The harm-reduction approach we are advocating with regards to the personal use of cannabis has at its centre three crucial considerations: first that we need to stop criminalizing adults for choosing to make use, out of their volition, of cannabis; secondly that, once personal possession of cannabis is decriminalized, a safe and regularised route of obtainment of cannabis should be provided for; and thirdly that a regulatory Authority must be set-up to provide strict regulation of this regularised route for the ultimate benefit of the safety of cannabis users, society at large and the protection of the vulnerable members of our communities, including children.

There are a number of foreign jurisdictions or states which have either implemented a harm-reduction approach (in varying degrees) or even went as far as fully legalizing cannabis.  Each jurisdiction has its own story and no model is exactly a copy of one another. There are cases where change was driven by pro-active and forward looking Governments (such as Canada) and others where change was essentially shoved down the throats of politicians through activism and popular initiatives by the people and civil society on the ground (such as Colorado).

Once our cannabis reform bill becomes law, Malta will be the first country in Europe to provide a comprehensive harm-reduction legal framework in the field of personal use of cannabis.  Other jurisdictions which presently utilize this approach either do that on the basis of policies of tolerance, or following court judgments or through particular provisions without providing for a whole statutory set-up.

Once our law is given the green light by Parliament, it will be a ground-breaking blueprint for other countries, in Europe and elsewhere, who would wish to regulate towards a likewise comprehensive harm-reduction approach.  Far from being “half-baked” or “rushed” or “leaves much to be desired” as some conservative critics have said, the law which we have proposed is well-thought and was drawn up after careful consideration of the consultation exercise which we carried earlier this year and the socio-legal situations in the various jurisdictions, including those who decided (unlike us) to go for full legalization and commercialization of cannabis for personal use.

Those who are painting, once more, a picture of gloom and doom, not unlike what they did on divorce and same sex marriage years back, are going to get it wrong again.  Incidentally, I have full sympathy for all those parents who have texted me or called me about the stream of emails they are receiving from their kids’ schools (Church schools) urging them to sign a petition proposing a number of amendments in the Cannabis reform Bill.  All this pressure can put parents in really awkward positions but that will be another conversation for another time.

***  

The Netherlands is a country which serves as an interesting case study.  It has been adopting a harm-reduction approach in so far as cannabis for personal use is concerned since the 1970s.  They did not formally legislate or pass a legislative framework like we are doing – rather they adopted a formal written policy of non-enforcement for violations involving possession or sale of a limited amount of cannabis. 

The result was the sale for the past five generations of cannabis for personal use inside licensed premises (called coffeshops) with a well-defined set of national criteria that includes no advertising, minimum purchase age 18 and limit of the number of defined grams per person per day.  Under the Dutch system, users can smoke cannabis inside the premises – under the system we are adopting this will not be allowed and cannabis will have to be consumed at home.

Since all this came into effect the rates of cannabis use in the Netherlands have not dramatically differed for the Dutch compared to their European neighbouring countries where cannabis is against the law. (MacCoun, “What Can We Learn from the Dutch Cannabis Coffeeshop System?,” Addiction 106, no. 11 (2011)).

Furthermore, the number of people who use cannabis, have ever used cannabis, or have used it recently are on par with the European average and the Netherlands has the lowest level of problem drug use in the EU. (Grund et al., “Drug Policy in the Netherlands,” European drug policies: The ways of reform (2017).

The Netherlands is currently undergoing a pilot of a fully regulated personal cannabis market to guide possible policy changes post 2025, where a number of municipalities are participating in a trial in which coffeeshops will be supplied with cannabis under strict conditions within a regulated, closed circuit.

We, of course, as part of the reform are immediately setting up a new regulatory Authority which will provide strict rules and conditions within which cannabis can be cultivated and provided to members.  That is a point which, in my view, will make our harm-reduction method more robust, safer and future-proof.

***

I was completely surprised when I read that one of the requests which is being put forward at this late stage of the legislative process by a number of NGOs which are against the reform is to, and I quote verbatim, “remove the reference to educational campaigns mentioned in the Bill to retain clearly the present situation whereby Government campaigns on drug use focus exclusively on prevention measures explaining the risks of cannabis use.”

As I have repeatedly explained, the cannabis reform will provide for the setting up of a regulatory Authority which has the primary dual aims of implementing harm reduction from the use of cannabis and assist other law enforcement and regulatory authorities in the fight against crime in the field of dangerous drugs.   

One of the functions listed in the law for the new Authority to undertake is to organise or promote educational campaigns on the responsible use of cannabis based on scientific facts and on the aim of harm reduction also giving clear and impartial information on the risks and other elements of cannabis use with reference to age and with appropriate content, whilst promoting open dialogue on the subject.

This effectively means that people making use of cannabis will be given impartial and scientific information on the risks of cannabis use, on what harm reduction seeks to attain and on the importance of using cannabis responsibly, both with regards to themselves and with regards to other members of society.

How all this is a bad idea escapes me.  And why all this makes the bill “half baked” and “rushed” escapes me even more.  It would perhaps have been ‘half baked” or “rushed” had this provision been omitted in the first place!

I would like to pass some thoughts on the other proposals which were put forward by the NGOs which are opposed to the reform.

One proposal suggested that outlets where adult members could obtain cannabis for personal use, had to be one kilometre away from schools.  This would effectively mean that the outlets would not be able to open anywhere in Malta.  We think that the length of 250 meters, that is the length of two football pitches next to each other, from schools and any other meeting place for youths, is a good distance and fulfils the purpose of putting a distance between the outlets and youth environments.

Another proposal was to increase the age of cannabis use from 18 to 25. If we had to accept this proposal, it would mean that people between the ages of 18 and 25 who choose to make personal use of cannabis would remain criminalised and will have to continue to turn to crime to obtain cannabis.   In Uruguay, which has been quoted by the same critics for other reasons, the minimum age of cannabis use is 18, as is in the Netherlands and Canada.