National’s Drug Reform spokesperson Paula Bennett has released what she says is a leaked Cabinet Paper outlining four possible questions that could be asked in New Zealand's upcoming cannabis referendum.

Your playlist will load after this ad

Ms Bennett is critical of the paper that she says will be considered by the Government tomorrow, as revealed by 1 NEWS on Thursday.

"Cabinet will tomorrow consider four different options for the referendum but no matter which option it choses, there are huge holes.

"The Cabinet Paper is clear that smoking marijuana when you’re under the age of 25 is detrimental for development of the brain, and yet it recommends that the legal age should be 20. The legal age seems to have been plucked out of thin air," Ms Bennet says.

National's deputy leader believes the paper is light on details.

"There is no mention about what level of tax will be imposed on marijuana, will it be the same as tobacco and alcohol? Will it really get rid of the illicit market if it’s taxed at 40 or 50 per cent?

"Will a much higher tax rate be needed if they will test 10 per cent of the product to ensure THC levels are low?"

New Zealand is set to hold a referendum at the 2020 election on legalising marijuana.

According to a release from Ms Bennett the 2020 Cannabis Referendum proposals outline four options including:

• A general question consistent with the undertaking in the Confidence and Supply agreement: “Do you support legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis?” This would not be accompanied by any legal framework or other policy decisions and it would be left to a subsequent Parliament to determine what to do in the event of a ‘yes’ vote.

• A questions referring to a specific policy framework document setting out the basic principles of what legalisation for personal use of recreational cannabis in New Zealand would entail: “Do you support legalising recreational cannabis in accordance with [published policy document]?” A ‘yes’ vote would result in the duly elected government and Parliament having some moral imperative, but no obligation, to enact law changes consistent with that policy document;

• A question referring to draft legislation that outlines the regulatory model for cannabis: ‘Do you support legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis in accordance with [published draft legislation]?” Similar to option 2, a ‘yes’ vote would result in the duly elected government and Parliament having some moral imperative, but no obligation, to enact the legislation.