuart Nash: Go back to Nelson.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and here's some hard numbers. The Minister of Police is interjecting. Does he know that the Otago University longitudinal study of cannabis shows that people who regularly use cannabis are 10 times as likely to be involved in using those very serious drugs that cause such tremendous harm in society? Are members opposite aware that that longitudinal study shows that people who use cannabis regularly are three times more likely to be unemployed?Hon Shane Jones: Oh fake news—fake news.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And is that—well the member Shane Jones who talks about getting people off the couches—Hon Stuart Nash: Don't use the stats disingenuously.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say to Mr Jones: the medical evidence shows that regular recreational use of cannabis results in more people on the couches and more people being unemployed.Now I am not one who is saying that cannabis has no medical use. What I am saying is that it has to be tightly regulated if we are to ensure that there is no harm to society as a whole. That is where I am so disappointed that the hard work that's been done by Dr Shane Reti who did the hard work and came up with a regulatory regime that gave yes a conservative like me confidence that we could regulate it narrowly down to those areas where we would be able to provide for benefits from cannabis—but instead we have this very loose bill from members opposite.I just want members opposite to answer one simple question: will this bill allow the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis? I'll ask the question again. I think it's a question that New Zealanders would want the answer to. Will this bill allow the legal smoking of loose-leaf cannabis?Angie Warren-Clark: In palliative care.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the member's answered me. She has said that yes it does—it does! Here's the problem. The medical evidence is that loose-leaf cannabis will be allowed to be smoked with this bill and yet the evidence is clear that it is not a medicine. So here's my next question: how does the allowing of the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis contribute to this Government's pledge of smoke-free New Zealand by 2025?Hon Stuart Nash: Give him a clip around the ear Shane. You know better than this.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the member suggests that I get a clip around the ears.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Yes that's not appropriate.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think it's a serious question. Can any member opposite having confirmed that this bill provides for the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis explain to me how that fits with this Government's stated policy of a smoke-free New Zealand by 2025?Angie Warren-Clark: It is a short-term measure until—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh it's a short term measure! So is the member suggesting that with this bill we're going to allow the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis but the members sitting opposite are now going to undo that once we have passed this legislation? Because here's my last problem: when we're dealing with such a sensitive issue of this sort it should be Parliament that makes those decisions and what we are being asked to do with this bill is to write out a blank cheque for a bunch of officials driven by the Greens who quite openly want to completely decriminalise cannabis use in this country—to write out a blank cheque for the Government without the scrutiny of Parliament. I could recite over 50 times under the course of our period in Government when members opposite complained that bills have to mean what they say and say what they mean. Well this bill is a blank cheque and provides for none of that detail.This bill is a Trojan horse for decriminalisation of loose-leaf cannabis in New Zealand. Members opposite should be open and honest about that. We are creating an impossible dilemma for the police to ever enforce it. We've got this mad situation where it'll be legal to use cannabis and as the member opposite confirmed to smoke loose-leaf cannabis but actually there being no regime to provide for how it might be grown or supplied. That is a nonsense that is bad law and that is why I am so opposed to this bill and why I'm so disappointed that the hard work that was done by Dr Shane Reti in providing a detailed solution to how we might provide for medical cannabis while at the same time ensuring that we manage the harm has been rejected by members opposite. This bill will end up as—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member. Your time has expired."