5.56. There are however, competing contemporary views which highlight notable performance enhancing properties of cannabis for athletes such as improved vision for goalkeepers, muscle relaxation139 and the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain.140 Nevertheless, cannabis has been added to the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Prohibited List141 in spite of the perception that analgesic use does not enhance the performance of athletes.142
Legalization, combined with strict health‐focused regulation, provides the optimum opportunity for a state to reduce the harms associated with cannabis use, more so than partial decriminalization.
Sufficient Support on Medical Marijuana for Law Reform
5.57. In conclusion, in terms of the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes and even as it acknowledges the need for more robust research with regard to some claims, the Commission is satisfied that significant support exists in the literature with regard to the potential beneficial and adverse effects associated with marijuana, such that a realistic law reform process and regulatory regime can be designed. There is conclusive evidence that it is beneficial for several ailments; there is moderately strong evidence for another group of illnesses and emerging evidence, with good prospects for scientific proof in the near future for others. More importantly, scientific evidence has now disproved or severely challenges some of the most popularly held beliefs and perceptions of harm that currently underpin the law, in particular, the gateway theory, addiction and causative factors in relation to psychosis. It also establishes that cannabis is less harmful than substances that are not prohibited under law. 5.58. A public health, 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 harm than the current, ineffective prohibition, which heightens health risks and induces social harms. 5.59. 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 before the age of 24 is not recommended as it may affect memory, learning and attention and may put youth at risk for early onset of psychosis. The use of cannabis/ marijuana by children should be prohibited. Similarly, driving under the influence rules should be established. 5.60. On balance, after evaluating the scientific data and testimonies from the public, the Commission is of the view that the proven medicinal benefits of cannabis/ marijuana outweigh the relatively few risks, particularly when viewed against more harmful substances such as tobacco and alcohol. The scientific data supports law reform to permit the use of cannabis, but in a controlled regulatory environment.
6. LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVES ON PROHIBITION 6.1. The Commission paid special attention to the view of law enforcement personnel and experts, given that they are the persons “on the ground’’. Several such law enforcement persons spoke to us at the Consultations and also in the focal groups. In addition, the Commission sent a simple questionnaire to all of the police headquarters in the region on policy, practice and effects of the existing marijuana law.143 There was a clear convergence of views in the law enforcement community and that view was strongly in support of law reform, in particular, decriminalisation and the removal of prohibition. While at first blush this may seem to be surprising, it is entirely consistent with the findings in this Report concerning the lack of legitimacy of marijuana laws in general, due to issues of enforceability, efficacy and social justice.
Ibid. Hainline et al (2017) 141 Hilderbrand (2011) 142 Hainline et al (2017) 143 See Sample of the questionnaire in Appendix C. 139 140
39