Receiving income from ACC or private work insurance
0.699
Percentage of electorate New Zealand-born
0.695
Voting Advance NZ 2020
0.684
Level 2 certificate
0.636
Unemployed
0.635
Five children
0.620
Working as a labourer
0.589
Six or more children
0.583
Personal income $10,000-$20,000
0.581
Working as a community or personal services worker
0.566
No NZQA qualifications
0.550
Receiving income from Supported Living Payment
0.550
Level 1 certificate
0.545
Level 4 certificate
0.528
Voting Vision NZ Party 2020
0.513
Four children
0.507
Never married
0.482
Full time study
0.443
Currently unpartnered
0.393
Voting New Zealand First 2020
0.381
Level 3 certificate
0.375
Working as a machinery operator or driver
0.370
Level 5 diploma
0.365
Working in construction
0.364
Working in transport, postal and warehousing
0.352
Following Spiritualism or a New Age religion
0.347
Personal income $20,000-$30,000
0.332
Voting ONE Party 2020
0.329
Neither ownership of house nor house in family trust
0.320
Following no religion
0.285
Working in manufacturing
0.268
Working in agriculture, forestry or fishing
0.257
Working in electricity, gas, water and waste services
0.255
Personal income $5,000-$10,000
0.249
Special voting Yes for cannabis
0.233
Personal income $30,000-$50,000
0.229
Working as a technician or trades worker
0.206
Working in mining
0.201
Mean age
0.167
Divorced/separated/widowed
0.161
Three children
0.154
Median age
0.149
Working in administrative and support services
0.134
Voting NZ Outdoors Party 2020
0.134
Employed part-time
0.116
Part time study
0.106
Percentage of males in electorate
0.070
Working in healthcare and social assistance
0.040
Working in other services
0.033
Receiving income from Student Allowance
0.029
Voting Social Credit 2020
0.022
Working in accommodation or food services
0.020
Working in retail trade
0.016
Personal income < $5,000
0.011
Receiving wage or salary
-0.003
Aged 20-24
-0.008
Working in public administration or safety
-0.016
Voting Heartland NZ 2020
-0.025
Not in the labour force
-0.032
Working in arts and recreation services
-0.038
Living in a North Island electorate
-0.039
Pacific Islander
-0.052
Receiving no source of income
-0.057
Working in education or training
-0.064
Percentage of females in electorate
-0.071
European
-0.080
Aged 25-29
-0.089
Working as a sales worker
-0.138
Own or part own house
-0.186
No children
-0.192
Receiving income from NZ Super or Veteran’s pension
-0.193
One child
-0.202
Voting Greens 2020
-0.228
Aged 65-69
-0.230
Employed full-time
-0.249
Aged 55-59
-0.250
Aged 30-34
-0.250
Mean personal income
-0.255
Aged 70-74
-0.261
Voting Labour 2020
-0.269
Aged 60-64
-0.274
Median personal income
-0.275
Aged 75-79
-0.301
Special voting Yes for euthanasia
-0.312
Voting New Conservative 2020
-0.312
Working as a manager
-0.313
Voting The Opportunities Party 2020
-0.338
Working in wholesale trade
-0.338
Aged 80-84
-0.338
Receiving income from self-employment or owning one’s own business
-0.345
Following Christianity
-0.352
Personal income $50,000-$70,000
-0.358
Working as a clerical or administrative worker
-0.359
Working in information media and telecommunications
-0.369
Two children
-0.380
Working in rental, hiring and real estate services
-0.383
Voting TEA Party 2020
-0.383
Living in an urban electorate
-0.388
Currently partnered
-0.393
Following Judaism
-0.395
Aged 85+
-0.403
Following Islam
-0.405
Voting Sustainable NZ 2020
-0.406
Aged 35-39
-0.410
Aged 50-54
-0.410
Following Hinduism
-0.414
Not studying
-0.431
Aged 40-44
-0.433
Doctorate
-0.445
Working in financial or insurance services
-0.446
Aged 45-49
-0.465
Percentage of voting age population enrolled
-0.470
Own house in family trust
-0.472
Voting ACT 2020
-0.476
Working as a professional
-0.478
Working in professional, scientific or technical services
-0.490
Personal income $70,000+
-0.513
Turnout rate
-0.524
Master’s degree
-0.529
Asian
-0.530
Honours degree
-0.550
Level 6 diploma
-0.557
Bachelor’s degree
-0.564
Following Buddhism
-0.566
Receiving income from interest, dividends, rent, other investments
-0.580
Voting National 2020
-0.597
Married (not separated)
-0.606
Percentage of electorate overseas-born
-0.695
*
This article is an excerpt from the upcoming 3rd Edition of Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing. Understanding New Zealand is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people.
New Zealand is currently beset with the question of crime and punishment. The country appears torn between two failed approaches to justice: excessive softness and excessive hardness. Swinging back and forth between the two has led to great dissatisfaction with the Justice System and even talk of vigilante group formation.
Our attitude to justice reflects our moral confusion in the face of what has previously been called the Clown World Fork. Our basic morality is torn between two polar opposites: a wretched, pitiful, Christian doctrine of infinite forgiveness, and a sadistic, paranoid, bestial doctrine of utter destruction. Not having rational balance in our moral philosophy, we also don’t have it in our Justice System.
This has led us to a situation where gang member rapists get lighter sentences than people selling food without a licence. Outcomes like this are possible because we no longer have a shared sense of moral philosophy. There is no longer an agreed scale of heinousness, such that different crimes can be readily apportioned a length of punishment.
It’s time for a moral reset.
It’s time to admit that both Christianity and atheism are dead, and that neither are useful as moral philosophies any more. This means that it’s time to start experimenting with new philosophies. It’s obvious that some kind of new balance needs to be struck, between mercy and severity, for actual justice to be done.
In India there exists something that could be described as the sadhu system. In the sadhu system, criminals can repent by living a low-consumption lifestyle with a view to burning off accrued karmic debt, instead of going to prison. It’s a form of public repentance that New Zealand has no equivalent to. Perhaps we could benefit from one?
A New Zealand equivalent of the sadhu system would involve certain criminals, upon pleading guilty to a crime, to agree to forfeit the right to own property for a set period of time. In exchange, their basic food, clothing and shelter needs are met by the state, and they don’t go to prison or to home detention.
The logic is that many crimes, especially ones of property and violence, are ultimately motivated by egotism, and egotism is ultimately caused by a lack of spirituality. In other words, only a non-spiritual person would become so attached to the material world that they thought it was worth committing crimes to advance oneself here.
In the case of some criminals, dilemmas abound. Some are too dangerous to be allowed to roam the street, but at the same time there may be numerous downsides to sending them to prison. It’s apparent that a third approach is necessary.
This article suggests that certain criminals be offered the choice of prison or becoming part of a new, experimental sadhu system based on the Hindu model. This would entail that the criminal forfeit their right to own property or to accumulate wealth for a certain period of time, in exchange for agreeing to live as a spiritual penitent.
Indian sadhus use a lot of cannabis, which is known to be a spiritual sacrament that induces detachment from the material world. New Zealand sadhus could be given as much cannabis as they feel they need in order to develop beyond their innate clinging to the material world.
New Zealand doesn’t have many Hindu temples, so any introduction of a sadhu system might depend on the previous establishment of a national religion that can accommodate penitents. This might involve a new religion for the Age of Aquarius, such as Elementalism or similar. Perhaps funding could be directed to the construction of an Elementalist temple in every New Zealand town.
Elementalist temples in every town would mean that sadhus could travel as wandering ascetics from town to town, staying at the various temples and hanging out smoking cannabis with the Elementalist priests. These priests, trained in true psychology and not mere huckstering, will be able to help heal the souls of the various sadhus.
The advantages of such a system are many. For one, the Elementalist priests would serve as a kind of psychiatric service to the sadhus, helping them understand their place, and the place of humanity, in the grand scheme of creation. They would explain the laws of karma and the possible reasons for a lowly birth in this life.
The inevitable, knee-jerk reaction to this idea on the part of many is to bemoan the low productivity of the sadhus. But productivity and consumption go hand-in-hand. If we’re going to make a genuine effort to prevent the destruction of the Earth’s climate, we need to encourage people to live low-consumption lifestyles whenever possible.
A sadhu system could provide a neat and voluntary alternative path to rehabilitate criminals. We’re tried breaking them into submission and we’ve tried treating them like children – both approaches failed. Let’s try the spiritual approach, wherein we incentivise the criminally-minded to abandon the material world and to work on eliminating karmic debt.
The use of cannabis in human history as a spiritual tool dates back thousands of years. In many cultures, the plant has been considered sacred and has held a significant place in religious practices. Despite its controversial status in today’s society, cannabis was once regarded as a holy sacrament, offering those who consumed it a gateway to higher spiritual states.
Cannabis has been used in various forms throughout history. Its earliest recorded uses date back to ancient China and India. In China, the plant was considered one of the “50 fundamental herbs” and was used extensively in traditional medicine. In India, cannabis was considered sacred under the name “bhang”, and it was considered an essential element of Indian religious practices.
In Hinduism, Lord Shiva is often depicted holding a “chillum”, a clay pipe used to smoke cannabis. It is believed that Shiva would consume cannabis before meditating, as it helped to quiet his mind and achieve a heightened state of consciousness.
Similarly, in the Elementalist religion, cannabis, or “ganja”, holds a central role in their spiritual practices. Elementalists believe that the plant is a sacrament, given to them by God, to promote relaxation, calmness, and increase spiritual awareness. They use it as an aid in meditation and prayer, to gain insight into their relationship with the divine and to connect with their inner selves.
Native American tribes also incorporated the use of cannabis in their spiritual rituals. The Lakota tribe, for example, used cannabis as part of their vision quests. During these quests, individuals would consume cannabis to enter a trance-like state and seek guidance from the spirit world.
In addition to spiritual practices, cannabis has played a crucial role in modern religions such as Elementalism and the Church of the Universe. These religions view cannabis as a means of connecting with the divine and achieving a higher state of consciousness.
The spiritual use of cannabis is not limited to religious practices. It has also been used as a tool for self-exploration and personal growth. Many individuals who consume cannabis report experiencing feelings of euphoria, a sense of connectedness with the universe, and heightened creativity. These experiences often lead individuals to question their place in the world and their relationship with the divine.
However, it is important to note that the spiritual use of cannabis is not without controversy. Some argue that the plant’s psychoactive properties can lead to abuse and addiction, ultimately hindering an individual’s spiritual development through creating an attachment to the material world.
Despite these criticisms, the spiritual use of cannabis persists among many individuals and religious communities around the world. In recent years, there has been a growing movement to legalise cannabis, driven in part by those who view its use as a spiritual right.
This movement has gained momentum as more individuals and communities have begun to recognize the therapeutic benefits of cannabis. The plant is now used to treat a variety of medical conditions such as chronic pain, epilepsy, and anxiety. As more research is conducted on its potential as a therapeutic tool, it is possible that the spiritual use of cannabis will become more widely accepted and recognized.
In conclusion, the spiritual use of cannabis in human history is a complex topic. For many cultures and religions, cannabis was considered a sacred plant capable of promoting spiritual growth and personal development. Although it is mostly prohibited today, many millions still use it to gain spiritual insight.
*
Vince McLeod is the author of The Case For Cannabis Law Reform, the comprehensive collection of arguments for ending cannabis prohibition.
Many thought that holding a cannabis referendum at the same time as a General Election would lead to a surge in support for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. In the end, they only got 13,329 votes, or around 0.5% of the party vote. This chapter explain why a hundred times more people voted for cannabis law reform than for the cannabis party.
It will be surprising for many to hear that there wasn’t much overlap between those who voted ALCP in 2020 and those who cast a special vote for Yes in the cannabis referendum- the correlation between the two groups was 0.23. This was statistically significant, but only barely so, and is much weaker than many other correlations with voting ALCP in 2020.
Variable
Voting ALCP in 2020
No qualifications
0.55
Level 1 certificate
0.55
Level 2 certificate
0.64
Level 3 certificate
0.37
Level 4 certificate
0.53
Level 5 diploma
0.36
Level 6 diploma
-0.56
Bachelor’s degree
-0.56
Honours degree
-0.55
Master’s degree
-0.53
Doctorate
-0.44
The trend here is obvious: the better-educated a person is, the less likely they were to vote ALCP in 2020. This is similar to previous elections. What this trend reveals is that the ALCP is seen as a joke party by the vast majority of the electorate, and people only vote for them if they feel that their vote doesn’t matter.
In this regard, a vote for the ALCP is similar to not voting, in that it follows the General Disenfranchisement Rule. The ALCP is something of a joke party and so, like not voting, it tends to appeal to those who feel that their vote doesn’t matter anyway. We can predict from this that the demographics of ALCP voters are very similar to the demographics of non-voters.
These correlations explain why the correlation between voting ALCP in 2020 and special voting Yes in the cannabis referendum was only 0.23. The more poorly-educated a person is, the more likely they are to vote ALCP, but the better-educated a person was, the more likely they were to special vote Yes in the cannabis referendum.
Variable
Voting ALCP in 2020
European
-0.08
Maori
0.88
Pacific Islander
-0.05
Asian
-0.53
Indeed, we can see an extremely strong correlation of 0.88 between being Maori and voting ALCP in 2020. Kiwis of European descent and Pacific Islanders were generally neutral about voting ALCP, and Asians were strongly against it. These patterns mirror the numbers of poorly-educated and disenfranchised people among those racial groups.
For many Maori people, the Establishment is implacably opposed to them and so it doesn’t matter who they vote for. This is why so many of them either don’t vote or vote for protest parties like the ALCP. Their high levels of support for the ALCP could be considered a consequence of general disenfranchisement.
However, it isn’t just a protest vote. Maori people are much more heavily affected by cannabis prohibition than other races, on account of that they are much more likely to use it as a recreational alternative to alcohol in comparison to all of whites, Pacific Islanders and Asians. Moreover, the relative insecurity of dwelling suffered by Maori people means that they are more likely to use cannabis in public, and thereby more likely to suffer legal consequences.
Variable
Voting ALCP in 2020
Voting Labour in 2020
-0.27
Voting National in 2020
-0.60
Voting Greens in 2020
-0.23
Voting ACT in 2020
-0.48
Voting New Zealand First in 2020
0.38
Voting New Conservative in 2020
-0.31
Voting The Opportunities Party in 2020
-0.34
Voting Maori Party in 2020
0.81
Voting Advance NZ in 2020
0.68
Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
-0.41
One pattern immediately leaps out when we look at the correlations between voting ALCP in 2020 and voting for other parties: all of the correlations between voting ALCP in 2020 and voting for one of the four major globalist parties is significantly negative.
The most negative of all was the correlation between voting ALCP in 2020 and voting National in 2020: this was -0.60. The ALCP-voting demographics differ from the National-voting demographics in several major ways, as this chapter will discuss.
Some might be surprised to see that the correlation between voting ALCP in 2020 and voting Greens in 2020 was -0.23. The ALCP is considered by many to be a Greens-adjacent party, on account of that the cannabis law reform issue has been pushed by the Greens more than by any other party. But the only major quality shared by both Greens and ALCP voters is that they tend to be young.
Those surprised at that will likely also be surprised by the correlation between voting ALCP in 2020 and voting New Zealand First in 2020, which was 0.38. This reflects a shared tendency for ALCP and New Zealand First voters to be both Maori and poorly educated.
The heavy Maori support for the ALCP also explains why there are strong correlations between voting ALCP in 2020 and voting Maori Party in 2020 (0.81) or voting Advance NZ in 2020 (0.68).
Variable
Voting ALCP in 2020
Median income
-0.28
Mean income
-0.26
Variable
Voting ALCP in 2020
<$5,000
0.01
$5,000-$10,000
0.25
$10,000-$20,000
0.58
$20,000-$30,000
0.33
$30,000-$50,000
0.23
$50,000-$70,000
-0.36
$70,000+
-0.51
Fitting with the general theme of disenfranchisement, ALCP voters are considerably poorer than the average voter. The correlation between voting ALCP in 2020 and median income was -0.28. This is actually wealthier than would be predicted from their education level, but still significantly poorer than the New Zealand average.
The most positive correlation between voting ALCP and belonging to a particular income bracket was the $10,000-$20,000 “beneficiary” bracket, which was 0.58. The most negative correlation between voting ALCP and belonging to a particular income bracket was the $70,000+ bracket, which was -0.51.
Variable
Voting ALCP in 2020
New Zealand-born
0.69
Disenfranchisement is only very rarely imported to New Zealand. The vast majority of people at the bottom of our society are home grown. This may sound strange, especially to those who follow the narrative that being an immigrant automatically makes a person a member of an oppressed group.
The reality is that New Zealand-born people make up the vast bulk of those doing bad, and ALCP voters are often among these.
On the surface, it seems paradoxical to have a situation where highly-educated people voted in favour of cannabis law reform in the referendum, but mostly poorly-educated people voted in favour of the cannabis law reform party at the 2020 General Election.
The explanation is that the ALCP is something of a joke vote for people who aren’t serious. Many people feel that their party vote is worthless anyway, on account of that the Establishment will always win, so they protest by casting a vote for the ALCP. These sentiments did not apply to the cannabis referendum, where many people felt that they had an opportunity to stick it to the Establishment by voting for freedom.
Variable
Voting ALCP in 2020
Living in an urban electorate
-0.39
Living on the North Island
-0.04
ALCP voters are more likely to be rural dwellers than urban ones – the correlation between voting ALCP in 2020 and living in an urban electorate was . There are several possible reasons for this. The most obvious is the large Maori proportion of ALCP voters, because Maori people tend to live rurally. Another likely reason is that, because cannabis is currently illegal, people who grow it prefer to operate away from high concentrations of potential noticers.
The correlation between voting ALCP in 2020 and living on the North Island was not only not significant, it was negative. This will surprise those who thought that most ALCP voters are gang members from Hastings and Napier. The truth is that the ALCP gets a lot of votes from hippies and “Dark Green” environmentalists, as well as doomsday preppers, and many of those live in rural South Island.
Variable
Voting ALCP in 2020
No religion
0.29
Is Buddhist
-0.57
Is Christian
-0.35
Is Hindu
-0.41
Is Jew
-0.39
Is Muslim
-0.41
Is follower of a Maori religion
0.72
Is Spiritualist or New Ager
0.35
We can see even more evidence of heavy Maori support for cannabis law reform when looking at the correlation between voting ALCP in 2020 and being a follower of a Maori religion, which was 0.72. This was much stronger than any other correlation between voting ALCP in 2020 and religious affiliation.
The next most positive correlation was the one between voting ALCP in 2020 and being a Spiritualist or New Ager, which was 0.35. The explanation for this is not as obvious as the one for Maori religions, but comes down to the fact that New Agers in particular consider cannabis to be a spiritual sacrament and its prohibition a moral obscenity.
There was also a significant positive correlation of 0.29 between voting ALCP in 2020 and having no religion. This will surprise those who are aware that people with no religion tend to be better-educated than those with a religion, and that ALCP voters tend to be poorly educated. The explanation is that most of the prejudice against cannabis users comes from religious people, who see cannabis use as a rival spiritual practice.
In the case of Christians, this represents a significant antipathy towards cannabis users (see Chapter 11). In the case of the followers of the religions not yet mentioned (particularly Jews), it reflects the fact that the ALCP is a joke party in the minds of many, and followers of Asian religions tend to take their votes seriously.
Variable
Voting ALCP in 2020
Employed full-time
-0.25
Employed part-time
0.12
Unemployed
0.64
Few will be surprised by the strong positive correlation between voting ALCP in 2020 and being unemployed – this was 0.64. Unemployment is correlated with many other variables that are themselves correlated with voting ALCP in 2020, such as being young, being Maori or being poorly educated.
The correlation between voting ALCP in 2020 and being employed part-time will surprise many, on account of that ALCP voters are stereotyped as non-workers. But, as with other disenfranchised demographics, ALCP voters often find themselves working part-time to make ends meet. Many ALCP voters on the Supported Living Payment or the Sole Parent Payment will fall into this category.
Variable
Voting ALCP in 2020
No source of income
-0.06
Earning a wage or salary
-0.00
Being self-employed or owning one’s own business
-0.35
Receiving interest, dividends, rent or other investment income
-0.58
Receiving ACC or private work insurance
0.70
Receiving NZ Super or Veteran’s pension
-0.19
Receiving JobSeeker Support
0.77
Receiving Sole Parent Support
0.77
Receiving Supported Living Payment
0.55
Receiving Student Allowance
0.03
Some might think that, because many ALCP voters are young and because the ALCP is something of a protest party, that many students would support them. This is not the case. The correlation between voting ALCP in 2020 and receiving a Student Allowance was a mere 0.03. This is probably because cannabis law reform is mostly an issue for those doing it tough, and tertiary students tend to be middle-class.
The two least disenfranchised categories of benefit recipients are pensioners and students. This is because pensioners usually own their own homes, and students are usually middle-class and only temporarily poor while they are young. Following from this, neither of the correlations between being either on a pension or on a student allowance and voting ALCP in 2020 were statistically significant.
The strongest correlations between voting ALCP in 2020 and any income type were with receiving JobSeeker Support and receiving Sole Parent Support. Both were 0.77. This paints a picture of the ALCP as a party for those who feel excluded by society to some extent, the true protest vote in contrast with Greens and ACT.
Supporting this contention are the strong correlations between voting ALCP in 2020 and receiving a Supported Living Payment (0.55) and receiving ACC or private work insurance (0.70). The mentally and physically damaged people in these categories are the ones most likely to have discovered the medicinal properties of cannabis.
Variable
Voting ALCP in 2020
Working as a manager
-0.31
Working as a professional
-0.48
Working as a technician or trades worker
0.21
Working as a community or personal services worker
0.57
Working as a clerical or administrative worker
-0.36
Working as a sales worker
-0.14
Working as a machinery operator or driver
0.37
Working as a labourer
0.59
When examining the occupations of ALCP voters, some patterns are evident that are the reverse of patterns of people who voted Yes in the cannabis referendum. This goes a long way to explain why there was such a weak correlation between voting ALCP in 2020 and voting Yes in the cannabis referendum.
Unlike with voting Yes in the cannabis referendum, the more disenfranchised a demographic is the more likely they were to vote ALCP in 2020. The reasons for this are complex.
Simply put, many disenfranchised General Election voters don’t feel that they have a realistic chance of influencing the election, so they throw their vote to a joke/protest party. On the other hand, voters in the cannabis referendum felt enfranchised, and felt like they did have a realistic chance of influencing the outcome, so they acted more seriously, and voted Yes.
Variable
Voting ALCP in 2020
Working in agriculture, forestry or fishing
0.26
Working in mining
0.20
Working in manufacturing
0.27
Working in electricity, gas, water and wastewater services
0.25
Working in construction
0.36
Working in wholesale trade
-0.34
Working in retail trade
0.02
Working in accommodation or food services
0.02
Working in transport, postal or warehousing
0.35
Working in information media or telecommunications
-0.37
Working in financial or insurance services
-0.45
Working in rental, hiring or real estate services
-0.38
Working in professional, scientific or technical services
-0.49
Working in administrative or support services
0.13
Working in public administration and safety
-0.02
Working in education and training
-0.06
Working in healthcare or social assistance
0.04
Working in arts or recreation services
-0.04
As with occupations, a familiar pattern presents itself with industries. The more enfranchised workers in any given industry tend to be, the less likely they tend to vote ALCP.
The industries peopled by those who usually take their lives seriously don’t vote ALCP often. The correlation between voting ALCP in 2020 and industry was significantly negative in the case of working in professional, scientific or technical services (-0.49), financial or insurance services (-0.45), rental, hiring or real estate services (-0.38), information media or telecommunications (-0.37) or wholesale trade (-0.34).
Industries peopled by those who tend to have less ambition, by contrast, show the opposite pattern. The correlation between voting ALCP in 2020 and industry was significantly positive in the case of working in construction (0.36), transport, postal or warehousing (0.35), manufacturing (0.27), agriculture, forestry or fishing (0.26) or electricity, gas, water and wastewater (0.25).
This lays bare the reality of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party: it’s not seen as a serious Parliamentary option, and so mostly attracts votes from protest voters. This is the reason why most demographics vote very differently when it comes to General Elections on the one hand, and cannabis law reform referendums on the other.
*
This article is an excerpt from the upcoming 3rd Edition of Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing. Understanding New Zealand is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people.
