(iii)
Perceived associations with criminality;
(iv)
Concerns that cannabis/ marijuana leads to psychosis and anti-social behaviours, including the ‘drop out’ or amotivational syndrome;
(v)
Fears that cannabis/ marijuana, while a ‘soft drug’ which is relatively harmless, could be a gateway to more dangerous drugs like cocaine; and
(vi)
Difficulty isolating different strains of cannabis/ marijuana which could create problems in regulatory change.
2.17. Another concern relates to the practicality of reform at this time, given the lack of confidence in the region’s ability to adequately operationalise a legalised regime that requires strict regulatory controls and the requisite Overall, however, the main focus resources.
of the voices against law reform was because of concerns for the youth, mental health and the institutional capacity of the states to manage public health objectives.
2.18. A very few persons objected to reform based on what may be described as a didactic approach, by arguing that this was the law and it should not be broken. One email writer said:
“While I feel for the young people who have been imprisoned for the possession of marijuana, the fact is that they broke the law. Why should they be given a ticket to save them from a criminal record? I understand the need to save our young people. But are we helping them by giving them a pass? Possession is a criminal offence as long as marijuana is on the list of illicit drugs.”
2.19. The Commission does not find such views persuasive given that the objective of the exercise is to inquire into rationales for changing the law. To suggest that a law should not be changed because it is the law is a circular argument that does not interrogate the justice imperatives of the law as is required. Overall, however, the main focus of the voices against law reform was because of concerns for the youth, mental health and the institutional capacity of the states to manage public health objectives. The Commission believes that its recommendations in this Report adequately address these legitimate concerns. Ultimately, the Commission’s task was to evaluate each of the above claims against the available scientific, medical, social data and legal grounding to determine their validity and weight in constructing appropriate legal and socio-economic policy.
Ending Prohibition and Embracing a Health and Rights Centred Approach
2.20. Consistent with the emerging imperatives for law reform, there has been a growing trend toward decriminalisation and even legalisation in the region and globally, at the most authoritative fora. For example, at the 2016 United Nation’s General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drug policy, a clear call was made for a different approach to marijuana. Several representatives and world leaders made strong statements urging member countries to move away from legal prohibition toward a liberal approach, but with effective regulations for medical Cannabis. H.E. Mogens Lykketoft, the then President of UNGASS, in his opening address stated that “… access to drugs for medical use is a human right to protect.” 2.21. Similarly, the UN Global Commission on Drug Policy has advocated the end of a criminal sanction backed regime for controlling cannabis/marijuana. It has been particularly vocal on the need to “end the war on drugs” 21 which it declared had “failed’’, a claim that has now been accepted globally. The Global Commission’s main recommendations included the end of criminalization and marginalization of users 21
‘War on Drugs, REPORT OF THE GLOBAL COMMISSION ON DRUG POLICY’ JUNE 2011
14