Anthony Gomes
IN the event of the US administration choosing to jump off a cliff,
fiscal or geological, is Jamaica obliged to follow like a herd of sheep?
This scenario applies to the decriminalisation of marijuana by certain
states in the Union, defying federal law that prohibits use of the drug
for various purposes including recreation. First off, Jamaica has
"bigger fish to fry" than devoting precious time and attention away from
its economic rescue programme, to consider decriminalising ganja.
Supporters of decriminalisation for use of small quantities of ganja for
recreational, health and religious purposes propose firstly, it would
reduce the number of court cases that overburden the judicial system,
and secondly, provide more time for police to pursue incidents of major
crime. The first proposal overlooks the Drug Court established in 2001
that sits in each parish and deals with minor offenders found with small
amounts of narcotics such as a "spliff". First-time offenders are
warned by the magistrate without charge, but would be entered into a
drug rehabilitation programme in the event of a second offence.
The call for cannabis to be permitted for use in medicinal preparations
has already been dealt with, as ganja's properties have already been
recognised and developed in Jamaica. This is illustrated by Dr Manley
West and Dr Albert Lockhart, the originators of Canasol, Asmasol and
Cantimol for the treatment of glaucoma and asthma. It must, however, be
emphasised, according to Dr Lockhart, "in our medicines we do not use
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)" — the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.
Synthetic THC can be found in Marinol and Dronabinol that have been
available by prescription for many years. Dronabinol, and Marinol
approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), have been
licensed in the US for use in appetite stimulation in AIDS patients and
to prevent nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. With Marinol
available in pill form, why choose to smoke ganja that contains roughly
30 times more carcinogens than tobacco smoke and therefore puts smokers
at significantly higher risk for developing lung cancer?
The GOJ has been chided for not decriminalising ganja in defiance of its
obligations under international law. This indicates a misunderstanding
of Jamaica's responsibilities under the various treaties to which it is a
signatory. Two of Jamaica's legal luminaries, Michael Hylton, a former
Solicitor General, and Stephen Vasciannie, now Jamaica's Ambassador in
Washington, stated clearly that Jamaica's membership of the
international treaties regulating dangerous drugs does not permit the
decriminalisation of ganja. To ignore these factual warnings could lead
to US decertification and unspecified international sanctions.
Michael Hylton's warning referred to the following treaties that are
binding on Jamaica: The Single Narcotics Convention, The Convention on
Psychotropic Substances and the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances. "Jamaica would be in breach of its treaty
obligations if Parliament were to remove criminal sanctions with respect
to these activities". To suggest that the influence of North American
and European countries should be disregarded in the matter of potential
decertification ignores the fact that their much needed foreign aid is
funded by the taxpayers of donor countries, so it is their business if
and when such unorthodox action occurs.
The protagonists conceptualise that liberalising the use of ganja would
be akin to a panacea for Jamaica's economic problems. Glowing North
American and European reports are submitted as indicative of a market of
inestimable proportions for the cultivation and sale of marijuana,
which would result in a significant reduction in abuse of the drug. The
belief that the use of ganja would decline after being decriminalised is
not supported by recent numbers provided by the National Council on
Drug Abuse. Drug abuse among 11 to 19-year-olds in a 2006 survey, shows
that alcohol accounted for 71 per cent of abusers and 24 per cent in the
case of ganja users. This suggests that alcohol is the most abused drug
because it is legal and readily available, as opposed to ganja that is
still subject to criminal sanctions.
It is difficult to attribute any creditability to this inexplicable
level of euphoria. How would future investors view a nation of potheads
that would include the workforce? Would they want to risk their venture
capital in such an environment where unpredictable mood swings are the
order or the day? Many simplistic comparisons have been made with other
mature societies that have modified their dangerous drug laws. The
British Government reclassified cannabis from a Class B to a Class C
drug. Reclassification is not synonymous with decriminalisation, and the
production and possession of cannabis remains illegal. However, they
have since reclassified cannabis again to a class B drug, with the
discovery that contemporary marijuana contains a much higher percentage
of THC than in earlier varieties. The new version called "Skunk" poses a
serious threat to both the physical and mental health of its users.
Decriminalisation should be rejected at this time. The government
should use the Drug Court which can produce the result sought, to allow
the smoker of a "spliff" to be ticketed without it being a criminal
offence. The second offence should be referred back to the Drug Court
for resolution.
The pro-ganja lobby remains a minority, whose reasons for wanting
decriminalisation of ganja is self-serving and not in the national
interest. It is said; "We have more degrees, but less common sense, more
knowledge but less judgment". That is certainly true when considering
the issue of dangerous illegal drugs.
No comments:
Post a Comment