The drugs debate has always been controversial, at times outright acrimonious. The main political parties have in the past accused each other of being soft on the war against drugs, with the Nationalist government taking the flak on a presidential pardon granted to a convicted Brazilian drug trafficker in the early 1990s, while the Labour government had to face adverse criticism on another presidential pardon granted to a local years later.

Both decisions had their political repercussions, and for years the war against drug trafficking was fought by governments fearful of the opposition parties.

There was great mistrust between the Labour and Nationalist parties on the drugs issue for a whole decade. Politically, the social perspective of the drugs debate was virtually hijacked by the security aspect of drug trafficking, as it became politically expedient for political parties to transmit to the electorate the feel that they were in control of drug traffickers and barons. This came of course at the expense of the victims or users on whom there was at the time, little focus.

Legislation, passed with the approval of both sides of the House, stressed the zero tolerance perspective of the war on drug barony. Amendments were subsequently tailored to circumvent any possible loopholes from which traffickers might escape punishment which was, needless to say, extremely severe. A full-blown case of drug trafficking, importation, production or cultivation could be punishable with life imprisonment. It was the Nationalist government that was responsible for this legislation and the Labour opposition approved unanimously.

However, in its endeavour to secure that the law prevailed on drug barons, Parliament did not notice that the law it was passing did not, in certain circumstances, distinguish properly between the trafficker, to whom the main trust of the legislation was directed, and the user.

The problem lies in the definition of “trafficking” in the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Chapter 101 of the Laws of Malta) which encompasses a wide range of actions, from all types of importation to the production and cultivation of drugs and the mere act of sharing drugs, which are all punishable as trafficking.

This means that in the eyes of the law, there is no difference between a person passing a joint to his friend and a baron importing large quantities of marihuana for distribution in the local market. They are both traffickers and although there is a great disparity between them in the length of time they spend behind bars, for the former, no other punishment but imprisonment is possible.

The incumbent Justice Minister passed legislation in 2000, with the opposition calling a division, by virtue of which the mandatory penalty of imprisonment to those caught importing drugs “for personal use” was removed. The Labour opposition demanded a discussion of the amendments at the Social Affairs Committee which the government refused. The amendments passed, but they failed to pass the first test of trust between the main political parties.

The opportunity to test trust has come by again these days with regard to the act of “sharing” drugs which, to date, is as legally reprehensible and punishable as trafficking.

In 2005, I called on the Justice and Interior Minister to refer the issue to the Social Affairs Committee, after I had observed the minister trying to warm up this issue with careful incursions in the media, sort of prodding the opposition to make its views known. This time, my request was accepted and I am sure the minister must have realised that it was not definitely not a waste of time – nor would it have been such had he tried this Committee on his 2000 drug importation amendments. Had he done so, he could have avoided so much controversy.

It is now high time for both parliamentary groups to digest the findings of the Social Affairs Committee and contribute in a learned and apolitical debate meant to find a proper and just solution to the problem.

Dr Gulia is Shadow Minister Home Affairs