It is particularly worrisome that the Dean of the Faculty for Social Well-Being Prof. Andrew Azzopardi, speaking on his behalf and on behalf of all Faculty members is accusing ReLeaf Malta of being a profit-driven lobby group aimed at promoting the consumption of cannabis and a free for all approach, the NGO said in a statement. 

The wording used in The Malta Independent article (“The cannabis debate: A live and let live approach to life,’ TMID 7 April) gives the impression that nothing has been done from ReLeaf Malta’s side to contribute to the past and ongoing discussion about cannabis, and goes on to congratulate the ‘lobby’ for being victorious.

This is ReLeaf’s reply:  

With all due respect and without infringing on freedom of speech and opinion, we feel this belligerent approach has touched a new low and risks jeopardizing the creation of other civil society organizations representing marginalized groups and their participation in democratic debate questioning and challenging ongoing injustices. It is also interpreting, in a rather simplistic way, the core purpose of a decriminalised system, that is; a more just society.  

‘‘It is reassuring that our civil society will not let go’’. This is what Prof. Azzopardi wrote back in 2016 when discussing the role of civil society in challenging the status quo, keeping present Government accountable and promoting the well-being for society. It seems that when it comes to people who consume cannabis and organisations, such as ours created to promote improved social rights for all, Prof. Azzopardi uses two weights and two measures. This is difficult to understand, especially when Prof. Azzopardi has on multiple occasions defended other minorities and civil rights.   

We can maybe hypothesize that unfortunately, this is the result of ‘academic and institutionalized stigma’, propagated from one generation to the next and entrenched in collective and personal perceptions about people who consume cannabis.    

ReLeaf Malta said that it is a registered NGO with the Office of Voluntary Organizations in Malta and is in no way linked to any political faction or receiving funds from businesses and other corporate magnates. As a small, but closely knit group of researchers, some of us also hailing from the Faculty of Social Well-Being, we feel greatly saddened that Prof. Azzopardi is ignoring our researched proposals and innumerable references that we always attach to our writings. We do this to encourage a more open dialogue and to also ensure what is being discussed and proposed has been already researched by more leading researchers and organisations working directly with people who use substances, drug policy and international drug control.   

As has been discussed behind closed doors during a meeting earlier this year with Prof. Azzopardi, ReLeaf Malta has always sought to substantiate arguments with evidence-based research (something most local experts fail to do) and have always promoted the importance of (a) education, (b) a balanced dialogue, and (c) mutual respect between all those involved. This was a very positive and cordial meeting with both sides agreeing on a number of issues, particularly the negative effects of incarcerating people for cannabis. These sentiments have been echoed in Prof. Azzopardi’s article, nonetheless, other parts seem to be, (we hope unintentionally) muddled and at times contradicting each other.   

It is interesting that issues related to diplomacy and Malta’s obligations under international law have been brought up by the Faculty for Social Well-Being and not the Law Department or the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies (MEDAC). It continues to be strange that Prof. Azzopardi so conveniently cherry pick’s criticisms brought forward by the INCB, without taking into consideration the human rights implications documented in numerous international reports and increased calls by experts in law, criminology, drug policy and human rights to move away from a punitive approach and ensure personal users are safeguarded against the negative effects of the illicit market and draconian, unjust drug policy. ReLeaf Malta has also provided a solution to the fears raised by Prof. Azzopardi. We invite him to consult the following video on inter-se treaty modification and dialogue between like-minded countries to ensure a just and sustainable approach. https://www.tni.org/en/article/the-elegant-way-to-end-global-cannabis-prohibition-inter-se-modification  

Prof. Azzopardi also questions and ponders on the safety of cannabis consumption, without properly understanding what cannabis is and how it relates to the body. He further asks how large the plant pot will be and makes a spectacular pirouette between diplomacy and gardening.  

This is somewhat surreal and unfortunately does not contribute to promote a serene and informed debate. We invite Prof. Azzopardi to speak with us to better explain how personal cultivation works and the benefits, for both consumers and society in general, to allow the private cultivation of cannabis.  

Regrettably, once more, Prof. Azzopardi’s stigma for people who consume cannabis is revealed through the question; what about child protection? The assumption that people who consume cannabis are irresponsible parents is unfounded and has not been proved scientifically. Prof. Azzopardi also ignores the ‘unintended consequences’ of the current policy of prohibition and the so-called war on drugs, while so conveniently speaks about cannabis being unsafe, without properly explaining how and in which environment. So one questions;   

Why are all these fears being brought up now? Why is a decriminalised system being presented as a free for all liberal approach?  Why is a private adult matter being interpreted as a commercial opportunity for some?  

That is why we invite Prof. Azzopardi to also have a look at this video by the EMCDDA providing a detailed overview about differences between a criminalised, depanelized, decriminalised and legalized system. https://youtu.be/9NKhpujqOXc  

There also seems to be confusion between the role of a white paper on decriminalization for adults and prevention campaigns, predominantly carried out in schools. Prof. Azzopardi might wish to appreciate that amendments in law aimed at reducing the number of people entering into contact with the criminal system and giving out the necessary tools (private cultivation)  to stir away from the illicit market, have nothing to do with prevention programs aimed at discouraging or delaying onset of substance use. It is in fact strange that Prof. Azzopardi is not aware that the prevention programs by Sedqa have been undergoing various changes and whilst equipping young persons with resistance skills to refrain or delay onset, they are now trying to provide a more realistic picture of both licit and illicit substance use. One might also wish to highlight, that a moralistic approach, and therefore based on the moralistic principles that illegal substances and people who use them are ‘evil, malicious and unreliable’, have been repeatedly declared to be ineffective in reducing substance use. Instead they continue to create an environment of stigma and discrimination.   

At this point, we feel it is important to better explain what is intended by harm reduction; 

‘‘Harm reduction refers to policies, programmes and practices that aim to minimise negative health, social and legal impacts associated with drug use, drug policies and drug laws. Harm reduction is grounded in justice and human rights - it focuses on positive change and on working with people without judgement, coercion, discrimination, or requiring that they stop using drugs as a precondition of support’’. (Harm Reduction International)   

We partially agree with Prof. Azzopardi that the white paper leaves some questions unanswered, especially problematic is the definition and parameters to establish ‘reasonable suspicion’ by the police and the Authority’s functions and composition. That is why we look forward to a balanced and reasoned debate, stirring away from sensationalistic language and unnecessary scaremongering campaigns.  

It is in part encouraging that Prof. Azzopardi welcomes the part related to the expungement of criminal records and that persons found with less than 7 grams will not face criminal or administrative consequences, including provisions to safeguard the well-being of minors found in possession of cannabis. These are initiatives that were proposed by Releaf Malta in 2019, and together with other provisions, such as the social equity program, aim to ensure a holistic approach which does not ‘open the tap’, but rather includes a filter to the current uncontrolled flow and tries to promote a more conscious and responsible approach.  

To conclude, we wish to join Prof. Azzopardi’s own wording, uttered back in 2016, stating that;  

‘‘That is why our society needs to work towards full access to social rights for all citizens. All of this needs to be founded on social dialogue and the involvement of multiple stakeholders. We need to engage social partners in policy design and evaluation at national, regional and local level’’.