Dagga Bill such a drag
DISCARDED: POTENTIAL FOR SA TO GENERATE TAX REVENUE, CREATE JOBS
Experts not happy it has been tabled in parliament without input from key stakeholders.
In what they have described as “a backward piece of legislation”, a cannabis activist and two legal experts have slammed as “narrow” the Cannabis for Private Purposes Bill recently tabled in parliament, without input from key stakeholders.
The tabling of the Bill comes two years after Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo’s watershed Constitutional Court judgment on the legalisation of cannabis.
Discarded in the new Bill is the potential for South Africa to tap into the cannabis industry by generating tax revenue, creating jobs and the possible manufacturing of products and textiles for commercial use.
The Bill states that prescribed quantities for cultivation are four flowering cannabis plants or cannabis plant equivalent allowed per person, or up to eight flowering cannabis plants or equivalent per dwelling occupied by two or more adult persons.
To possess in private, the prescribed quantity in a public place is 100g dried cannabis or cannabis equivalent or “possess the prescribed quantity of cannabis in a private place” up to 600g.
Rastarian lawyer and cannabis activist Gareth Prince, who has for 17 years been advocating for the freedom to use cannabis legally, said the Bill was “a very narrow piece of legislation”.
“The Constitutional Court order was understandably not prescriptive at all, because of the separation of powers doctrine, allowing parliament to do the job of coming up with a law.
“The court simply said our current laws around cannabis were unconstitutional and parliament had to make the laws constitutional,” said Prince.
“One of our fundamental criticism is that – apart from the fact that there is no mention of any regulated trade or commerce – it approaches the issue of cannabis from a Eurocentric, as opposed to an indigenous African, perspective.”
He said the cannabis community want to change the conversation around cannabis. “What the Bill promotes is a view that cannabis is still a dangerous substance, perpetuating the narrative that alcohol and tobacco are less dangerous – something not factually true.”
Cannabis, said Prince, was “a very versatile product in being able to make bricks to build houses for people, fibre to make clothes and sanitary pads for those women who cannot afford to buy pads”.
He added: “With good legislation, we need to regulate this trade so that money does not go to the pockets of corrupt politicians and gangsters. You drive the industry underground by criminalising it, and when you do that, it cannot be monitored.”
Prince said the cannabis community would engage government “because the way forward is not through the courts”. But he warned: “If it comes to the push, we will go back to court.”
Lawyer Andrew MacPherson, of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, said the Bill’s aim “to harshly criminalise anything relating to cannabis outside of the scope of Deputy Chief Justice Zondo’s seminal judgment in September 2018 made it backward”.
“Justice Zondo went to great length to detail the global approach to cannabis: the total legalisation in developed economies and the rationale behind such thinking. He also dealt with the very real benefits to society as weighed against the exaggerated and unsupported case made so far against legalisation.”
Lloyd Fortuin of Faure and Faure agreed: “This is a mechanical way of dealing with the cannabis matter. The Constitutional Court made a ruling on cannabis and forced parliament to act on it.
“But they are doing it reluctantly and have not taken on the spirit of the Zondo judgment by looking at wider economic opportunities.” –
We believe the way forward is not through the courts. But if it comes to a push, we will go back to court.
Gareth Prince Cannabis activist