ARUC’s nursery sponsorship was unnecessary and ill-advised

This newspaper has always supported the government’s drive to regularise cannabis. The drive to partially legalise the production, sale and use of cannabis was needed to remove the social and criminal stigma from recreational users. It also ensured that users consume a safe product that they either grow themselves or buy from a registered club. 

Malta’s home-grown experiment has only been around for just over four years. Its success in reaching the stated aims still has to be assessed. Cannabis users will probably point out several deficiencies in the system, which they would like to be addressed. Similarly, non-users would raise issues of concern linked to a more liberal regime. 

The regulated use of cannabis will undoubtedly require further intervention over the years to address issues of concern on either side of the debate. One such intervention was the introduction of roadside testing of motorists for drugs to curb drug-driving, which was increasingly being flagged as an issue by first responders in the context of greater accessibility to cannabis.  

The truth is that this is a relatively new policy area not only for Malta but globally and it will keep evolving. We hope that the evolution will adopt an evidence-based approach that treats cannabis users as rational human beings, who are able to make their own choices. 

This leader will continue to support a cannabis regime that makes it easier for adults to access a good quality product from regulated clubs in such a way that the black market is crowded out of society. 

But this leader is also conscious of the fact that many people still have a negative view of cannabis and those who use it. Changing the law does not automatically translate into wider acceptance, especially when cannabis remains illegal as are other drugs. Too many people still have misgivings about the cannabis reform—some are justified, others irrational and borne out of prejudice. 

Within this context, the government and its agencies must tread with caution so as not to add unnecessary fuel to the fire started by those who would rather see cannabis relegated to the criminal underworld. 

This is why this leader believes the nursery sponsorship agreement that the Authority for the Responsible Use of Cannabis (ARUC) reached with the Malta Football Association was unnecessary and ill-advised. The agreement has noble aims—it will see ARUC finance up to 75% of football nursery fees of children from underprivileged backgrounds. 

But what ARUC and Reforms Parliamentary Secretary Rebecca Buttigieg failed to anticipate was the reaction of countless parents, who could see no value in associating cannabis with football nurseries. 

Irrespective of the noble intentions, the association of ARUC—and consequently, cannabis—with football nurseries simply added fuel to the widespread negative sentiment surrounding cannabis use. ARUC shot itself in the foot and consequently chipped away at the good intentions behind the cannabis reform. 

The backlash included that of Sports Minister Clifton Grima, who called the agreement a “lack of foresight”. Now, Grima may be a district rival of Buttigieg but he can hardly be accused of being an Opposition MP wanting to capitalise on every issue that crops up. 

Grima, who had supported the cannabis reform in parliament, was being mindful of the many concerns parents still have about it and who suddenly saw the cannabis authority inserting itself into what they would have deemed to be a safe space. 

Pro-cannabis voices may easily dismiss the backlash to the agreement as moral panic by conservative forces. It would be a huge mistake. Although some of the reaction has been exaggerated, it is to be expected when dealing with an issue that is still a sensitive subject for a majority of people.  

One may rightly argue that ARUC is the regulator just like the Gaming Authority, and not a cannabis club, which would have made the sponsorship significantly more objectionable. But correct as this may be, ARUC’s association with cannabis makes it a persona non grata in certain spaces. Society has not evolved enough to accept cannabis on the same footing as alcohol and cigarettes, with all the harmful consequences they bring with them. And even if this were to be achieved, the three substances should never be associated with nurseries and spaces involving children. 

ARUC could have used its budget more judiciously had it embarked on a more effective and consistent educational and awareness campaign on what constitutes responsible cannabis use. It could have spent its money more judiciously by setting up non-judgemental drug testing and rest stations in major parties that happen over the summer months. It could have sponsored other things. Unfortunately, it chose the wrong deal to make.