Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1070939
24 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 13 JANUARY 2019 OPINION Raphael Vassallo From decriminalization to re-criminalisation, in just three years YOU'VE got to hand to the government, though. It takes a special kind of genius to first promise a reform which would 'decriminalise' cannabis… and then unveil a proposal de- signed to maximise the crimi- nal stigma associated with that drug, in ways that it had never really been stigmatised before. I mean, what on earth did I just read in the papers? "Can- nabis users will register with the State"? "There would need to be some way of monitor- ing how much cannabis users are consuming"? "We will have a complimentary law enforcement package that will increase the efficiency and ef- fectiveness of policing"? Erm… policing what, exact- ly? Cannabis was supposed to have already been decriminal- ized in 2015. And the whole point of that exercise was in part to relieve the police of the enormous waste of time involved in cracking down on random teenagers smoking joints in Paceville… so that maybe, just maybe, they might devote a little more time and energy to fighting real crime instead. And as for a register of can- nabis users… the only catego- ries for which we have a 'State register' in Malta right now are paedophiles and child- molesters. I suppose it gives you a rough indication of how the present, 'progressive and moderate' Labour administra- tion still views the occasional marijuana smoker here and there: i.e., as a dangerous criminal, to be kept an eye on at all times. And I mean literally at all times. For with this 'reform', government is also proposing ways of 'monitoring' marijua- na consumption: something which can realistically only be done by breathalyzer, or through regular urine or blood tests. Oh, I know what you're all probably thinking right now: 'Nonsense! All you need to do is monitor the amount being bought by a registered user from a State-licensed dealer; after all, nobody can smoke more marijuana than he or she actually has, etc.' But if you are thinking that, you have clearly overlooked two very basic possibilities: one, if someone buys X grams from a licensed dealer, it doesn't follow that he is going to smoke it all himself; and two, for all the State knows, users might also be buying separately from the black market (as, after all, they have always done in the past). So make no mistake: if the State seriously intends to accurately gauge the exact amount of THC in anyone's bloodstream, at any given mo- ment, there are only a hand- ful of ways of doing it… and all extremely invasive. And besides, the overall approach is not exactly conducive to encouraging cannabis users to step forward and register themselves in the first place. What they will be signing up for, anyway? Regular drug testing at a government clinic? Reporting to the nearest po- lice station once a week? That's the sort of thing we normally associate with bail conditions, house arrest or parole. In a nutshell, it is how criminals are treated… not how the State is expected to treat users of a drug it suppos- edly 'decriminalised' itself just three years ago. So all in all, I think an expla- nation is in order for why the government reneged so utterly on its previous commitment to decriminalize cannabis… and above all, why it chose to return to the discredited (and totally self-defeating) drug policies of yesteryear. Part of the explanation can be found in the same govern- ment announcement: "Our reform is inspired by the Icelandic model which has a history of success," MP Julia Farrugia-Portelli said, adding that "government was looking to the experiences of other countries." Erm, yes, that might explain why this reform does noth- ing more than roll the clock back directly to Malta's failed pre-2015 drug policies. For the 'Icelandic model' is hardly an example of 'decriminali- sation'; quite the opposite, in fact. This is a very recent (December 2018) excerpt from a Tripadvisor site: "The possession, cultivation, sale, and consumption of marijua- na are all illegal in Iceland. In particular, the possession, cul- tivation, and sale of this drug are heavily penalized. Anyone caught doing these things in Iceland faces the possibility of a jail sentence. When it comes to consuming marijuana, how- ever, the Icelandic authorities tend to impose heavy mone- tary fines rather than jail time to first-time offenders at the moment. Either way, it's not accepted." Sound familiar? It should, because that could just as easily be a description of Malta's own cannabis policy before this 'reform'. With one small difference: the Icelandic model doesn't also stipulate measures that seem to fly di- rectly out of the pages of some literary dystopian nightmare. That seems to be a little extra touch we added ourselves…. But the part that I find most irritating is the official excuse to justify this humungous U-turn: i.e., that "the gov- ernment intend[s] to adopt a harm reduction approach when dealing with the drug." Let us, for the sake of argu- ment, ignore the usual sanc- timonious, self-righteous and patronizing tone we have to come to expect from do-good- ie politicians these days: e.g., "the reform would be seeking to educate users and drive them away from, or reduce their dependence, on [THC] the psychoactive ingredient". (Excuse me, but how can government presume to 'edu- cate' others about a subject it very clearly knows nothing about? To put it another way: if I wanted to learn anything about marijuana, I would Cannabis is 'harmful' when smoked by ordinary people but it suddenly becomes 'totally harmless' the moment some Big Pharma company somewhere looks set to invest millions in Malta For with this 'reform', government is also proposing ways of 'monitoring' marijuana consumption: something which can realistically only be done by breathalyzer, or through regular urine or blood tests