Same Logic, Same Response - testing the Slogan's Robustness in New Zealand's Policy Debates
The slogan "same logic, same response" often encounters challenges in the realm of political decision-making, as evidenced by the actions of politicians who, regardless of their stated intentions, can diverge from logical pathways for various reasons, including economic or power gains. This brings to mind a recent political developments in New Zealand.
Christopher Luxon has recently ascended to the role of Prime Minister, alongside a coalition of conservative and demagogical parties. A significant early move of this new administration is the proposed repeal of the smokefree legislation. This legislation, a pioneering effort by the previous government, aimed to eradicate tobacco accessibility for individuals born from 2009 onwards.
A pivotal moment occurred during Luxon's first appearance as Prime Minister on a morning show, hosted by Ryan Bridge. The exchange highlighted a key point of contention:
“Luxon: The changes that the government were making we think have some unintended consequences that aren't actually helpful... When you've actually limited distribution and you're the only place selling smokes in some towns in New Zealand, you become a massive target for crime and for ram raids, and there will be an expanded black market that will be largely untaxed.
Bridge: Couldn't you make the same argument for cannabis? I mean, you're talking about not wanting to have a black market, wanting to be able to tax the externality. Why don't you do a similar thing with cannabis?
Luxon: Yeah, different story, different effects, but I mean the reality here is we've got a tool in vapes which has actually helped a lot of people coming off smokes, which has been good. Now I've got to make sure that we protect young people in particular in their access to vaping, and that's important we have tougher consequences there. We'll continue to drive smoking down as successive governments have done, through good education.”
In this dialogue, Luxon's response, "different story, different effects," shifts the focus from the logical comparison to the unique narratives surrounding tobacco and cannabis. The historical legality of tobacco, its societal acceptance compared to the moral stigmatisation of cannabis, and the public debates, particularly during New Zealand's cannabis legalisation referendum, all paint distinct "stories" for each substance.
However, Bridge's argument wasn't about the individual narratives of these substances. Instead, it was about the shared logic underpinning the market dynamics of both: liberalisation potentially reduces black markets and increases tax revenues. This was Luxon's original argument for tobacco, which Bridge contends applies equally to cannabis, hence the "same logic, same response" stance.
I'll have to revisit the slogan's robustness in future posts. Luxon might be right in asserting distinct narratives for cannabis and tobacco, possibly disrupting the uniform application of logic. For logicians, this presents a challenge in non-deductive reasoning, especially when context alters the impact of counterarguments. This exploration might reveal the limitations of the "same logic, same response" principle in complex policy scenarios.
