criminalization of the underprivileged classes, mending broken homes, promoting upward social mobility, and reducing the collateral consequences of existing drug enforcement policies185. 7.8. The Commission finds that the perceived harms of cannabis/ marijuana usage do not displace these deep social harms and inequality inherent in the justice system as applied to the current prohibition regime.
Cannabis and Environmental Considerations
7.9. Environmental concerns have not appeared to attract the same attention as other socio-economic topics in discussions on marijuana -related policy changes. Yet, the impact of law reform on the environment, which can usher in a new land-based industry, is an important area for consideration that environmentalists and conservationists have been keenly investigating. The current method of addressing marijuana cultivation is to “slash and burn” or spray the illegal crops with chemicals. Both of these result in harm to the environment and communities, as there is exposure to either the chemicals or excessive smoke, as well as flooding or other problems. This should be addressed in future legal policy. 7.10. More pointedly a research study advanced that although marijuana’s current land-use footprint is small, the boom in cannabis agriculture could create substantial threats to the surrounding environment186. 7.11. During the consultations some Member States expressed concerns over policy changes in marijuana and its impacts upon the environment. The issue of deforestation also emerged as it relates to the potential increase in marijuana agriculture that may accompany a new paradigm.
8. HUMAN RIGHTS ARGUMENT AGAINST PROHIBITION 8.1. The criminalisation of the personal use of a natural substance which grows freely and existed for several thousands of years, whether for medicinal or recreational use, may itself introduce considerations of human rights, but when coupled with the uneven and inequitable enforcement of the law by targeting the disadvantaged, results in a gross human rights violations. 8.2. The threshold for limiting expressed human rights as contained in the various constitutions in the region is high, albeit the limitations are expressed differently in these constitutions. It requires a balancing exercise, measuring the necessity of the limitation as would be expected in a society governed by democratic principles, such that the limitation must be reasonably required and proportionate. When viewed from such a human rights perspective, imposing harsh criminal penalties on a person for personal use of a plant, particularly when there is no scientific evidence to suggest that it causes harm to others, or even the extent of harm to the user, is difficult to justify. Important rights that are relevant here are the rights to private life, to privacy of the home, to dignity, to liberty, equality, health, security and the right to freedom of religion. The notion of freedom was very prevalent in the Consultations. 8.3. In the Barry Francis case, the Court of Appeal of Trinidad clearly identified some of the rights violated by the draconian cannabis/ marijuana laws, when ruling on stiff mandatory penalties that left no discretion to the judiciary and were disproportionate to the offences. The court stated: “The removal of such considerations from the sentencing process erodes the fundamental right to liberty and cannot be justified in any society which has a proper respect for the dignity of the human person and the inalienable rights with which we all, as human beings, are endowed. Thus, a provision which indiscriminately applies a mandatory minimum penalty to all offenders, irrespective of the nature of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender and the mitigating circumstances affecting him, resulting in the offender serving a total of forty years imprisonment for one point one six kilogrammes (1.16kg) of marijuana, is so grossly unfair and offensive of the fundamental principles of justice and the rule of law, that it cannot be reasonably justifiable in a society which has a proper regard to the rights and freedoms of the individual.” 185 186
Evans (2013) Wang et al (2017)
49