Of the potential adverse effects, the Commission is guided by the conclusive evidence that exists for the negative effect on the adolescent brain and on driving. Consequently, cannabis/marijuana use for children and young persons is not recommended, except in medical treatment, as it may affect memory, learning and attention and may put youth at risk for early onset of psychosis. Driving under the influence is also not recommended. On balance, after evaluating the scientific data and testimonies from the public, the Commission is of the view that the proven medical benefits of cannabis/ marijuana in several areas outweigh the risks. This finding is consistent with those of numerous other national bodies/ Commissions in the region and globally and that of international bodies, the most influential of which have labelled the current legal regime “redundant” and “obstructionist.” This Report acknowledges the work of these previous studies. The scientific data supports law reform to permit the use of marijuana, but in a controlled regulatory environment. A public health, rights-based, non-prohibitionist approach focused on high‐risk users and practices – similar to the approach favoured with alcohol and tobacco – allows for more control over the risk factors associated with cannabis‐related harms than the current, ineffective prohibition, which heightens health risks and induces social harms. The Report acknowledges that it may be necessary to invest resources in treating cannabis/ marijuana as a public health issue, at least in the short-term, notwithstanding general expectations to public health. It should be noted that the Commission’s Economics Study illustrates that significant earnings may be realized from averted enforcement costs, sales, licensing requirements for production, taxes and other revenue for a law reform model that is strictly regulated by the state. Funding costs may therefore be offset by these revenues. The Commission accepts the evidence that the original classification of cannabis in law as a dangerous drug with no value was made without the benefit of scientific research and data. This classification, first in international treaties, Cannabis/ marijuana can no was spearheaded by the US and was automatically followed longer be accurately classified domestically. Documents declassified and released to the public in in law as a “dangerous drug” 2002 illustrate that the US Shafer Commission, in a 1972 Report to with “no medicinal or other the US Congress, itself challenged this classification, finding that value”. marijuana presented little harm and should be decriminalised. Given the key finding that now establishes that cannabis/ marijuana has several beneficial effects, cannabis/ marijuana can no longer be accurately classified in law as a “dangerous drug” with “no medicinal or other value”. This finding is significant since the illegal status of the drug was premised on its classification as a dangerous drug. The prohibition based regime supported by criminal sanctions is deemed to be ineffective, inefficient and unfit for purpose both by many members of the public and those who administer it. Despite its illegal status, marijuana is readily available and its use is prevalent across the region and across all classes, races and social status. The prohibitionist legal regime and the harsh penalties, remnants of a now discredited ‘war on drugs’ approach, have failed to deter usage. Influential international and regional authorities have acknowledged this and called for a new approach, centred on public health and rights, to treat with cannabis/ marijuana. CARICOM itself endorsed this approach in 2002 at its Heads of Government Meeting, but has failed to implement it. Moreover, there are many arrests and much imprisonment, pressuring law enforcement resources and filling the jails with otherwise law-abiding citizens who have had small amounts of cannabis/ marijuana in their possession, exacerbated by their inability to raise bail. Law enforcement personnel themselves complain about this ineffective, wasteful system and believe that their resources are better employed fighting serious crime. They debunk myths that cannabis/ marijuana is a causative factor in criminal conduct and believe that most persons use for stress relief. They also acknowledge that the poor are targeted in enforcing cannabis/ marijuana law while the rich are not.
3