Summary
| Website: | legalisecannabis.org.au |
| Social Media: | Facebook — Twitter |
| Previous Names: | Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party |
| Slogans: | Look for the Leaf |
| Themes: | Hemp can save everything from health to the economy to the environment to agriculture |
| Electorates: | Upper House: Eastern Victoria Region, North-East Metropolitan Region, Northern Metropolitan Region, Northern Victoria Region, South-East Metropolitan Region, Southern Metropolitan Region, Western Metropolitan Region, Western Victoria Region Lower House: Bayswater, Bendigo West, Pakenham |
| Preferences: | Either Animal Justice or the Reason Party receive LC’s second preference in every Region, with Victorian Socialists coming in at third. The exception is the Western Metropolitan Region, where the second spot is occupied by the Victorian Socialists. Fourth preferences go to the Greens except in Eastern and Northern Victoria, where LC has nominated Labor. |
| Previous Reviews: | 2022 — 2019 — 2013 |
Policies & Commentary
Legalise Cannabis (hereafter referred to as LCP) could be classed as a single-issue party1The clue’s in the name, after all., but they’ve done their homework in exploring just how far that single issue can be applied.
Most of the policies listed on their website are identical to the ones they took to the federal election in May this year, so I won’t revisit them. You can find our article here.
There is one new initiative with a specifically state-based focus, so let’s take a look.
Legalisation of cannabis for personal use is a long-standing policy for LC. Part of this involves a state-based tax on purchases, which, they argue, would significantly boost government revenue. In what’s erroneously called our ”post COVID recovery”2COVID-19 is not over. You know it. I know it., LC argue that this revenue could be used to aid recovery initiatives. Unfortunately, there’s no detail as to what those might be. LC might simply be leaving that decision in the hands of whoever will be in government, but it would be nice to see where they think that money should go. If nothing else, it would give us an idea of issues they care about that don’t involve hemp.
Sadly, that’s it, which is very disappointing. As I noted in our earlier article, LC have some excellent policies, but with that one exception, there’s nothing new that specifically applies to Victoria. That said, their existing policy suite is well-considered, and you might be surprised just how widely LC have researched the applications of their core proposition. I wouldn’t consider them for my first preference, but certainly within the top 5.
They reached the spotlight earlier in the year for almost edging out One Nation in Queensland (which I applaud them for). Which should also give them some funding to hopefully build up their party.
Reading between the lines of their extensive outline of legalising cannabis, they support clean power (particularly cannabis biofuel, but one can infer other low-emission sources), environmental protection, reducing plastic pollution, more support for mental health and having a less punitive/drugs focused justice system. Beyond saying “we want to legalise cannabis,” they seem to have a good sense of how to approach public policy in different areas. Perhaps the most detailed single policy I have seen this election, even if that is the one they have. After this election (and certainly if they get anyone elected), I would expect them to build out a few more direct policies or position statements.
The reason I didn’t go into detail on those policies is that they are functionally identical to the ones they took to the last election, and directed them to the earlier write-up.
True! Wasn’t saying anything about the article. Just writing what I found interesting. 🙂
Comparing to other single-issue parties, reminded me to look up Bullet Train for Australia (now deregistered). Whose approach to anything other than trains was (beyond not writing anything up) to “abstain on voting from anything that is not related to high-speed-rail and getting a Bullet Train.” Which is a rather severe abdication of responsibility to take your job seriously if you do get elected (one wonders whether they would only get paid for the 1% of time trains come up).
Reprinted with permission from a response left on my Facebook linking to this page:
I think the thing to remember about the Legalise Cannabis Party (which your federal article hints at but doesn’t say explicitly) is that their policies represent the interests of those who want to *profit* off legalised cannabis sales more than they do the interests of users.
There’s a bunch of models for what successful cannabis decriminalisation / regulation / legalisation look like around the world, but LCP are backing the most nakedly capitalist one, and the end-point of it is that you get a well-funded and entrenched commercial cannabis industry whose political lobbying no longer necessarily aligns with good health outcomes or consumer safety. (See also: most of the US experiments in this direction.)
For voters who want legalised cannabis, I’d again suggest voting for either Reason or Greens, who both strongly support the principle with somewhat more nuanced takes on how we get there.