This law oppresses persons who use cannabis for medicine and other purposes

The amendment to the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act of 1988 by Bill No 2 of 2021 falls short of the expectation of full decriminalisation of cannabis under 30 grams. It would appear that the committee that had to go through the bill were visionless. They had blinded themselves to the prediction that if they fully decriminalise cannabis, they may create vexation from persons who are against the uses of cannabis, in any form, especially smoking.

Editor, I thank the government for removing the jail sentence for up to 30 grams of cannabis and for doing better on this matter than the previous government.

At the same time, I cannot believe that the committee sent the bill back to Parliament with laws that oppresses persons who use cannabis for medicine, food, tea, wine, also smoking. The government MPs, who were the only ones in Parliament, passed it without examining the recommendations with a fine tooth comb to find the defects. I must say it is sad to see how the educated mind operates in Guyana when it comes to making decisions about our future.

I cannot believe the lack of commonsense I am seeing. We have a billion dollars’ industry which can create thousands of jobs, bring in foreign currency from the sale of medical cannabis, cannabis cigarettes, also other cannabis food products. Editor, the committee failed to understand that sending a person to rehab when they are not an addict would not stop that person from using cannabis if they so want to. With the present-day knowledge of the benefits of cannabis in other forms other than smoking, the amendment discriminates against persons who use cannabis for other health benefits. The amendment treated as smokers, all who are held with 30 grams of cannabis or less, and this should not be.

The unjust 1988 law which forces magistrates and judges to jail our citizens for smoking cannabis should have been removed from the law books a long time ago. As I read the amendment, I ask myself why the educated mind in Parliament wants to send a person, who is not an addict to cannabis, to be rehabilitated. Where will the government find all the experts in the different regions to deal with the rehabilitation process of persons, and why did the opposition didn’t stay in Parliament to represent taxpayers? Is it because they see the persons who uses cannabis not worth representing, or, are they afraid the PPP will lambast them for not making an effort to amend the act when they were in government?

I am disappointed in the opposition at present. The new amendment states in section 4 (b) “(2A) The court shall make an order requiring a person who has been convicted for the possession of a narcotic