Legislation by idiots: Chasing cannabis odour

Whoever thought of proposing legislation to fine cannabis users on the basis of odour must have been on some wonder drug. What is worse, though, is that this was approved by members of parliament who should have been scrutinising the legislation and ensuring it is good and can be reasonably enforced.

As the law stands now after the amendment, any cannabis user who causes a nuisance because of the smell emanating from a joint, is liable to a €250 fine.

Why target cannabis odour and not cigars; or fried bacon; or fish soup is anyone’s guess at this stage.

On paper, this looks like a fine piece of legislation to placate the histrionics of those who saw red when government partially legalised cannabis use, and are now raising all types of concerns—even irrational ones.

But in reality, it’s just a piece of paper that is only good for rolling up a joint.

The law is impractical and leads the police down a blind alley of trying to prove the unprovable in a court of law or tribunal.

There is no way for the police to reasonably prove ‘nuisance’ caused by ‘odour’. Cases will either be thrown out, or the police will simply not bother prosecuting.

But who cares if this law will not be enforced by police already stretched to the limit and with so many more serious crimes to deal with? What matters for our MPs, it seems, is being seen as doing something to address a nuisance in the most ineffectual way.

Cannabis does emit a particular odour that can be bothersome to some. But so do cigarettes and cigars. The truth is that MPs are not addressing a nuisance but rather trying to placate the moral outrage of those who never agreed with decriminalising cannabis use in the first place.

Indeed, educational campaigns that encourage good neighbourliness are more than welcome, as are educational campaigns highlighting the health risks associated with cannabis, cigarettes and alcohol.

But to go down this confused route of partial legalisation with associated fines for odour nuisance is not only unreasonable but also counterproductive in combatting the stigma associated with cannabis use.

The law as it stands already bans the use of cannabis in public places. This is hardly being enforced, especially in large gatherings where it becomes problematic to identify the individuals who are smoking.

So, what the new piece of legislation is doing is targeting those who smoke cannabis in the privacy of their home.

If government truly believes the direction it took on cannabis was the correct thing to do—something this leader has always supported—it should be discussing ways and means of improving the situation for casual users who do not want to grow cannabis plants at home and who do not feel it necessary to join a club.

It should be working in the direction of putting cannabis on the same legal footing as tobacco—allowing people to smoke outside, bar playgrounds and places frequented by children; the ability to buy cannabis from regulated outlets without the need to become members; possible commercialisation under strict regulations of the sale of cannabis; a ban on advertising; the obligation to include health warnings on products; and a prohibition of sale to those under 18.

But instead of having a mature discussion along these lines, after a careful analysis of how things have developed since cannabis for recreational use was partially legalised, the government has capitulated to the whining and pressure of the prohibitionists.

The outcome is a fudged law, drawn up by idiots who expect police officers to make fools of themselves, while recreating the fear of stigmatisation for those who are quietly going about their business at home. It is a law that is trying to fix something subjective—because smell is very subjective—that cannot realistically be fixed, unless cannabis is made completely illegal once again.

This is not about an industrial plant emitting foul smells that can be required to instal filtering equipment to minimise or eliminate the inconvenience. This is about a person smoking a joint in their living room, possibly with friends. God forbid they would be required to bubble wrap their house so that the smell does not waft out into the common parts.

It is a shame that a progressive government has opted for this approach. It just makes you wonder whether the decriminalisation of cannabis was a matter of conviction or simply one of convenience. We really won’t be surprised if it was the latter.