THE ALLIANCE: SYMPATHETIC BUT NO ACTION Alliance voters have the highest rate of cannabis use (aside from the ALCP?), but the party is dogged by conflicting opinions, which means they don't have a policy other than to look into it. More talking, no action.

The Alliance Mental Health Policy says:

• An extensive public debate on cannabis use will be encouraged, including a Commission of Enquiry into the use of cannabis in relation to both public health and the criminal justice system.
• Alcohol and drug abuse (including addiction to tranquillisers) ... will be treated within the public mental health system.

AOTEAROA LEGALISE CANNABIS PARTY: LEGALISATION ALCP have a great policy (grow your own, and regulate and tax commercial sales) but they are under-resourced and will struggle to meet basic electoral requirements. ALCP gained 1.8% of the vote in 1996 when many top NORML activists stood as candidates, including Nandor Tanczos and Chris Fowlie, but slipped to 1.2% in 1999 after many defected to the Greens. Clearly will not make the 5% threshhold, but a vote will still send a symbolic message that cannabis law reform is your number one issue.

CHRISTIAN HERITAGE: STRONGER PROHIBITION No!! These guys are ultra facists pretending to be Christians. Jesus preached tolerance, but these guys weren't listening. If you think the Spanish Inquisition was a good thing, then go ahead and vote for them.

THE GREENS: LEGALISATION The only major party to advocate real change. Former NORML activist Nandor Tanczos MP has been a lone voice for the cannabis community within Parliament asking many Parliamentary Questions and forcing the pace of change. Many NORML activists are active within the Green Party and former NORML President Metiria Turei is Number 8 on the Greens List in 2002, so should join Nandor in Parliament.

The Greens Drugs Policy states:

• [We] recognise that some individuals in society will choose to use drugs regardless of their legal status
• Possession and cultivation for personal use of small amounts of cannabis ought not be a crime because the present policy creates more problems than it solves.
• A comprehensive 'growlocal – homegrown' model, involving full legalisation and licencing of small-scale local cultivation and trading will be developed.
• Therapeutic, social and recreational drug use needs to be distinguished from drug abuse.
• Harm reduction must be the overriding goal of a review of drug laws.

LABOUR: SYMPATHETIC BUT NO ACTION Labour don't like making difficult decisions - they promised much, but then did nothing, only agreeing to a Health Select Committee Inquiry after pressure from the Greens and then stalling the process for 2 years so that it ran out of time. It is clear that a vote for Labour is a vote for continued prohibition. More talking, no action.

Labour's 1999 Justice Policy states:

• Address drug, alcohol and gambling addiction problems, which are contributing factors in the offending of up to 80 per cent of inmates
• The number of drug addiction programs run in prisons also needs to be increased

LIBERTARIANZ: LEGALISATION These guys want to legalise everything: it's your choice.

The Libertarianz Policy states:

• All laws pertaining to drug offences (except supply to minors) to be repealed; all persons jailed for such "offences" to be released.

NATIONAL: STRONGER PROHIBITION The National Party apparantly have a policy of harm minimisation, but they are more interested in being seen to be tough. The Nats were founded on principles of reducing state interference people's lives and upholding individual rights, but not when it comes to cannabis. They want more prohibition, as if the fact that prohibition is a failure can be solved by more of it.

The National Party Policy states:

• Strengthen powers to confiscate the assets of convicted drug dealers
• Reduce the possession for supply thresholds for dealing in methamphetamine

NATURAL LAW: NO POLICY But you wouldn't expect yogic-flying hippies to jail pot smokers would you?

NEW ZEALAND FIRST: NO POLICY OR COMMITTMENT Another party that doesn't have a drugs policy. Winston Peters supported a referendum prior to the 1996 election (in an attempt to appeal to ALCP supporters) but as Treasurer he later actively stifled debate, saying "we have more important things to think about."

The NZ First Law Policy states:

• Introduce and trial roadside drug testing using technology currently available

UNITED FUTURE: PROHIBITION WITH DIVERSION Still believe that a drug-free society is possible. They are similar to the Swedish model - increased drug testing and forced treatment.

The United Future Drugs and Dependency Policy states:

• Offer an educational and treatment option as an alternative to a legal process when an individual is apprehended for drug use.
• Re-classify drugs so they relate more effectively to health, behavioural and legal problems.
• Require prison inmates to take full toxicology testing on admission to prison, to establish the level of drug use and provide them with a clean start through tailored programmes.
• Increase commitment to drug-free prison units and establish drug-free prisons.
• Encourage worksite drug testing alongside employee assistance programmes