Revisiting the ganja issue

Stephen Vasciannie

IN ITS important report, Jamaica's National Commission on Ganja noted that "hardly a week goes by without some intimation of changing attitudes to cannabis", and mentioned, inter alia, that in June 2001, a pilot scheme was launched in London under which cannabis offenders are warned about drug use, but not "cautioned, arrested, charged and tried" (page 3).

These statements should now be read in the light of the announcement made last Tuesday by the British Home Secretary, David Blunkett, concerning his Government's new policy on ganja.

Speaking very broadly, Blunkett's policy statement on ganja reiterates the Jamaican Commission's perspective that attitudes to cannabis use are constantly being reconsidered. There may be a touch of exaggeration in the idea that "hardly a week goes by" without signs of change, but, in fairness, this is certainly an unsettled area of legal policy.

In introducing the new policy, the Home Secretary indicated that his party's change of heart has been prompted by realities on the ground. He noted that the current law, which denotes cannabis as a Class C drug under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, needs to be made more 'credible', particularly among young people, and argued that relaxation of the law concerning ganja would release more State resources for the fight against hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin.

This line of reasoning, and particularly the point concerning the need to release resources to tackle more harmful drugs than ganja, had also received a sympathetic hearing by the Jamaican Commission: one of the recommendations of that Commission is that, upon the decriminalisation of ganja, "the security forces (should) intensify their interdiction of large cultivation of ganja and trafficking of all illegal drugs, in particular crack/cocaine" (page 57).

But although Jamaica's Ganja Commission and the British Government are clearly swimming in the same direction, they are not necessarily travelling at the same speed. More specifically, it is significant that the British Government has not actually sought to decriminalise ganja use, and the Home Secretary has been careful to deny that the new policy amounts to decriminalisation by another name.

The British Government's position is that, after the change, cannabis will be reclassified to a Class C drug, in the same category as anti-depressants and steroids. With this reclassification, the British police will lose the power to arrest people who have ganja in their possession, and it is expected that the State will license the medical use of ganja for the treatment of illnesses such as multiple sclerosis.

At the same time, the maximum penalty for possession of (unlicensed) ganja will be reduced to two years from the present five-year period. The maximum term for dealing in ganja will also be reduced, from 14 years to five.

In short, as the British Home Secretary put it, "cannabis would remain a controlled drug and using it a criminal offence", with the proposed changes amounting to a relaxation of the law, but not the removal of prohibitions on ganja use.

In practice, however, the British change will not be insignificant: it is likely that if someone is found with ganja, he will be cautioned, given a formal warning, or given a summons to appear in court. He will not be arrested on the spot, unless he is a persistent offender or is in possession of a substantial amount of ganja.

The Jamaican Ganja Commission wishes to go further than that. For the Commission, ganja use should be fully decriminalised "for the private, personal use of small quantities by adults" (page 56). For the Commission, the use of ganja for religious purposes should also be decriminalised, but generally, decriminalisation for personal use should exclude "smoking by juveniles or by anyone in premises accessible to the public" (ibid.).

From a political standpoint, the approach recommended by the Jamaican Commission raises several interesting issues. The question arises, for instance, whether the decriminalisation of marijuana in Jamaica would be a popular gesture that could help the electoral fortunes of the administration that brings about decriminalisation?

Vote-winner

Some of Jamaica's leading social scientists have argued that the use of ganja is firmly integrated into the country's culture, and that, therefore, decriminalisation would really amount essentially to de facto recognition of the prevailing reality. But, in the absence of definitive surveys on the subject, can we really be sure that the party which decriminalises ganja will receive an electoral boost? Some people may well cast their vote for the decriminalising party, but, arguably, no small number of voters would be alienated by the cynical use of the ganja question as a vote-winner.

Also, I do not believe we should underestimate the large number of Jamaicans who genuinely believe that the use of ganja is harmful to individuals, and that it has serious negative effects on the society in general. People in this category may well form the silent majority, a possibility which suggests that the use of ganja as a vote winner could be a chancy enterprise.

Another aspect of the debate is, of course, the international dimension. I believe that the British Home Secretary was keen to emphasise that his Government was not decriminalising ganja last week partly because decriminalisation is not allowed under any of the three main treaties that cover the question of drug use and trafficking in international law. Particularly at a time when Britain does not wish to be acting contrary to the rule of law, British policy-makers have sought credibility on the ganja question without violating the country's treaty obligations. Notice, though, that the treaty obligations have been recognised as a significant bar to full decriminalisation.

In our case, Jamaica has to be sensitive not only to the treaty aspects of the debate, but also to the matter of decertification. On the question of decertification, there are some who believe Jamaica should disregard American perspectives and do what we think is right. Never mind them, we have sovereignty and principle on our side, the argument runs.

This firm sovereignty argument has its appeal, but sometimes we need to remember that we live in the real world, and that our foreign policy initiatives are often constrained economic scarcity and Realpolitik. So, on the ganja question, if we decide to disregard the prospect of decertification by the United States, we should do this with our eyes wide open. Is the question of ganja decriminalisation so important that we would risk decertification for it?

Given that decertification would mean an end to all United States foreign assistance to Jamaica (including, I presume, assistance to combat cocaine trafficking) I do not believe we should test the Americans at this time. Attitudes to ganja use are in a state of flux - we can try to influence state opinions without placing our economic and social prospects in jeopardy.

Stephen Vasciannie, a UWI lecturer, is currently a Visiting Fellow at Wolfson College, Cambridge, England.

Back to Commentary