Open mike: Wayne Perinchief's credibility

Another chance to talk about a subject of your choice.

First comment sets the topic for debate. If you ask a question, please say what you think about the subject too, even if it's in a subsequent comment. And if you've been lucky enough to set the subject in a recent open mike, please give someone else a chance to do so this time.

» Tiger Bay says: "Wayne Perinchief has already undermined his credibility by initially saying he'd be tough on drugs, and then two weeks later 1) voting against drug testing for MPs, and 2) saying that he was looking into [presumably loosening] the drug laws because too many kids were getting put on travel stop lists because of drug convictions."

Comments

[Tiger Bay on 21.12.05 at 08:24]

Wayne Perinchief has already undermined his credibility by initially saying he'd be tough on drugs, and then two weeks later 1) voting against drug testing for MPs, and 2) saying that he was looking into [presumably loosening] the drug laws because too many kids were getting put on travel stop lists because of drug convictions.

These are symptoms of Bermuda's total aversion to accountability. That's the real story of 2005. It shows up everywhere - from PLP sleaze deals and governance failures, to out-of-control teens - and the community is apparently either so awash in cash or socially divided that we do nothing about it.

[Bundy & Coke on 21.12.05 at 08:27]

If Perinchief genuinely leads open discussion on marijuana, I think it is a good thing. There is definitely a case for different drugs to be treated differently under law.

[loki on 21.12.05 at 08:55]

I would have to disagree with you on this one, Tiger. 'Getting tough on drugs' is not necessarily inconsistent with loosening SOME drug laws. When Perenchief talks about possibly loosening some drug laws, I think that we can rightfully assume that he's referring to laws relating to marijuana use, and not crack, heroin, speed, etc. The inclusion of marijuana as a prohibited substance criminalizes the benign activities of a large number of otherwise law-abiding, upstanding members of the community and the government would be right to look into the law in this regard, in my opinion.

Mr. Perenchief has stated that he supports mandatory drug testing for MPs, and if you look at the comments that he made when he voted down the UBPs proposal in this regard, it was clear that he did this to allow the issue to be properly and fully debated at a later time, rather than in the middle of the night when half of the MPs were probably falling asleep.

[Tiger Bay on 21.12.05 at 09:34]

Loki, get serious, he thought it was inappropriate to deal with MP drug testing late at night when they were willing to ram in 13 other pieces of legislation in one go?

There would be fewer problems if half of every session was not taken up with unproductive "congrats and obits" piffle.

In the US, these types of statements are allowed to be "read into the record" by politicians in hours when Congress is not in active debate.

[Somers on 21.12.05 at 09:47]

Lead by example - the govn't hasn't been leading by example for some time now. A bunch of liars, full of excuses with no sign of accountability. Their actions are being reflected in society as a whole now. An "Ease me up" here, relax a few laws there, yeah - we wonder why the kids have no respect for authority. Jeez.

[loki on 21.12.05 at 09:47]

"Loki, get serious, he thought it was inappropriate to deal with MP drug testing late at night when they were willing to ram in 13 other pieces of legislation in one go?

There would be fewer problems if half of every session was not taken up with unproductive "congrats and obits" piffle."

I am serious, thanks. My point is that this has less to do with Mr. Perenchief's alleged hypocrisy and more to do with the ineffective way in which the House operates. The fact that the UBPs tabling of the motion came so late in the session is not something that can be laid at Mr. Perenchief's feet. Parliamentary practice is the problem here and it's something that all of our MPs, on both sides of the House, need to address.

[J Galt on 21.12.05 at 09:52]

Tiger if you want people to have accountability, I would suggest we remove all the unjust laws that make drug use illegal. Then let people decide for themselves, if they want to use them or not.

[Tiger Bay on 21.12.05 at 10:03]

J Galt, addiction does not necessarily co-exist happily with libertarian/objectivist intellectualism.

Loki, the PLP has more than enough votes to stuff any UBP motion. Wayne could have voted in support of MP testing and it would still have been blocked. He put party solidarity ahead of his mission.

In any case, we are not talking about rocket science: are the PLP MPs willing to lead by example? Apparently not.

[wklc on 21.12.05 at 10:06]

Many of the views that marijuana should be decriminalized stem from the fact that a large amount of young bermudians (usually black) are caught with a spliff here or there and their futures are ruined regarding traveling for school or vacation etc. Many people cannot discriminate between the decriminalization of marijuana vs legalization. Maybe I am incorrect, but from what I understand the decriminalization refers to making possession of a 'to be determined ' amount a misdemeanor (similar to a traffic offence). Anything over a certain amount will still be a criminal offense, i.e. intent to supply. Legalization would mean that it could be sold similar to alcohol. I don't believe that most people support this idea, but again, I could be mistaken.
It all comes down to personal opinions on whether it should be decriminalized or not.
However that Minister Perinchief is willing to discuss the topic to me is admirable. Many people are ostriches when it comes to moving forward. Let's be honest, there is a large proportion of Bermudians, be they black, white, portuguese that indulge in marijuana, and some of these are fully functional members of society. Maybe its time to at least debate and discuss the topic.

[loki on 21.12.05 at 10:14]

"Loki, the PLP has more than enough votes to stuff any UBP motion. Wayne could have voted in support of MP testing and it would still have been blocked. He put party solidarity ahead of his mission."

I think you have a bit of a rose-tinted view of how this would be carried out. It's not a case of the UBP tabling a general motion to have mandatory testing for MPs, everyone agreeing to it within five minutes before packing up for the night. Who would carry out the testing? How often would they be tested? Would them be testing randomly without notice? If not, how much notice would be required? What happens if an MP is off the island when notice is given? The issue is rather more complex than the simple question of whether they should be tested and all of the above matters would have to be discussed and it would take time to debate the issues.

[Backs on 21.12.05 at 10:21]

Legalizing so-called illegal or illicit drugs seems to be a very extreme, almost adolesecnt type approach to dealing with the multitude of problems related to drug and alcohol use. I would be interested to hear the nature of peoples' problems with drugs and alcohol? By defining the exact nature and extent of the problem we have a good shot at generating solutions. There is a "boat load" of research on drug and alcohol use that sheds light on all sorts of issues related therein. My question is simply "What is the exact nature of your particular problem(s) with alcohol and drug use and what are you doing about it?"

[Backs on 21.12.05 at 10:50]

In my experience the debate on what to do (or not do) about marijuana use is the most provocative of all discussion around drug and alcohol use in modern capitalist economies. Let's remove the fact that it is considered illegal. In fact hundreds and hundredes of Bermudians will smoke pot over the next 11 days without any thought over it legality. The marijuana trade runs at an estimated $100 million dollar per annum business with the ounce set at about $500 wholesale. So, legal or not, it is prolific. The question is, aside from its legality what are the issues? Should a 15 year old be allowed to smoke pot? How about pregnant women? Do you really want to know if your MP smokes pot and if so, why is that relevent? Should schools have any say in the matter? How about potency - is it okay to smoke "Lumbo" (about 8% THC) rather than BC Bud (about 27% THC)?? What should we do with 18 year olds who show up at home in the middle of a psychotic episode as a result of the BC Bud? The issue boils down to how we manage marijuana use in our community. I have never heard any person at the national level address this issue in any sort of meaningful way so as to provide some type of direction. The research on marijuana use is very clear - in particular on how it impacts the brain. The National Drug Commission is charged with the mandate of "managing" this and related issues on the island. Drug and alcohol use was shown to be the second largest issues on peoples' minds in a recent RG poll - can anyone tell me how the political and civil servant leaders in Bermuda are managing the matter of marijuana use in particular and drug and alcohol abuse in general? I am watching and listening closely so that I know what to tell the next set of parents that walk in my office to tell me their son or daughter is "failing" out of school...and they think they are smoking pot...

[silencedogood on 21.12.05 at 10:51]

Loki,

I'm not disagreeing with you, but why wouldn't he abstain instead? Why vote against it? And why not come out publicly and say there needs to be debate?

All,

It would be worthwhile to examine the effects of legalization for soft drugs (i.e. marijuana), but we need to remember that hard drugs are illegal for a reason. Crack, heroin, LSD, PCP, etc. should remain illegal.

I also think we need to realize that legalizing weed won't solve the drug problem either. Weed is very legal in Amsterdam but you can hardly walk 5 feet after 5pm in the areas it is sold without someone saying "cocaine...cocaine...".

I think the real issue is would removing weed as a product puts pressure on current weed dealers to start slangin' rock or some other, more harmful, drug. I think it would--the weed dealer would not suddenly become educated or develop a social conscience and would want to replace all that paper the govt. just took away.

So if legalization did occur there would have to be a good plan in place to enforce the remaining drug laws and the prison capacity to handle them. I have my doubts.

Maybe we should have the police give notice to any future crack dens that they will be raided along with the 17 who were noticed recently. Remember, it's not a crack house, it's a crack home.

In any case, I agree overall that Pernichief seems to be taking contrary stances.

[loki on 21.12.05 at 11:06]

Can I just note, that on this day in 2005, I, 'loki', actually defended a PLP MP.

As you were........

[Bill Cook on 21.12.05 at 11:31]

I would have to agree with TB on this one and Wayne has gotten off to a bad start.

We seem to be victims of our prosperity with the massive use of all drugs here.

It will be tough to make a meaningful change unless we see a significant downturn in our economy which is red hot now and no sign of slowing down.

We legalised alcohol and the result is that it is the most damaging substance together with tobacca, that we use.

Common sense tells us that we should address the use of small quantities of weed as a misdeamour and treat accordingly.

It is appalling that given the serious consequences that these kids risk, putting their future education at risk to suck weed.

It is symptomatic of our out of control society and total lack of accountability that we are in such a state.

Although it has not got a direct connection it should be noted that when you have so many teen pregnancies some conceiving as young as 13 and giving birth to children with no criminal charges ever brought for statutory rape that the foundation for disaster is well established to destroy the very fabric of our society,which leads to all kinds of anti social behaviour including the proliferation of drug use and subsequent rise in criminal behaviour

[Lost in Flatts on 21.12.05 at 11:34]

I think decriminilising weed is probably a good idea. Tbh i'm with Wayne on the whole ruining kids lives point, everyone makes mistakes, and they shouldn't have to spend the rest of their lives paying for a relatively trivial one. That law could still be used for trafficking/supplying/harder drugs but certanily for personal consumption it seems more than a tad harsh.

Legalising on the hand is a VERY dangerous step. Things not already mentioned on here to consider are : The US have a big thing against countries that legalise weed, I can't rememebr the exact debate, but when it was discussed in British Columbia, i think Bush himself actually made note of it.
We would probably seize a good deal of the US wealthy/middle class college spring break crowd from holland. Unfortunately all they would do is smoke pot, sit on the beach and probably eat a lot. Maybe that's not such a bad idea after all ;)
Bermudians are really bored, and don't have a lot to do. And weed is bad for you. Might be a dangerous combination. Also aren't we pushing smoking bans right now too? Kind of sends a mixed message.

I'm curious what'll actually happen, I would certainly hope that the travel-stop is revoked soon.

[JJ on 21.12.05 at 11:39]

........but we need to remember that hard drugs are illegal for a reason. Crack, heroin, LSD, PCP, etc. should remain illegal.

what is the reason? Do you think that if they were legal more people would take them?

[SmokingGun on 21.12.05 at 11:50]

I found it amusing that in the same week we heard Ewart Brown calling for an outright ban on Tobacco in Bermuda and Wayne Perinchief suggesting relaxing the laws on marijuana. What are our tourists to do?

I think wklc raises a good point. Can it be de-criminalized without letting it get out of control? There really is a big issue facing us with regard to young people making mistakes and paying a penalty far greater than the act deserved. In effect Bermuda becomes one big penitentiary and we get to live side by side with people who have literally no-where to go. Eventually it leads to bad things such as what Bill Cook points out.

[SmokingGun on 21.12.05 at 12:02]

Oh yes and about the topic at hand - Hello MP's - Time to stand up and do unto yourselves as you would do unto others. Lead the way or get out of the way. If I were an MP I would be first in line and proud to be an example to all the people of Bermuda that I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. And so should you, unless you think you'll flunk the test that is.........

[JJ on 21.12.05 at 12:12]

Am I right in thinking that it is only the US that bars entrance to people convicted of crimes including drug possesion?

[Uncle Elvis on 21.12.05 at 12:34]

Backs,

"The issue boils down to how we manage marijuana use in our community"

Amen.

You know I'm a proponent for the decriminalization of marijuana. I understand the risks, I understand the damage. I still think it would be for the best overall to at least decriminalize and, as you say, manage its use. I know this may not be exactly what you were talking about, but I liked the phrase and think it fits as what needs to be done.

I think one of the problems is that some... most... many people hear the words "decriminalize marijuana" and picture four year-olds rolling the big kadunga on their toyboxes. Cones for kids. Pot for potty training. Joints for juveniles.
Of course, I'm not condoning this, but I think decriminalizing, even if it's demonized like tobacco is, would maybe allow us to control it a little better.

I dunno. I just think it's kinda screwed up that some kind's life can be forever ruined 'cuz he wanted to smoke a joint.

"I think the real issue is would removing weed as a product puts pressure on current weed dealers to start slangin' rock or some other, more harmful, drug"

Silenced... thank you. I honestly hadn't thought about this aspect. This is a VERY good point. I will be pondering.

[Tiger Bay on 21.12.05 at 13:13]

It's a tough balance - I truly commiserate with kids who are "excluded from" the US for drug possession. This fact alone leads many people to support decriminalising weed.

But at the same time, we know that much of the crime and inappropriate behavior in our community is driven by drug use. It's overly hopeful to believe that decriminalisation will change the economics and behaviors surrounding drugs.

Loki, it's not like last week was the first time the UBP has mentioned MP drug testing. They've been advocating it for years, and have been ignored by the PLP at every turn.

It's time for our politicians to exemplify good civic behavior rather than dodge, spin, or equivocate.

How can you be a "antidrugs csar" and not be willing to send the clearest antidrugs message possible?

[Backs on 21.12.05 at 13:43]

Research by National Institute for Drug and Alcohol (NIDA), the Hazelden and CARON foundations has clearly identified the "Just Say No!" campaign as the least effective prevention strategy that set work in the fields of substance abuse back 30 years! Expecting a person who is chemically dependent to just say no is like asking a person who suffers depression to just cheer up. Fantasical and unrealistic. Perhaps Steven Covey's line "You must start with end in sight" may help WP and anyone else in leadership who wants to make a difference in how we manage substance abuse in the country. In my view the most successful attempt I have seen to manage substance abuse in Bermuda is the Drug Free Workplace Policy at Butterfield and Vallis. Absenteeism, tardiness and interpersonal conflict have decreased and productivity and morale have increased...perhaps "the end in sight" type of thing we may be looking for??

[SmokingGun on 21.12.05 at 13:55]

You get drugs for free if you work at B&V?
Sign me up!

Actually I thought that was the policy at the "other" big importer...... just kiiiiddddding.

OK - serious subject. Backs - do you have a copy of the policy. I'd be interested in seeing it. If it's working it's a good thing to share.

[silencedogood on 21.12.05 at 14:09]

Backs,

The "Just Say No" campaign wasn't aimed at junkies. It was aimed at kids to try and keep them from saying "yes" the first time. The D.A.R.E. program was/is the same by having cops go to schools to talk about drugs, their effects and consequences. Effective or not, describe it accurately.

I'd be interested in reading the study--got a link?

[Shelley on 21.12.05 at 15:24]

Hi Silence Do Good,
From your comments I can tell you’ve been to Amsterdam but I am going to challenge your perception that marijuana is legal in the Netherlands and provide you with the “official” Ministry of Justice position below.

Contrary to what is commonly believed abroad, all drugs are forbidden in the Netherlands.
Coffee shops may sell 5 grams of cannabis, under strict conditions (see B3), without facing
prosecution and no legal action is taken for possession of small quantities of drugs for personal use
(see B10). It is an offence to:
_ produce
_ possess
_ sell
_ import or export
either hard drugs or cannabis.
It is not an offence to use drugs (see A4).

Both policy and legislation (the Opium Act) make a distinction between hard drugs (substances
which involve an unacceptable health risk, such as ecstasy, cocaine and heroin) and cannabis
(marihuana and hashish). Possession of cannabis for personal use (up to 30 grams) is a minor
offence. One of the aims is to separate the markets for hard drugs and cannabis (which is sold
subject to strict conditions in coffee shops).

Although it is a statutory offence, coffee shops are not prosecuted for selling cannabis (up to 5
grams per person per day), providing they observe strict rules. The aim is to protect cannabis users from exposure to more harmful drugs and prevent them from becoming marginalised. For instance,a client seeking to buy cannabis from an illegal dealer may be persuaded to buy hard drugs. Providing outlets where only cannabis may be sold keeps people away from more harmful drugs. The law prohibiting the possession or sale of hard drugs is strictly enforced.

The main aim of Dutch policy is to reduce both the demand for and supply of drugs, and to minimize any harm to users, the people with whom they associate, and the public in general.

To your other point “ if legalization did occur there would have to be a good plan in place to enforce the remaining drug laws and the prison capacity to handle them" … well here is the type of coordination that occurs between the various government ministries:

- the Ministry of Justice is responsible for law enforcement;
- the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport is responsible for prevention and care policy;
- the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations is responsible for matters concerning local government and the police. At municipal level, policy is coordinated by the mayor, the chief public
prosecutor and the chief of police

The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport is responsible for the overall coordination of policy on
drugs. This is because in the Netherlands drugs are primarily regarded as a health problem.

[Backs on 21.12.05 at 15:37]

My guess is that Jim Butterfield would be willing to share how he has developed and implemented the Drug Free Workplace policy - they are standard throughout the US. In fact many of the larger unions in the US now lead the way in their development and implementation; followed by Small Business Development Corporations and Insurance Companies who offer financial incentives to companies to implement meaningful strategies for managing the realities of substance abuse...BEWARE...these are only for people who are serious about dealing with this issue! In my exprience it usually takes crisis or loss for people to take substance abuse seriously...the answer is quite simple once you recognise the aim...

[blovator on 21.12.05 at 15:53]

The fact is Perinchief had to do several things and he's flunked 'em. ( Sorry but I said he would when he first was nominated)

- Come in strong and clear

- Have a throughly researched program

- Clearly elucidate a comprehensive and presice approuch to all drugs in general and in particular

- A clearly outlined agenda

- Be wholly original in his approuch for moral's sake. We need a new approuch as the present IS NOT WORKING.

- A clear idea of how the program intergrates with all parts of government opperation and civil society - focusing of course on youth. That's called SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPEMENT.

- Leadership through information. He needs to say - "here's what I am doing, here's is what you the public are going to do. Here's why its going to work. "

Perinchief opened up his main guns a week or so ago and none of this has been presented. I'd say he's already lost the fight. His first move was apparently a retreat from his first no-tolerance salvo. So I think we can expect a gradual dwindling of effort until everyone is sick and tired of it and noone cares anymore.... Sort of like... EDUCATION! right

[SmokingGun on 21.12.05 at 16:14]

Well I think we now know where the 18th Crack House might be......

[silencedogood on 21.12.05 at 17:12]

Shelley,

I appreciate the effort but I think you've missed my point.

On the first issue, we can argue semantics all day, but if you can set up a corner shop to sell cannabis; people come in, purchase canabis, and smoke cannabis on the premises; the authorities know of this; the law accounts for this; and none of the parties involve will ever be charged with a crime unless it violates one of the rules relating this activity then it is "legal" for all intents and purposes.

I've only seen you outline regulations which create an offence if broken. If they can sell weed legally as long as it is under 5 grams then it is legal. Changing the wording to say "you won't be prosecuted unless" doesn't change the issue.

On the second point I was referring to a good plan in Bermuda and towards enforcing laws against harder drugs.

The netherlands appears to have a great deal of cooperation between branches of its government formulating a complex solution to a complex problem. Let me know when the Bermuda government can build a school on time and on budget--then maybe they can be given a more challenging issue like this.

[Shelley on 21.12.05 at 21:11]

Silencedogood,

In retrospect, I cede that we are in effect arguing semantics on this issue. After studying and living in the Netherlands for a few years I became a proponent of their model for combating drug addiction and drug trafficking.

To your second point - let you know when the Bermuda government can build a school on time and on budget - I share your dismay with what happened back home with the Berkley fiasco. Yes, there are high levels of intergovernmental cooperation in the Netherlands and the Dutch are deeply democratic but as my grandmother would argue this came about from surviving the brutal occupation of the Nazis and learning first hand what absolutist states can do to individual freedoms. The prime focus in the Netherlands is on the betterment of the life of each individual, I challenge how long Bermudians are going tolerate the present state of affairs at the expense of the island’s youth and other marginalized groups.

These sentiments aside, the drug issue is being actively debated in the European parliament and there are a number of EU and Dutch studies that Wayne Perinchief could make effective use of.

[silencedogood on 22.12.05 at 12:08]

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Tiger Bay on 30.12.05 at 11:12]

Looks like Magistrate Tokumbo is addressing the issue himself by conditionally discharging people arrested for drug possession. Are the social services ready to follow up on sentencing like this?

--

Conditional discharge for 'weed'
In an effort to save a young man's future Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo conditionally discharged him for drug possession, but attached many strings.
Mr. Tokumbo told Ezra Ararat, who is 19 and lives in Cedar Park, Devonshire, that a conviction for drug possession could ruin the rest of his life.
On August 21 he a passenger on a cycle that was stopped, officers said he dropped a "brown twist" containing weed once he got off the bike.
When asked about it he told officers it was "just a little weed to smoke before a party".
He apologised to the court and told Mr. Tokumbo that it was his New Year's resolution to stop "all that".
To which the courtroom laughed and Mr. Tokumbo said: "Oh? So you have two more days then!"
He told the young man a conviction could mess up his future and that he could conditionally discharge him if he was willing to comply to a laundry list of stipulations.
The young man agreed to submit to random drug tests, abstain for alcohol and inform Bermuda officers when he was leaving the Island for the next 18 months.
The continual discharge means that Ararat will not have a conviction on his record, if he meets the requirements during the next 18 months, thus he will not become "ineligible" to travel to the US.

[hotspur on 30.12.05 at 11:17]

I hope he pays for the random drug tests out of his own pocket.