Chlöe Swarbrick, Green Party spokesperson for drug reform

My suggestion would be "Do you support the [proposed law] that legalises, taxes, and regulates cannabis?"

The question has two key parts. The Greens are pushing for a 'proposed law' to pass through the House, which would come into force by hitting a vote threshold at public referendum.

This will give voters clarity on what they are voting on and avoids politicians later arguing over what a referendum result means (see: situations we want to avoid, a la Brexit).

The second part relates to our vision for cannabis regulation that makes sense in Aotearoa New Zealand. We are pushing for a Canadian-style regime over one that benefits big pharma and corporates.

We want a common sense, comprehensive law that recognises private users of cannabis will always be able to grow their own (and presently do, regardless of illegality) and that this needs regulation. Fundamentally, it's in line with our call for a health-based approach to all drug issues.

That said, I would love to see New Zealanders involved in developing the referendum question. I'm advocating for a Citizens' Jury on the referendum question, a tool used recently in the run-up to the Irish referendum on abortion and also recommended in the UK by the Independent Commission on Referendums.

Ross Bell, NZ Drug Foundation

It's not a simple question, it might only be one sentence, but it's a complicated and a really big deal, so we are not ready to commit to a specific question yet.

But, we think the ideal situation would be for a binding referendum, where voters are asked to endorse (or not) a bill the establishes a clear public health regulatory model for cannabis, which has gone through Parliament with public submissions to a select committee, all first informed by an awesome deliberative democracy process such as a citizen jury.

This would be a bloody good fit to shift thinking on New Zealand's fatal attraction to prohibition.

Eric Crampton, The New Zealand Initiative

Canada's approach to legalisation has mirrored its approach to the sale and supply of alcohol. Excise applies. Retail distribution varies province-by-province, and follows each province's approach to sale and supply of alcohol, including provincial variation in minimum purchase ages. I do not normally like following what Canada has done.

I more usually provide it as an example of what-not-to-do. But Canada has beaten us on this one, and the best we can do is play catch-up.

So here's my preferred question. There are surely many like it, but this one is mine.

"Should parliament draft and pass legislation to allow the sale and supply of cannabis in taxed and regulated markets similar to existing regulated markets for alcohol?"

I note that mirroring alcohol would allow home cultivation for personal use and small-scale informal supply in the same way that people can brew their own beer or distill their own vodka at home for social use.

Commercial sale and supply would come with excise, restrictions on advertising, and restrictions on purchase by minors similar to restrictions in place around alcohol. Vendors breaching those rules would face penalties similar to alcohol retailers caught selling to minors.

Councils that insist on using licensing trusts for alcohol could use them as well for cannabis. And Councils could feel free to put in place smoking-ban areas in the same way that they put in place liquor bans.

Marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol; there is no reason that regulation of it should be more severe than regulation of alcohol.