Democracy already in use against drug harm – why can’t politicians do the same?

This blog post by Dr Rose Crossin was originally posted on newsroom. You can read the related report, New Zealand’s choice: Funding our drug policy, here.

Not too long ago my eldest daughter walked into the lounge, rolled her eyes as only a 13-year-old can, and said: “Mum, are you yelling at the news AGAIN?”

I’m not denying it – I was – but it was in response to a glib slogan of a response from a politician to a complex policy problem.

We sat on the couch and talked about the issue.

We exchanged ideas, we listened to each other, she explained her perspective as a young person.

We talked about what the evidence shows, and the things we don’t and can’t easily measure.

We deliberated – together.

It took more time than the slogan, or yelling at the TV from the couch, but it led to something better.

I have recently had the privilege of watching this play out at a larger scale during my drug policy research project with the Helen Clark Foundation.

As part of this research, I met weekly with a group of 10 Christchurch retirees, and used deliberative workshops to try to reach consensus on what should be done to respond to illegal drug use in New Zealand.

The group worked together to produce a consensus statement and recommendations that were then included in the report and will be shared with politicians and policymakers.

Their consensus statement strongly reflected a health-based approach to drugs, and reached conclusions similar to recent research by the NZ Drug Foundation.

This outcome shows the power of what can be achieved by providing a group of ‘lay’ citizens with opportunities for learning and deliberation.

The group conclusion reflected the complexity of drug policy, and the need for thoughtful and nuanced responses, not quick fixes.

They were able to recognise that there are complex determinants for drug use, many of which arise in childhood and are not always within individuals’ control.

They discussed the reasons why some people experience harm from drug use and others do not.

They concluded that there was no single solution, but that drug policy needed an evidence-based programme of responses.

This included an enhanced focus on harm reduction programmes, which many members of the group did not know much about beforehand, but were strongly supportive of after learning more.

And all this, in just seven weeks.

One of the group’s key recommendations was that policy decisions should be made through processes with greater democratic involvement, and include deliberation and learning, to improve evidence-based decision making.

This could include a series of Citizens’ Juries or a larger Citizens’ Assembly, where representative groups of everyday people come together to learn, deliberate, and develop recommendations.

These mechanisms would create opportunities for public input to decision-making on drug policy, and for citizens’ views to be taken into account.

In effect, the group wanted greater democratic participation, and less politicisation of drug policy.

In 2025, it is all too common to see people attack each other for having diverse views – it feels as if we’ve lost our ability to listen and discuss complex issues with respect.

In this context, it is easy to disconnect from democratic processes out of frustration at our inability to make progress on our big challenges.

Having been part of this deliberative group-learning process, I’m hopeful there is a better way.

This is why my report recommended that New Zealand hold a Citizens’ Assembly on our country’s approach to drugs in the next two years.

This would bring together a representative group of New Zealanders, who would learn together, hear from experts and people with lived experience, engage with evidence about what works, and respectfully exchange views with the aim of reaching consensus on the path forward.

This approach is not about groupthink.

A credible Citizens’ Assembly would still rely on evidence and deliberation.

Decisions need to be based on evidence of what works, first and foremost.

This approach does not absolve politicians of their role in making evidence-based decisions and leading with courage.

But in the current political climate, it is hard to imagine drug law reform being proposed without someone yelling “soft on crime!”

Holding a Citizens’ Assembly would build legitimacy for decisions and help reduce the politics.

This initiative should be funded by the Government.

Ideally, there should be a cross-party commitment to carefully study the findings and recommendations that come out of this deliberative democratic process, with a view to pursuing legislative, regulatory, and policy change.

It would be disappointing to put in this effort only to have the recommendations gather dust on decision-makers’ shelves.

Deliberative and participatory democracy is an idea that is coming to the fore.

It might be part of the antidote to our failing trust in democracy and political systems.

It is an idea that has support from diverse political philosophies.

A Citizens’ Assembly may not be appropriate for all policy matters, but it is well suited to resolving complex or divisive policy challenges such as policies on drugs, climate change, tax, and reducing inequality.

If greater participation and deliberation have the side benefit of encouraging respectful discussion about, and thoughtful solutions to, complex problems, then all the better.

Maybe then my daughters won’t have to watch me getting cross at the news quite so often.

In the last 12 months about 675,000 New Zealand adults will have used an illegal drug.

Many have pointed out that our current approach isn’t really a ‘war on drugs’, it’s a war on people who use drugs.

Drug policy is a subject with people at its heart.

So, let’s give them something better than being treated as a political football, or being put in the too-hard basket.

Let’s put people and their views at the centre of New Zealand’s drug policy decisions.

This project has shown that New Zealand citizens can build consensus collectively, and reach sensible and nuanced solutions to reducing harm from drugs, with empathy, evidence, and health at their core.

Can our politicians step up and do the same?

Dr Crossin is the author of New Zealand’s choice: funding our drug policy, a new report from the Helen Clark Foundation. She is a senior lecturer in the Department of Public Health at the University of Otago (Christchurch), and recently undertook a sabbatical as a Senior Research Fellow at The Helen Clark Foundation.