MediaToday Newspapers Latest Editions

MALTATODAY 1 September 2024

Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1526110

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 21 of 31

maltatoday | SUNDAY • 1 SEPTEMBER 2024 6 OPINION The cannabis reform: Are we there yet? ON 18 December 2021, Malta was the first EU country to effectively introduce a number of legal amendments allowing a limited number of activities linked with personal cannabis use and cultivation and also establishing a regulatory body, the Authority for the Responsible Use of Cannabis. Under the chairpersonship of already three individuals, the ARUC's main role is that of vetting, licensing and mon- itoring of Cannabis Harm Reduction Associations, the latter, inspired by the self-regulated Cannabis Social Club model adopted to varying degrees in Spain, Belgium and Uruguay. Malta is not the only country to have moved forward in its cannabis policies. There are over 800 million people in the world who have some sort of legally reg- ulated access to cannabis. Furthermore, following this year's Commission on Narcotic Drugs discussions and accept- ance of the contested word 'harm re- duction', it is clear that the international community, including Malta, are now moving closer to the repeated calls by civil society and the UN Human Rights Commissioner that alternative regulato- ry approaches are needed to break away from a 'war on drugs mentality' and ad- dress legal and social abuses against peo- ple who use drugs. While most people were encapsulated watching the European football cham- pionship tournament, on 5 July, ARUC introduced a number of amendments to the directives published back in 2023. Together with the regulatory framework and technical standards, these directives regulate operational standards for Can- nabis Harm Reduction Associations. We are pleased to note that a num- ber of amendments to the Directive on Harm Reduction practices mention the establishment of a safe communal space, and the requirement of ensuring availa- bility also of CBD dominant strains. Fur- thermore, it is also welcoming to observe that the testing and technical standards on contaminants have also been updat- ed. It is also very promising to note that under the Directive of Governance, the role of the CHRA operating as a com- munity through direct participation by members during the General Assembly is also being better defined. Nonetheless, it is baffling to observe a number of conflicting provisions. Of particular concern is financial viabili- ty for these not-for-profit associations. Apart from high licensing fees which are disproportionate when looking at fees for other not-for-profit systems, it is also questionable how these associations are being protected from being infiltrated by big businesses, and how they are being assisted by the ARUC to reduce opera- tional costs. One case in point is testing of cannabis flowers. During Leonid Mckay's tenure, discus- sions on testing included collaboration with the University of Malta. This would have been the best option as money spent on testing would have been re-in- vested in research and health and safety purposes by the University. As things stand, CHRAs are obliged to rely on test- ing done by one private company, and this comes at a financial cost. Furthermore, CHRAs continue to be obliged to pay for all other services as if they were businesses, including logistics, waste management, and a number of an- cillary services such as notary fees, bank fees, cleaning, and IT services amongst others. It is very frustrating to observe other not-for-profit organisations bene- fiting from a myriad of grants and servic- es, including environmental sustainabil- ity, whereas CHRAs are left to fend for themselves. Wouldn't it be more condu- cive to follow the overarching principles of the cannabis reform and ensure these CHRAs are truly allowed to operate on a not-for-profit basis, including by access- ing services? Why does it seem that the ARUC continues to push these CHRAs to become a take-away cannabis shop? It is very easy to use terminology borrowed from civil society, but is the ARUC tru- ly embracing and allowing the practical application of a holistic harm reduction and not-for-profit approach? It seems quite evident that the authorities based the whole creation around the mighty, godly Euro rather than around the com- munity it is meant to serve and protect. A non-profit set up is much more than an organisation that does not make prof- it (or hands over its profits to an author- ity). It is a 'legal entity organised and operated for a collective, public or social benefit with a clear benevolent purpose. One would expect subsidies and grants for associations to effectively counter the illicit market that has a stronghold on this trade, as opposed to added bu- reaucracy and hefty fees. It is regrettable to observe that the directives seem to be benefiting, rath- er than hindering, the criminal organ- isations that have operated freely for decades, including the new players im- porting and flooding local stores with synthetic cannabinoids, such as HHC, TCH-P, THC-H amongst numerous others. It is also very worrying to observe that the ARUC is presently equipped with more board members than actual em- ployees. ReLeaf Malta questions what type of vetting and monitoring exercises are possible with a stripped-down work- force? Is this the situation faced by Ma- riella Dimech (the first ARUC chair) all over again? Is it possible that the author- ity, after almost three years in operation, has changed three heads but failed to increase its workforce? What is the al- located budget and how are these funds being spent? Is there something we are not being told? The question that requires being an- swered is: Could Malta be considered a champion in advancing the rights of people who use cannabis? We seriously doubt this! We can rightly promote harm reduction practices until the cows come home, however, not allowing CHRAs to fully operate the development of a safe space, such as by including the senseless and discriminatory provision of not al- lowing consumption within their prem- ises, or the sale of cannabis related items such as bongs, and vaporisers, goes di- rectly against the human rights and harm reduction principles advocated for by ReLeaf Malta since 2017. Ultimately, these stumbling blocks hin- der the possibility to truly promote the responsible use of cannabis in Malta. Andrew Bonello is president ReLeaf Malta Andrew Bonello Malta is not the only country to have moved forward in its cannabis policies

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of MediaToday Newspapers Latest Editions - MALTATODAY 1 September 2024