Marijuana

Dec 19, 2020 Editorial

---

Kaieteur News – On December 2, a United Nations body, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, in a majority vote, decided to remove cannabis, or marijuana, from its classification of most dangerous drugs, a position that what Caribbean people have called ganja had held for 60 years. Shortly after that, in perhaps a related development, the government of Guyana announced that Cabinet was considering non-custodial sentences for marijuana possession. After all, it was in August that Attorney General Anil Nandlall had stated that changing the marijuana laws was not on top of the government’s legislative agenda.

Yesterday, AG Nandlall, SC, confirmed that Cabinet was ready to amend the 1988 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act to reflect government’s intention. Interestingly enough, in the interim between the original announcement on intention and yesterday’s update, the minority opposition, previously a majority government, held a press conference in which they submitted, not tabled, what purports to be an amendment bill to Parliament. No explanation was offered on why they had not tabled and passed the same bill after five years in office.

To be clear, the APNU+AFC opposition has zero moral standing when it comes to marijuana decriminalization. The global tide on marijuana decriminalization had turned completely under the Granger administration’s watch with progress stances taken on the issue not just across the world but in the Caribbean as well.

In contrast, Granger as President was clearly at odds with his own campaign promises and his own legislature when it came to taking concrete steps towards even conditional decriminalization. For example, while the Rastafarian community had met with him during campaigning and submitted a brief on why the continued criminalization of marijuana was oppressive, in late 2015, Granger – in excusing his refusal to even consider decriminalization – offered a rationale that was as disingenuous as it was obtuse. In an invited comment published in another section of the media, the then President offered the frankly idiotic excuse that because his administration was focusing on the prohibition of smoking in public places, that decriminalization of marijuana would be “contradictory” to that goal.

The already poorly enforced ban on smoking in public places would not have extended simply to tobacco products but marijuana as well. Secondly, the ban on public smoking would have had as its rationale the heavily documented negative impact of both tobacco smoking in itself as well that of second hand smoke from tobacco products. Marijuana, in contrast, has had no similar negative side effects attached to it.

In 2016, APNU+AFC Parliamentarian Michael Carrington, used as a mere prop in the opposition’s recent theatricality, had submitted a draft amendment bill, one that never made it past submission for one simple reason – the Granger administration’s failure to decriminalize marijuana was, to put it bluntly, the direct outcome of the former President’s anachronistic and indecent class prejudices and a consequent disregard for poor people, including those who overwhelmingly have voted for him in three elections. From the beginning to the end of his tenure that prejudice would manifest itself, whenever he deigned to even speak directly on the issue, in inanity. Bracketing his 2015 excuse for non-decriminalization was his campaign trail commentary earlier this year when, during a rally in Linden, he had condemned the growth and use of marijuana, disregarding his failure to amend, as his government had supposedly committed to in 2018, the legislation to approve non-custodial sentences for small amounts of marijuana. In short, five years of sleight of hand and anti-poor backwardness while the rest of the world was moving ahead.

There are three critical dimensions when it comes to the issue of marijuana consumption. The first has to do with the issue of basic justice – the reality is that primarily poor people are being locked up for what is essentially a drug that is far less harmful than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco. As Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Keith Rowley put it last year as his country passed legalization legislation, “Marijuana had been legal for the upper class for a long time. The privileged elite has been smoking marijuana for a long time, any change now is to free up poor people from an unnecessary jail… It’s a social justice issue.” The second has to do with cultural rights in a plural society – the continued criminalization of marijuana is a direct assault on the religious rights (and rites) of the Rastafarian faith in Guyana. Thirdly, at a time when Guyana needs to engage in economic diversification, particularly in the agricultural industry, the continued classification of cannabis as an illegal drug not only prevents the cultivation commercialization of cannabis sativa that is marijuana, it absurdly criminalizes the cultivation of another type of cannabis sativa used for industrial hemp, and cannabis indicata which also has capacity to produce cloth.

In this regard, the announcement of the non-custodial sentences for small amounts of marijuana is to be sure not a step, just a half-step in the right direction towards a first step of decriminalization. Continued criminalization is in itself unjustifiable considering first that a non-custodial sentence still reflects a criminal conviction, something that has implications for everything from a job opportunity that needs police clearance or a foreign visa application. Also, non-custodial sentences are intrinsically anti-poor and in practice can very well make no difference to working class people since, with continued criminalization, failure to adhere to the conditions of a non-custodial sentence will result inevitably in a custodial sentence. The fine or community service that a rich teenager can easily afford the money or time for, a poor teenager with financial difficulties or employment commitments that make the difference between a meal and starvation will not be able to afford and hence end up in jail anyway.

The decriminalization of marijuana is a necessary first step in what should be legalization followed not by a free-for-all of public smoking and general, drug-filled decadence as the most backward among us seem to believe, but by strong responsible regulatory legislative framework, one that penalizes abuse but does not continue to criminalize fair use. Now is not the time for half measures.

---

---