For and Against: Cannabis has been partially decriminalised. Now what?

FOR: Karen Mamo, Department of Psychology

The introduction in 2021 of the partial decriminalisation of the personal consumption and cultivation of cannabis is a legislative development which has placed Malta closer to a human rights-based approach to drug policy.

A similar approach has been for a long time promoted by various international experts in public health and international human rights law, particularly by the United Nation’s Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, who stated: “The criminalisation of drug consumption and possession for personal use has led to negative consequences for the health, security, and human rights of individuals and communities worldwide, [lowering] their chances for employment, education and other opportunities for social inclusion.”

A focus on harm reduction, including the establishment of an authority to oversee the operations of not-for-profit associations for cannabis, are in themselves revolutionary policy options. For the very first time, policy recognises and includes people who use drugs as partners – not criminals or patients – and therefore as active agents empowered to take responsible decisions.

Drug users, taking responsible decisions? No, this writer is not high. Neither is this article an attempt at promoting a liberal framework built on “freedoms without responsibilities”. Valid thoughts though they might be, they miss one crucial point: the unique bond between harm reduction, education and positive behavioural change.

Harm Reduction (HR) is a holistic approach that includes provisions to promote public health, social justice, and human rights. A HR framework aims to minimise the negative health, social and legal impacts associated with drug use, drug policies and the law. Moreover, by respecting personal autonomy, HR works with, not for people who use drugs.

This is where education, focused on facilitating personal growth through dialogue, respect, dignity, and a non-judgemental approach, becomes the most effective tool to promote positive behavioural change, and responsibility.

By providing information on different THC:CBD levels, by speaking about less risky methods of consumption – such as the ill practice of using tobacco – and encouraging a more open dialogue providing space for different experiences and narratives, we can build a novel bridge between cannabis users and society.

And this is in no way done to promote cannabis use, but an opportunity to better understand local trends and challenges, and together, without coercion, further develop measures to promote the well-being of society.

Crossing this bridge with human rights-based indicators, as opposed to superficial supply and demand measures, local researchers and the political class have a unique opportunity to study and understand this social phenomenon from a broader perspective.

Ultimately, they can be better equipped to design humane and evidence-based drug policies for all.

AGAINST: Stephen Cachia, Church Schools Mission, Deputy Coordinator

2021 ended on a celebratory note for cannabis users, ecstatic about the fact that Malta has become a European pioneer in legalising the recreational use of cannabis.

For many others, particularly those of us who work in the educational field with children and youths, the bulldozing method used by Government to fast-track this law with very little genuine discussion or debate, was met with dismay.

Clearly our main concern is that the new law is sending a very wrong and potentially dangerous message. Despite all the platitudes to the contrary spouted by government officials, this new law will undoubtedly normalise yet another substance which increases the risk of abuse and addiction for a proportion of persons who choose to use the drug. Government ignored all the feedback it received from the many professionals, drug rehabilitation experts, educators, academics and others who warned that the country was walking blindly into a risky law without having undertaken adequate local research, and without mitigating the negative effects this law will undoubtedly leave on children and youths.

Of even more concern is the fact that the new law has set up a weak regulatory framework to control legalised cannabis use.

A new authority has been set up which will regulate the cannabis clubs which the law will now allow. However, this same authority will have no regulatory oversight over the other method of cannabis production allowed by the law.

More specifically, the law now allows up to four cannabis plants to be grown at home. This can be carried out without any effective regulation whatsoever by the new authority. With the Cannabis Authority washing its hands from regulating this aspect of the law, who will be responsible for the social impact of this measure on families?

The risk of increasing family tensions within homes and the possibility of children being faced with abusive situations are just two risk examples which come to mind.

The new executive chairperson of the Cannabis Authority has made some positive initial remarks which auger well that she is aware of the huge responsibility she faces. However, these same remarks show that the authority already risks falling between two stools.

On one side we are being told by the chair of the authority itself that cannabis is a potentially dangerous substance and that its recreational use should never be promoted; while on the other hand the authority has a vested interest to ensure that the law is implemented effectively, which implicitly means that the use of cannabis will be promoted by the same authority.

The authority also seems keen to undertake research on the impact of the new law on society. While this begs the inevitable question related as to why such research was not carried out before we ran headlong and blindly into implementing the law, this opens up another debate on the credibility of such research if it is carried out by the authority itself. The Cannabis Authority will clearly have a vested interest to show that the new law is working as intended.

For such research to be credible, it needs to be carried out by independent researchers, external to the government and its Cannabis Authority, who can study the impact of the new measures in an objective manner.

The role of the University of Malta and possibly the Faculty of Social Wellbeing could be crucial here in providing a voice of independent research to examine the impact of this law.

Time will tell whether the new law will have the negative impact on society which many of us fear. Unfortunately, research available in jurisdictions where cannabis has been legalised is not encouraging at all. For example, research carried out in some US states, already indicates some worrying trends: https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2020-Impact-Report1.pdf.

One augers that, despite having ignored calls for research prior to enacting the law, Government will eventually realise the importance of a research-based approach when tackling such potentially risky legislative changes and open its ears to future research in this area, even if this may make uncomfortable reading.