Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1535522
6 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 MARCH 2022 OPINION 2 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR KURT SANSONE ksansone@mediatoday.com.mt Letters to the Editor, MaltaToday, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt Letters must be concise, no pen names accepted, include full name and address maltatoday | SUNDAY • 18 MAY 2025 Legislation by idiots: Chasing cannabis odour Editorial WHOEVER thought of proposing legislation to fine cannabis users on the basis of odour must have been on some wonder drug. What is worse, though, is that this was approved by members of parliament who should have been scrutinising the legislation and ensuring it is good and can be rea- sonably enforced. As the law stands now after the amendment, any cannabis user who causes a nuisance because of the smell emanating from a joint, is liable to a €250 fine. Why target cannabis odour and not cigars; or fried bacon; or fish soup is anyone's guess at this stage. On paper, this looks like a fine piece of legisla- tion to placate the histrionics of those who saw red when government partially legalised cannabis use, and are now raising all types of concerns—even ir- rational ones. But in reality, it's just a piece of paper that is only good for rolling up a joint. The law is impractical and leads the police down a blind alley of trying to prove the unprovable in a court of law or tribunal. There is no way for the police to reasonably prove 'nuisance' caused by 'odour'. Cases will either be thrown out, or the police will simply not bother prosecuting. But who cares if this law will not be enforced by police already stretched to the limit and with so many more serious crimes to deal with? What mat- ters for our MPs, it seems, is being seen as doing something to address a nuisance in the most inef- fectual way. Cannabis does emit a particular odour that can be bothersome to some. But so do cigarettes and cigars. The truth is that MPs are not addressing a nuisance but rather trying to placate the moral out- rage of those who never agreed with decriminalis- ing cannabis use in the first place. Indeed, educational campaigns that encourage good neighbourliness are more than welcome, as are educational campaigns highlighting the health risks associated with cannabis, cigarettes and alco- hol. But to go down this confused route of partial le- galisation with associated fines for odour nuisance is not only unreasonable but also counterproduc- tive in combatting the stigma associated with can- nabis use. The law as it stands already bans the use of canna- bis in public places. This is hardly being enforced, especially in large gatherings where it becomes problematic to identify the individuals who are smoking. So, what the new piece of legislation is doing is targeting those who smoke cannabis in the privacy of their home. If government truly believes the direction it took on cannabis was the correct thing to do—some- thing this leader has always supported—it should be discussing ways and means of improving the sit- uation for casual users who do not want to grow cannabis plants at home and who do not feel it nec- essary to join a club. It should be working in the direction of putting cannabis on the same legal footing as tobacco—al- lowing people to smoke outside, bar playgrounds and places frequented by children; the ability to buy cannabis from regulated outlets without the need to become members; possible commercialisa- tion under strict regulations of the sale of canna- bis; a ban on advertising; the obligation to include health warnings on products; and a prohibition of sale to those under 18. But instead of having a mature discussion along these lines, after a careful analysis of how things have developed since cannabis for recreational use was partially legalised, the government has capit- ulated to the whining and pressure of the prohibi- tionists. The outcome is a fudged law, drawn up by idiots who expect police officers to make fools of them- selves, while recreating the fear of stigmatisation for those who are quietly going about their business at home. It is a law that is trying to fix something subjective—because smell is very subjective—that cannot realistically be fixed, unless cannabis is made completely illegal once again. This is not about an industrial plant emitting foul smells that can be required to instal filtering equip- ment to minimise or eliminate the inconvenience. This is about a person smoking a joint in their liv- ing room, possibly with friends. God forbid they would be required to bubble wrap their house so that the smell does not waft out into the common parts. It is a shame that a progressive government has opted for this approach. It just makes you wonder whether the decriminalisation of cannabis was a matter of conviction or simply one of convenience. We really won't be surprised if it was the latter. Quote of the Week "Serving… aah." Miriana Conte's repurposed chorus, following the EBU's decision to censure the word 'Kant', which was deemed offensive. The audience at the Basel arena simply shouted 'kant' when Malta's Eurovision representative performed on stage. MaltaToday 10 years ago EU to tell Muscat to ban trapping or face court 17 May 2015 PRIME Minister Joseph Muscat will be re- ceiving a 'reasoned opinion' from the Euro- pean Commission, informing him specifically why his decision to reopen the trapping season is in breach of EU law. Commission sources who spoke to MaltaTo- day said the reasoned opinion was to be com- municated within the next weeks. Muscat will be given two months to comply with the reasoned opinion, which comes eight months after the government received a for- mal complaint in October 2014 for opening the season. If the Maltese government refuses to com- ply with the EU, the Commission may ask the Court of Justice to start litigation procedures against Malta. Muscat can be expected to be advised by his legal team not to go to the ECJ over the matter and comply with the request to close the season. Muscat chose to reopen the trapping season despite the season having long been phased out following Malta's accession to the EU. Trapping is prohibited by the Birds Directive. The reopening of the trapping season allowed the capture of seven wild songbirds which mi- grate over Malta in the autumn. The species are the linnet, the greenfinch, the chaffinch, the serin, the goldfinch, the hawfinch and the siskin. Maltese trappers trap finches by using clap nets and live decoy birds. The age-old tradi- tion is practised by over 4,000 individuals. Most of the clap traps are in fact located on public land. The accession negotiations with the Europe- an Union determined that Malta could allow for the temporary capture of finches for four years after accession in 2004. This was appli- cable only for those trappers who had been in possession of a trapping licence. The con- cession was withdrawn after the 2008 season, when trapping became illegal.