Cannabis: a reform in transition
It has been over two years since Malta implemented its groundbreaking cannabis reform, prompting a revaluation of the current situation. Despite initial concerns of opening a Pandora’s Box by merely removing cannabis possession and cultivation from the criminal basket, this has not materialised. On the contrary, we have positively observed a downward trend of arrests and people unnecessarily going through lengthy court cases.
Many also seem to interpret the reform enacted in December 2021 as a new law ‘legalising’ cannabis; however, this couldn’t be further from the truth. First, there was never a ‘new’ law but merely minor amendments to the Drug Dependence (Treatment not Imprisonment) Act concerning cannabis. To label this reform as ‘legalisation’ would be a disservice to all those still facing criminal consequences for their cannabis possession and sharing, and the thousands more who served jail terms in previous years.
Cannabis remains classified as a narcotic, with serious legal consequences for consumption, cultivation or possession. However, one cannot deny the fact that cannabis-related arrests have fallen drastically, and thankfully the cannabis consuming community can get on with their lives with a newfound sense of legal relief.
Home cultivation has provided consumers with an alternative to illicit sources, fostering a sense of autonomy and empowerment over their health and well-being. And all this without the fear of being publicly named and shamed and thrown behind bars.
Associations have started dispensing their tested cannabis and it is very encouraging to observe that they are reaching their full membership capacity after a few days from opening.
However, it is very worrying to observe a relatively slow rollout of licences by the Authority for the Responsible Use of Cannabis (ARUC). It is also most concerning that the socalled educational campaign is a poor attempt to explain the law [something Mariella Dimech should have done back in 2022]. One questions why the ARUC is somehow forgetting its harm-reduction and social justice role, and instead of securing funds to combat stigma, has been transformed into a semi-propaganda machine for the politicians.
While a lot more must be done, it will inevitably take time for the stigma to be eradicated. If there is no honest political will by the new chairperson to combat stigma and institutionalised discrimination in effective terms, it will be very difficult for the estimated 40,000 cannabis users to break away from fears of social, economic and criminal repercussions. It is also somewhat baffling to observe politically appointed employees from the Housing Authority accompanying Leonid Mckay at the ARUC.
What are their credentials to regulate a not-for-profit recreational cannabis system aimed at combating stigma while ensuring that the legislative framework evolves and transitions into a fully decriminalised and regulated one?
Can the cannabis community trust these people as honest brokers protecting and advancing the human rights of people who use cannabis, or are they government puppets ready to bow to any political and/or industry pressure? How can we rest assured that the promised principles of regulating cannabis within a not-for-profit and harm reduction philosophy will continue to be respected?
Is it possible that after the negative impact left by Dimech, including the huge risks of allowing the industry to take a hold and seep in the regulatory framework, the government remains adamant to keep ARUC as a government’s appointee playground?
The first legislative steps of allowing limited activities related to cannabis possession, and cultivation, have been taken and this is no mean feat. The government’s main aim of tackling the illicit market reflects a growing number of countries’ political realisation that the criminalisation of cannabis hurts the cannabis user more than the actual criminal organisations involved in trans-border importation and smuggling of drugs.
In more than 60 years of prohibition, thousands of Maltese citizens have had their police conduct tainted and spent countless days behind bars.
That is why the cannabis reform in Malta needs to be considered as a ‘reform in transition’, and not as something set in stone. The present restrictive regulatory framework, especially with the prospective centralised database, is only favouring underground trade, and in a way, pushing people back into the illegal market. It is also somewhat ridiculous that no one seems to be addressing the proliferation of semi-synthetic cannabinoids on the island.
This is a matter of grave concern and one which should have been addressed before issuing licences to Cannabis Harm Reduction Associations (CHRAs). As things stand today, these so-called ‘fake cannabis stores’ are providing risky products, attracting young people and making a mockery of the not-for-profit approach envisioned by the legislator. They are also negatively impacting the operations and overarching goals of CHRAs to promote responsible cannabis use in Malta.
Malta can duly claim to be the first country in the EU to have moved towards cannabis law reform, and for this, the government deserves praise.
But you may ask, why Malta? If we look at the way members of the cannabis community were persecuted on our islands over the past decades, it would be hard to find another European country that meted out such discriminatory sentencing by the courts.
It was even blatant to the staunchest of reform opponents. In one case, the attorney general had requested the courts to send a man to prison for life, including solitary confinement. Thankfully, the individual was eventually acquitted for what turned out to be nothing but simple possession.
“It is ridiculous that no one seems to be addressing the proliferation of semi-synthetic cannabinoids in Malta
Andrew Bonello is president, ReLeaf Malta.