Amendment to marijuana legislation…Select Committee would be too slow and drawn out

Dec 14, 2015 News

— Nigel Hughes

Attorney Nigel Hughes does not believe that the new Narcotics Drug and Psychotropic Substances (Control) (Amendment) bill 2015 should be sent to a Select Committee prior to it being tabled in the Parliament on Thursday.
The Bill, which was drafted by Hughes and Mark Waldron, proposes the removal of the mandatory imprisonment of citizens in possession of small amounts of cannabis.
A Peoples Progressive Party official had stated that the party’s executive body met last Friday to discuss the content of the Bill, and they all agreed that the legislation should be taken to a Select Committee for further consultation. The official stated that the body agreed that once the Bill is returned from the Select Committee then they would vote consciously.
The official also added that there should be a public hearing on the content of the Bill.
But Hughes yesterday said that the Bill will be tabled in the National Assembly on Thursday as planned and that he will be meeting with the political parties again for further dialogue.

Attorney at law Nigel Hughes

He purported that Select Committee deliberations were notoriously known for being “slow and protracted”. Thus, he proposed that if there is a view from members of the National Assembly who represent almost half of the House that there should be a conscience vote, then perhaps “We should allow the members of the House to consult with their constituencies and not other members of the National Assembly in a Select Committee.”
He also commended the PPP for their stance of conscious voting.
“I applaud the move to have this Bill put to a conscience vote so we can avoid the politics that traditionally plagues our national deliberations,” he said.
The Bill was drafted following the imprisonment of football coach, Vibert Butts, for possession of marijuana.
Presently, the law indicates that anyone found in possession of marijuana is liable to a fine of $10,000 or three times the monetary value of the drug. If in excess of 15 grams of cannabis, it is mandated that the offender should be sentenced to a minimum of three years of imprisonment.
Almost on a daily basis people are being charged for possession of small amounts of marijuana. Butts was one such person but he has since been released on bail pending an appeal. He is being represented by Hughes and Waldron.
Divided into three sections—Amendment of Section 4 of the Principal Act; the Amendment of Section 5 of the Principal Act; and the Amendment of Section 12 of the Principle Act—the Bill is expected to remove the mandatory imprisonment of persons who have been accused of having in their possession relatively small amounts of cannabis, and cannabis resin whilst increasing the quantity which will constitute trafficking in cannabis or cannabis resin to one thousand grams.
The Bill is founded on the experience of several citizens—predominantly youths who have been incarcerated for small quantities of cannabis or cannabis resin and who as a result of their incarceration have been unnecessarily economically and socially disadvantaged.