Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/333851
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 22 JUNE 2014 Opinion 19 our proud nation to an eternity of footballing mediocrity and humiliation, just to preserve the absurd and ailing status quo. Starting with the law courts, which interpret and apply the law. A while back, yet another judge stepped forward with a personal contribution to the decriminalisation debate. Newly appointed Justice Edwina Grima took the opportunity of her maiden speech in the courtroom to make the point that "decriminalisation is not the answer". (Note: I am told she sides with Italy, but I might be mistaken.) In any case, this is how her words were reported: "Madam Justice Grima said that in her seven years as magistrate, she had seen the desperation of people of all ages who would have fallen victim to drugs. In most cases, she said, the accused would be a victim and not a criminal…" Got that, folks? A victim and NOT A CRIMINAL. So how does Madam Justice Grima propose to deal with such non-criminals? "The way forward in fighting drug trafficking and abuse is not by decriminalising the offence but amending the law whereby first time offenders and victims of drug abuse are helped to rehabilitate themselves." Erm. Excuse, me, Madam Justice, but didn't you just say that these people are not criminals? So how can you go on, with your very next breath, to argue in favour of a system which would continue to treat the same people precisely as criminals… i.e., the one thing you yourself separately argue they are not? By the same token: if the people who come before the court on drug possession charges are 'victims'… why do you refer to them as 'offenders'? Wherein consists the 'offence', in an act which you yourself describe as non-criminal? While I'm at it I have a couple of other questions. If non- criminals can find themselves facing criminal charges in court – can anyone be surprised that the sheer bulk of cases before the criminal court is so totally unwieldy and unmanageable, that it now threatens the credibility, functionality and sustainability of the entire justice system? What sense does it make to retain a system that is, by your own definition, so utterly incoherent, inconsistent and flawed? Meanwhile, Grima is not the only judge or magistrate to have chipped into this debate. Previously, former Justice Joe Galea Debono had also mounted a similar challenge… though he later insisted he was misquoted in the press. (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this score. He probably sides with England…) His argument (or at least, the one he was quoted as making) was that there was no need to decriminalise cannabis, because the law courts already had enough discretion in such cases and never doled out prison sentences for possession cases anyway. Well, the former judge must certainly have been misquoted all right, because just this week a 42-year-old man from Mgarr was sentenced to 15 months and a 1,200 euro fine for possession of cannabis. A large amount, to be fair… but no larger than the habit it was clearly intended to sustain. Again, this is how the case was reported: "The court also took into consideration that Mr Borg was a heavy cannabis user and consumed a large number of joints every day, sometimes up to 25, which he considered to be his cigarettes. He told the court that he has been dependent on cannabis for the past 20 years…" And, more importantly: "Magistrate Natasha Galea Sciberras recommended to the prison authorities to help Mr Borg kick the habit…" Ah, yes, of course. I had forgotten that prison warders at the Corradino Correctional Facility are also certified consultant psychiatrists in their own right, who have spent years and years specialising in the highly technical field of drug rehabilitation. And in 15 months, they have all the time in the world to successfully run a rehabilitation programme that will wean a man off a 20-year, 25-joint-a-day habit. Are there any other conjuring tricks the same prison warders can perform, I wonder? If so, they should seriously consider providing entertainment for children's parties. Nothing like a good old fashioned magic show to keep the little nippers quiet… In the real world, however, imprisonment as a means of 'rehabilitation' for drug addicts has for years been identified as an archaic and monumentally counter-productive practice. Not just in Uruguay, or those jurisdictions which have legalised or decriminalised any form of drugs in the recent past. Even here in Malta… at least, among people who (unlike, it would seem, the judiciary) actually understand a thing or two about this issue. Sedqa's clinical director, George Grech made this point abundantly clear way back in 2010: "Prison is not giving results – it's no secret there are drugs in prison, and we have come to learn that incarceration does not work with people who are purely drug addicts." The Josette Bickle case likewise illustrated the precise success rate of prison as a means of 'rehabilitating' drug users. So let's recap, shall we? Prison is by common consent the worst place to possibly send a drug addict… so of course, the law courts ensure that drug users in this country continue to be sent to prison, which also has a long and depressing history of actually compounding existing drug addiction problems (while also creating new ones). Meanwhile, the judges themselves argue that drug users are 'not criminals'... yet they simultaneously defend a system that insists on regarding these same people as criminals anyway, and enforce a policy that even Malta's drug experts argue has manifestly failed. And let me guess: I'm the only one being illogical and irrational here, when I argue that legalising marijuana can also help countries win the World Cup… Cannabis and common sense? That'll be the day…