Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1544245
THE decision to finance chil- dren's sports with funds from the Authority for the Respon- sible Use of Cannabis (ARUC) demonstrates the misunder- standing of what harm reduc- tion means. It shows that the persons responsible may have an understanding of law, pol- itics, finances and organisa- tional policies but not in sub- stance use. Harm reduction does not mean normalising the use of mind-altering substances. Harm reduction is about re- specting a user; being totally committed to scientific evi- dence and data collection, and providing extensive knowledge of all risks involved. Harm re- duction is also about providing non-judgemental opportuni- ties for individuals who choose to take such substances, to do so in safe respectful ways. Offering finances gained from substance use and from persons who are spending money on cannabis is hardly a harm reduction and preven- tive gesture on any counts. If ARUC really wanted to do- nate without the children or their families knowing who is providing the financial aid, it should not have promoted the event to try and look good. There are three UN drug conventions that have strict- ly prohibited the production, sale and use of cannabis for n o n - m e d i c a l / n o n - s c i e n t i f i c purposes. However, in line with the rest of the world it seems that international law can be twist- ed, manipulated or ignored in so many ways, and we are no exception. Malta was the first EU country to pass the law to cultivate and sell recreational cannabis legally on the premise that the goal was to promote a non-profit harm reduction approach. Unfortunately, the sponsorship incident showed us just how understanding ARUC and the parliamentary secretary responsible for the authority are of what the harm reduction approach truly is. When I was responsible for ARUC, I had emphasised the need for cannabis organisa- tions to be 'non-profit' and that a system was in place that allowed the authority to collect data to ensure the ap- proach was actually offering a safer mode of taking can- nabis. However, my view was not welcomed. When I was unceremoniously dismissed there were four persons on the board who were also fired—a clinical psychologist with ex- tensive experience in drug re- habilitation, a director from a substance abuse agency, a psy- chotherapist also with experi- ence working with substance abusers and a doctor who was the most extensively informed about cannabis amongst us. They were the members who worked the hardest with me because they were the ones, I knew would contribute profes- sionally to a harm reduction/ non-profit approach. They were the only members asked to leave and this week we saw the result of that deci- sion. On a practical level, the sponsorship deal sounds like a marvellous idea—invest the money in positive activities which will indirectly show that ARUC promotes healthy liv- ing. But no, ARUC does not have this privilege. It may look lovely on a political level—or so some thought— but it is a contradiction. It would have been more ef- fective had ARUC provided real harm reduction and pre- vention initiatives for society that are effective. As a society we need to ask the right ques- tions. What steps are being taken to collect data regarding the age, use and percentage of cannabis purity that is being consumed since the canna- bis associations have opened? How is ARUC ensuring that the associations are not mak- ing any profit? What steps are being taken by the associations to inform users of the effects and risks of cannabis use? Is data being collected to assess if members are increasing their use through this system or reducing it? What steps are being taken if, for example, an 18-year-old is increasing their use and level of THC? Harm reduction is not drug prevention yet I would honest- ly rather prevent than reduce harm. Who wouldn't? Many are aware that although not everyone takes mind altering substances, Malta is experi- encing a serious epidemic sup- ported by an economic boom, social and moral normalisation of being intoxicated or stoned, as well as the availability of a menu of drugs on the mar- ket—whether legal or illegal. Within this context we should be very sensitive as to how we convey information, especially to our youth. In a culture of normalisation, where information hits us at a rapid rate and where it be- comes difficult to evaluate and digest, we adults are easily in- fluenced, let alone children. This is why ARUC should not take lightly the feedback from all drug agencies, professionals in the field and genuinely con- cerned people about the spon- sorship agreement. There is much more ARUC can do and sponsoring chil- dren's sports is definitely not one of the options. 3 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 5 APRIL 2026 OPINION Mariella Dimech Psychotherapist and former CEO of ARUC The cannabis authority, children and sports do not mix. This is why This is why ARUC should not take lightly the feedback from all drug agencies, professionals in the field and genuinely concerned people about the sponsorship agreement