Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/884700
14 THE main reason for deciding to form a new association today was the [2017] election. During the election campaign, a commit- ment was made to launch a debate about this subject. We felt that we needed to participate in this discussion: especially because we also saw that a number of other organisations had taken a posi- tion against legalisation. In fact, nobody came out in favour at all. This was the main reason we de- cided to launch 'Releaf'... Yet in recent years the legal status of marijuana has already been downgraded. In 2014, the government introduced new legalisation which (it claimed) 'decriminalised' the substance... It did, yes, but at the same time it didn't. To me, the decrimi- nalisation legislation was a little 'half-baked'... pun intended. For example: today, cannabis posses- sion has been 'decriminalised'. What it means in practice is if you are caught with less than three grammes, you'd be looking at a fine of between 50 and 100 euros. But you will still be taken into cus- tody and held in the lock-up... so you will waste a working day un- til your police statement is taken, and you are eventually released. Also, you still have to go to a tri- bunal: another day wasted, just to get a fine... And there are still fines to be paid: which means that, though 'decriminalised', the offence is still subject to penalties at law... Exactly. So 'decriminalisation' is not, in fact, decriminalisation. At least, not in my opinion. Another thing is that the above procedures only count for the first three of- fences. After your third offence, you are given an option to attend a Sedqa rehab programme. If you choose not to, it will be up to the judge to decide whether to impose a prison sentence, or another fine. So prison still remains a possibility for cannabis possession? Yes, but only after the third of- fence. And to be fair, it is no long- er something that is resorted to in the first instance, as it used to be in the past. We have progressed a bit in that sense. But I don't think it's enough. And it doesn't really make sense, either. If the penalty for smoking a little weed is a sim- ple fine... it means we are looking at a minor offence. So why does a third time warrant 'rehab', or, even worse, prison? Speaking of rehab: is it even applicable to a drug like marijuana... which does not have the same physical addiction properties as, say, heroin or cocaine? I would say, yes and no. The people involved in rehabilitation centres are on the whole genuine, and ultimately they only want the good of society. But what we are also seeing is that there are certain rehab centres which... [pause]. At the end of the day, it's a business. There is a certain financial inter- est involved, in keeping a relative- ly harmless substance like can- nabis illegal... while much more dangerous substances like alcohol and cigarettes remain perfectly le- gal... But rehab exists for alcoholics, too... Yes, and we're not suggesting that rehab for cannabis should stop altogether, either. If someone wants to go to rehab for that rea- son, they should be free to. I was talking more about the system as a whole: which forces people in- to rehab, by court order. I don't want to put all rehab centres in the same bracket – on the contra- ry, there are many genuine exam- ples which do a lot of good work. But there is clearly a financial in- terest involved in the equation... If I've understood correctly, the system itself creates an automatic flow of inpatients, which benefits the rehab centres... There is a bit of that, yes. OK, but my question was about 'rehabilitation therapy' in itself: whether it is a suitable recourse for people who smoke marijuana. Do marijuana smokers need rehab in the same way as a heroin or cocaine addict might? It is not physically addictive in the same way as heroin is. In fact, you never hear of people stealing to finance their marijuana habit: when that happens, it will almost certainly be harder drugs. We def- initely don't agree with a point of view that places marijuana on the same footing as drugs like heroin or cocaine. From our research, it appears that – for starters – mari- juana has never actually killed anyone. The possibility of over- dosing on marijuana doesn't exist. Ultimately, it's just a very differ- ent plant from, say, the poppy that produces heroin. It should not be looked at in the same way. Moreo- ver, there is extensive scientific research that proves marijuana has significant medical benefits and usages, too. Cleary, we are talking about a plant that is natu- rally beneficial. Coming back to 'Releaf' and the reasons for its launch: you are currently working on a 'manifesto'. What sort of proposals will it include? What we're trying to do is tackle all aspects so as to give a full pic- ture. The manifesto itself hasn't been finalised yet but what it will definitely include is that anyone over 21 years of age can freely smoke marijuana; we will be com- ing out strongly against anyone caught selling to minors, or selling without a licence; we're proposing a licensing model for the sale of both recreational and medicinal marijuana.... and also, revised reg- ulations for the growing of mari- juana for personal use... The proposed 21-year limit is significantly higher than the limit for alcohol. Doesn't this contradict the view that marijuana is the 'safer' substance? In general terms, it is the safer substance. But it doesn't mean there aren't issues to be aware of. We approached Dr Andrew Agius – who has been very vocal about medical marijuana: in fact he is part of the campaign – for advice on the medical aspect. Yes, there are health considerations for people younger than 21. Sci- ence clearly shows that until that age, a person's brain would still be developing... and using these substances doesn't help with the development. If science warns us against taking something before a certain age, we will accept that warning and take it on board in our proposals. At the end of the day, ours is a science-based ap- proach. Earlier you mentioned 'models' for licensing and trade regulation... but there are many different examples in other countries. In Uruguay, for instance, legalisation was criticised (by even pro-legalisation voices) for creating a State monopoly. Which model are you looking at, exactly? We've looked at several, but the ones we paid special attention to were those of Canada and Colo- rado in the USA. Unfortunately, the Canadian model hasn't been implemented yet... it's now in its third reading... so there isn't any research on its effects. And the model itself might change in the meantime. But those were the models that were mentioned of- ficially, when the government first said it wanted to kick-start a debate. And there is a lot in the proposed models with which we agree. Canada's model is very much based on health and safety, which is the line we also want to take. Colorado has some interest- ing ideas, too. To give an example: in Colorado, the limits on growth for personal use are based on the individual; whereas in Canada, they are based on the household. But these are just details. The re- ality is that Malta is not the same as either Canada or Colorado. So we feel we need something tailor-made for our specific cir- cumstances as a country. While we might borrow ideas from those models, the result will not be a photocopy of anything found in any one country... but a mix-and- match solution designed specifi- cally for Malta. What about licensing? Under your proposals, who would be eligible to apply for a licence to sell marijuana? Or would it be a state- run business, as in Uruguay? If it were up to us, it would not be a State monopoly. Ideally, the possibility to apply for a licence should be open to the entire popu- lation. As for who should get the licence, however... that's a differ- ent question. There will be restric- tions, no doubt. As there are with alcohol, or anything else for that matter. But we haven't gone into any detail on this yet... I would say it's something to be decided on the basis of a discussion involving the whole country. Meanwhile there are many different arguments raised in favour of legalisation, and not all are the same. Stripped to its bare essentials: what is Releaf's reason for being pro-legalisation? As a group, we believe that it is ultimately about the freedom to choose. We argue that you should be free to choose to smoke a joint, in the same way as you are free to drink a tot of whiskey. But there are practical issues also. As I said, our approach is based on health and safety. It is safer, both for the individual and society, to legalise marijuana than to leave it illegal. If marijuana were properly regu- lated, it would drastically reduce the black market sale of the same drug. If the sale price of legal mar- ijuana were less than the black market price... there would be no incentive to sell it illegally. This also means that to buy marijuana, you would no longer have to ex- pose yourself to the criminal un- derworld. And the product itself becomes safer as a result, because Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 8 OCTOBER 2017 Science clearly shows that until that age [21], a person's brain would still be developing... and using these substances doesn't help with the development. At the end of the day, ours is a science-based approach Legalisation is a health If marijuana really was a gateway drug, there would be millions more drug addicts than there actually are. Because a lot and a lot of people smoke marijuana: and if ALL these people took the next step... well, our society would already be completely screwed GATEWAY DRUG AGE-LIMIT