Downgrading marijuana

National Drug Control Minister Wayne Perinchief is backing the partial decriminalisation of marijuana. It's about time.

Mr. Perinchief is right that "the punitive effect of a marijuana conviction outweighs the crime". I don't agree that marijuana users are "victims" of the dealers, but by making it extremely difficult for those unlucky enough to get caught smoking a joint to study or work in the US, the current law can do serious long-term damage to their educational prospects and employability. That's not an appropriate punishment for what is in itself a victimless crime.

The proposed change should also allow the police and the courts to spend more time going after the dealers. That makes sense to me.

A poll that I ran last year suggested that most readers of this site were in favour of some relaxation of the law. I wonder whether Mr. Perinchief will be able to get the idea past the PLP's Central Committee, though?

Comments

[SmokingGun on 17.04.06 at 20:22]

"i went to college in alberta, for god's sake."

Was that punishment because you live in the Devil's Isles? ;)

[Bill Cook on 17.04.06 at 20:32]

I find it very interesting that sucking weed can generate so much interest and tend to think that those who crave it like Mommys Teat are a bunch of gutless punks who cannot face reality and prefer illusions and hallucinations etc. but then again thats just the opinion of one who rather than diminish his senses would give a lot to improve them and give some credibility to the old axiom its time to smell the Roses when by that time your sense of smell is half gone at least !!

Dont get me wrong I am not against Euphoria I just have a different take on what it is at least for me.

I think getting on my skiis and hitting the Alps on a clear sunny day and heading into say Italy from France or Switzerland having lunch and heading back better than sitting in a room with a bunch of pot heads smoking weed but hey we are all different.

I have been to the African bush and after an excilerating day sitting down to a meal of game we had just shot some choose to have a cold beer some weed its plentiful there but the difference between doing something first that is memorable and doing nothin much makes the beer taste different dont know about the weed as tried it and did not like it.

Its true that weed is not such a big deal as crack cocaine but when I read the huge support for it to be accepted it goes beyond say the love of chocolates and leads me to think maybe this stuff has got its users by the balls but they just dont want to admit it methinks they protest too much !!

That should stimulate some healthy debate hopefully .

[SmokingGun on 17.04.06 at 20:38]

Bill, the beauty of a cold Tusker or White Cap on a hot African day is that one can enjoy it without intending to alter one's mind. The only reason to smoke pot is to alter one's mind.

[Intrigued on 17.04.06 at 20:41]

Backs says " I personally have concerns for anyone who needs to rely on external chemicals to cope with anything...surely that is just a sign of "not coping very well"!? "

I wish I was so superior. Marijuana, harder drugs, alcohol, tobacco are all used by individuals who want to in some form or other "tune out" for a period of time. Some like to do it more frequently than others. Some get addicted. All are not good in a perfect world. But we don't live in a perfect world where everyone has their shit together like Back.

Reality: People smoke dope even though it is illegal.

Reality: A ton of people have smoked and never been caught and are now non-smoking productive members of society. Some even are politicians me thinks. (People A)

Reality: Some have been unloucky enough to be caught. They could have been one of the above group but were unlucky. Their lives have been dealt a big blow. (People B)

Reality: Attacking users does nothing to stop the suppliers. (I know some will argue about this).

Reality: A ton of resources are spent on finding and punishing People B that could conceivably be spent on the suppliers.

Conjecture: Not inforcing a law for certain quantities (as proposed by some smart individual above) will unlikely increase the number of individuals who regularly use pot. It may increase the number who try it.

Conjecture: There is a risk that law enforcement agents may lose a lever to find the suppliers i.e. "tell me who you purchased your pot from or you get convicted".

Conjecture: This is a pretty victimless crime, or atleast as victimless as alcohol or cigarettes. Yes it does have negative health consequences that society bares the cost of, but so do cigarettes and alcohol. Yes people abuse it and can cause accidents impacting others, but so do cigarettes and alcohol.

You decide where the scale lands based on the above. To me it is:

Don't enforce the law on small quantities.

For larger quantities have stepped up penalties as described above.

For anyone selling marijauna or any other illicit drug - LIFE. Real life as in die in jail. Enforce it like they do in Indonesia/Singapore/Malaysia and see what happens. I bet after the first three or four go away forever you will see a soignificant reduction in supply.

One man's opinion. Worth what you paid for it.

[blue-scoopy on 17.04.06 at 21:36]

We have much to learn from the Dutch...

[Ethiops on 17.04.06 at 21:42]

We’ll always have those that don’t actually care about weed telling us that we don’t need it or that at some point we’ll get over it. Maybe just maybe I’ll smoke till my dying day as weed kills no brain cells in the exchange of altering my mood. Kinda like lighting a scented candle in that light. Anything being done in reference to decriminalizing its use it absolutely great news, nice going Wayne Perinchief! I only wish he could convince them of the need to revamp the whole way we look at this issue. Allowing it to stay illegal only keeps illegal activity alive n well. We have so much to learn from the Dutch, they built a wall between hard n soft drugs in allowing cafés to exist. Maybe I’m running to fast but hey…

I absolutely love smoking weed like thousands of other Bermudians.

[Ethiops on 17.04.06 at 21:48]

Bill had chocolate been illegal and having it one ones person be considered a fineable act. Would you not push to have the laws revamped if you were a lover of chocolate?

[novote on 17.04.06 at 21:54]

Well, having read the first 50 odd posts it does seem that a lot of people have missed the point in the tiz-tiznt-tiz-tiznt about the scurge or otherwise of MJ.

There seems to be consensus around the notion that MJ is not good...other than perhaps for medicinal purposes... or occasionally socially... or possibly in comparison to cold beer... or may be not!

The point is that the law sees MJ use as bad.

Is it, however, bad enough to punish it with a de facto travel ban to the US, which for any Bermuda resident would be an incredibly severe limitation on their lives in so many ways?

The other point is whether there is any realistic possibility of the law changing - even if consensus says that the latter penalty is too steep - given the the political influences in Bermuda.

The sensible ideas that I've read so far appear to be:

- Harden the laws for pushers, distributors and smugglers

- Limit enforcement against users to police cautions

- Perhaps resort to criminal enforcement for repear offending users

That should do the job!

[Bill Cook on 17.04.06 at 22:06]

ETH,

A chocolate eater can drive my taxi fly my plane or drive my train Hell he can even do my root canal or take out my Appendix but a pot head Hmmmm let me think about that.

Other than that when I am not affected he or she can smoke dried Camel shit for all I care I wish I could say I will never be dependent on any substance other than food water and air but when the body breaks down who knows ?

[LemonyinBermuda on 17.04.06 at 22:06]

I find those, who have never partaken, to be rather tedious in their insistance on pushing what they think is 'right' onto others.

Posted by smith on 17.04.06 at 18:37

Either you are 'rather tedious' in pushing what you think upon us...or you have indeed tried it and dont like what the anti-MJ people have to say.
To have such a vast knowledge on the matter at hand requires either extensive research (of which ive doubt you've scientifically done...however you could have first hand experience) or simply use 'biased' sources as you call them. MJ is not harmless...it is not alcohol, we need to stop comparing the two.

[Backs on 18.04.06 at 08:15]

Intrigued - people who rely on marijuana and other addictive substances "to cope" are often attempting to deal with deep down issues of low self-esteem. Your esteem issues have no place in a discussion on how to manage marijuana use in contemporary society. Please keep your hurt feelings out of this important discussion ~ I would appreciate that. Notwithstanding, lessening the penalty for possession of small quantities appears to be a road to go down. My concern remains in regard to the following:

1. How do we manage marijuana intoxication in the workerplace ~ especially workers in safety sensitive positions?
2. How do we manage marijuana intoxication in public domains (roads, sporting events etc)
3. I have no problem with people using whatever they want in their own time and in their own way ~ however, when their behavior impacts the lives of others in a nagative way the issue becomes communal. The interesting thing about addiction is that the addict is always the last one to come out of denial.

For most people becoming addicted is not the issue ~ the challenge is lowering risk. There is no doubt in my mind that there are literally hundreds of 16 year old Bermudians who will have various degrees of freedom (won't pass through high school, can't apply for scholarships due to low grades, struggle to get up for work and hold a job, progress through into other chemical use, choose marijuana over a human relationship, resort to crime to pay the "dope man" heavily inflated prices, think marijuana use is harmless etc) exacted from them as a direct result of the current ineffectiveness of statutes and policy. I support Wayne Perenchief and ask him to review the whole Prevention-Intervention-Treatment process...now that is a Social Agenda!

[Ethiops on 18.04.06 at 08:20]

Bill,
I wouldn’t want a person zonked out on chocolate flying my plane it seems you unaware of the drug side of chocolate for certain types. That being it is not necessary to put on ears. It is very clear you don’t give two focks about smokers and their right to do what they wish with their body. You strike me as one more among the many with no goddamn clue whatsoever. Next you’re going to tell me that it’s illegal in the first place because it’s bad.
Why do people voice their opinions on issues that aren’t even really their concern is beyond me? As far as dependence, take inventory your likely to see a lot on your list that don’t fall under the guise of air, food and water.

Likewise people talk of altered states, what in gods name doesn’t alter ones state? Be it a book, film, a fishing trip, anonymous sex, voyaging to far away places, certain foods, certain people, certain situations, paying bills, sports, good n bad news, and so on! It seems folks have eaten up so many long years of propaganda they can’t even dream of thinking outside the realm of the duck tales they’ve been eating up!

BTW My dentist blazes collyweed! As with anything it’s up to the person to be in or out of control. No different that it is with any other mind altering substance.

[Backs on 18.04.06 at 08:35]

"It is very clear you don’t give two focks about smokers and their right to do what they wish with their body. You strike me as one more among the many with no goddamn clue whatsoever."

I am struggling to see how expressing hurt feelings in this manner is going to lend itself to the discussion. The solution needs to be realistic and pragmatic ~ not "edged" out with unresolved emotional issues. Say no more. ps...you just blew your dentists confidentiality pal ;)

[Ethiops on 18.04.06 at 08:47]

What’s really unfortunate is the condescending approach to call every smoker a potential addict. Weed kills absolutely no brain cells and those in the know, know that this is true. The rest need to get up to speed and stop being so goddamn smug. All this talk of addiction is sickening. Is every person that puts a bit of alcohol to their lips an alcoholic?

As long as things remain the same they won’t change that’s a given. What I mean is as long as we allow weed to be sold in the fashion that it is our young will have access to even harder drugs as a result, not only that they’ll be exposed to the dark side of the culture and they’ll clearly see how they can support their new found pleasure grace of it. We as a society will benefit from the sales they make as they circulate illegal drug money throughout our economy. Are we willing to accept that our young are out there hustling n juggling more than likely crack rocks just to be able to smoke weed free because $600.00 for an ounce is just a lil too expensive.

Why not tolerate people growing their own trees in the privacy of their own homes and fine people for smoking in public like other countries are doing? Or, put a wall between hard n soft drugs by controlling the sale of soft drugs in a controlled environment.
Since 1935 the whole world practically followed America’s war against hemp and cannabis, its 2006 now and many of us know why they did it in the first place. Why do you think the tables are being turned in so many countries? Get up to date ya’ll, can’t you feel the wind keeping us back?

Here’s a thought I wish every person smuggling weed into the island a safe passage as Bermuda’s smokers are in the thousands and how grateful we are to roll a likkle spliff n tek a wiff.

[Ethiops on 18.04.06 at 09:46]

Backs hurt feelings? What on earth are you talking about? As for my dentist weed isn’t illegal where I live. ;)

[Backs on 18.04.06 at 10:48]

Good information has to be the key:

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/bldea050426.htm

keep it simple and hopefully learn from the experiences of others...the data speaks for itself.

[Double Standards on 18.04.06 at 11:06]

Full Fullish,

I am not saying that people on the "sidelines" are not hurt by it. But you cannot place it in the same context as alcohol, cigarettes or harder drugs. You very rarely (actually I never have) hear about people stealing or carrying out any other crime against an individual to support their weed habit. I also have never heard of any deaths as a result of marijuana use.
Ultimately it should be downgraded as a less harmful narcotic. Being prevented from studying abroad or simply travelling because of being caught with a "poke of weed" is simply ridiculous. You are put into the same category as drug traffickers and other serious crimes. This law is silly and outdated (though it should have never have been implemented in any era). It ruins and disrupts lives more than the use of the substace itself.

[SmokingGun on 18.04.06 at 11:12]

"This law is silly and outdated (though it should have never have been implemented in any era)." - Double Standards

Seeing as Bermuda is so tied in with the US I think we should review all our laws to determine if we might need to make some changes.

[Orangy on 18.04.06 at 11:15]

Lemony,

Falsly attributing a quote to someone who never said it, is distasteful, childish and underhanded. If you don't have anything to argue, don't post.

[smokey on 18.04.06 at 11:17]

I used to smoke a moderate amount in school, don't now. It was alot of fun, but did impair my memory and motivation. I stopped for those reasons. It took 6 months after quitting to feel I had the same capacity. I'm not sure its accurate to say it kills no brain cells...what were we talking about again? just kidding.

[Ethiops on 18.04.06 at 11:29]

Yes new info is always a good thing:

http://www.jcrows.com/cancerprevention.html
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1065/a03.html?323
http://www.ccrmg.org/journal.html
http://www.ccrmg.org/journal/05spr/anxiety.html
http://www.cannabinoidsociety.org/

Nice thing about data is there is so much of it. We all have much to learn and unlearn from each other. And the reality of control over this issue is real but, to group everyone that smokes as people that suffer with low self esteem is just retarded.

[Steve Moffat on 18.04.06 at 14:01]

There is no comparison between marijuana and alchohol.

I am 48, I smoked weed daily, in the evenings while watching TV, from the age of 16 until I came here in 2001 from Scotland. I have qualifications the length of my arm, I have never had an issue with memory, or learning up until present day. I have not had one urge to try and get some here on the island, for no particular reason.

On the other hand, one of my ex girlfriends back home in Scotland, my son's mother actually, died 2 years ago after killing her liver.

Up until 2002 she was a regular normal social drinker, then had a nervous breakdown and started hitting the bottle. She was admitted to hospital 6 times during this period, until she died.

In my opinion, and I agree I may be slightly biased, alchohol is the most deadly drug in the world today. MJ is harmless for most people. I am allergic to fish, as are a hell of a lot of people in this world. Should fish be made illegal? What about peanuts? Betcha more people die because of peanuts than MJ.

Has anyone ever died in 2 years flat through MJ abuse?

[Double Standards on 18.04.06 at 14:18]

Steve,

I agree. I once smoked weed everyday, especially in University. And guess what I still graduated!! Imagine that. Not only did i graduate, but I went on and still am working at a highly prestigous finanical firm, where I have been constantly been climbing the "corporate ladder" ever since. I have experienced first hand what alcohol can do to a person and a family. It destroyed them both.

[Steve Moffat on 18.04.06 at 14:25]

Bill Cook said....A chocolate eater can drive my taxi fly my plane or drive my train Hell he can even do my root canal or take out my Appendix but a pot head Hmmmm let me think about that.

Sorry Bill, but what about the doctor with the mega hangover from the night before??? Is that any less dangerous?? Is any more dangerous??

[Uncle Elvis on 18.04.06 at 14:27]

Backs, I understand your concern and agree with most of them. I also agree that alcohol and marijuana are two different things.
However, the concerns you bring up:
1. How do we manage marijuana intoxication in the workerplace ~ especially workers in safety sensitive positions?
2. How do we manage marijuana intoxication in public domains (roads, sporting events etc)
3. I have no problem with people using whatever they want in their own time and in their own way ~ however, when their behavior impacts the lives of others in a nagative way the issue becomes communal.

Can be dealt with in the same way we deal with alcohol. If you show up drunk at work, you get fired. Easy peasy. Same for public places. Driving high? Lose your license. Smoking in public, you get a fine.
Hell, the way things are goin now, the only place we're going to be allowed to smoke is in our own bloody houses! (Until some bright spark decides that it's dangerous, citing some bizarre study from Timbuktu which says that smoking anywhere in the world is going to kill orphans or some stupid shit like that, and we're banned from smoking altogether)
Why not decriminalize it, but only for home use. No smoking in public, no smoking in bars, no being high in a car, yadda yadda.

You know my history, you know where I'm coming from.
"the punitive effect of a marijuana conviction outweighs the crime" This is absolutely right.

[Bill Cook on 18.04.06 at 15:13]

Steve Moffat,

I was comparing CHOCOLATE consumers v/s Weed users in my quote, Alcohol did not enter in to that equation, but just for the record I would rather those persons used neither if I had that choice.
May I point out however that just because one is a pot head does not mean that they do not also use alcohol in my experience.

[Linda on 18.04.06 at 15:19]

What's all the hype? We know from statistics that it is the harder drugs (crack, heroin, etc) that is at the root of most of the crime. I feel legalizing MJ and supplying it from a controlled state, meaning home grown weed, with no additives such as heroin as probably happens now. Make it clear that anyone using or importing the other drugs will be dealt with severely. The use of MJ can be controlled the same as alcohol. No smoking under the age of 18. No smoking in a public place. No smoking and driving. For the record, I tried it once many years ago, didn't think it was any big deal and never tried it again. Not everyone who smokes becomes addicted, just like not everyone who enjoys a cold one now and then becomes an alcoholic. Too much control over a people is not a good thing. It leads to dictatorship.

[Backs on 18.04.06 at 16:00]

We have more than enough problems managing the tremendous bio-psycho-socio-economic impact alcohol and cigarettes exact on our community. There is no doubt that humans can become addicted to all sorts of things ~ internet pornography and gambling are beginning to weigh in on the social cost factor for sure. Making marijuana legal appears to lend itself to creating more of the same problems we have with "legal" drugs. The flip side of course is that if we did legalise it we could eliminate the marijuana black market, prices would go down to a more moderate range and we could begin to pressure people to make the right choice in a manner similar to the tobacco movement. We would also be able to track and monitor use, have access to greater research groups (ie. sample size) and more than likely get a more accurate view on the truths of marijuana use? The middle ground has to be to redefine the laws and regulations in ways people have pointed to earlier in this blog. Potency and intoxication would prove problematic, however, the technology is there ~ albeit expensive. The law makers would need to be very clear on the legal processes to be implemented as you can be sure that people will push up against the edges of the "rules" ~ that is human nature. There are clearly people who we all know who just should not be allowed to drink alcohol (we all know someone) ~ similarly there are people who just should not be allowed to smoke pot. The link between the two groups is each suffers the from the progressive nature of addiction. The goal must be to minimise people moving from use to abuse and into dependence. Therefore the key is early intervention and good assessment accompanied with multi-layered prevention strategies along the lines of the anti-tobacco campaign. Finally, money exacted via fines etc should be openly funneled back into prevention and treatment. Many people smoke pot in our community ~it is an addictive substance and there are a host of associated physical, psychologicl and social risks associated with it ~ apparently (according to data from police seizures) the drug generates about $150 million on the street each year in Bermuda (I am scaling that at $500/ounce down thru to $50 and $25 "pokes" ~ this Government refuses to have it MP's drug tested and there is no reliable data on who, how much and at what cost. Hopefully the "new" NDC will finally get back to what it is supposed to do and that is provide the law makers with empirical data so they can make informed decisions about what to do with marijuana. Food for thought: I just met with a 19 year old who will not get the job he applied for because they drug test and he was positive for marijuana ~ he thinks "Government will make it legal soon so I ain't stoppin...". Insurance companies are going to push for more and more drug testing as per the US model. Oh and congrats to the "bright sparks" who made it through college and are "climbing the corporate ladder" that is wonderful...I am just not sure what to tell you when your formula of smoking pot every day throughout your education doesn't pay off for your kids or your grand kids...careful what you brag about because the kids they will follow suit!

[Uncle Elvis on 18.04.06 at 16:23]

Backs,

Exactly! I know I'm not calling for an outright legalization, but I do think a decriminalization, with the financial gains going into support and counselling and awareness campaigns, etc. it the way to go.
You know I respect you and agree with most of what you are saying and that I know your sources are very, very valid. I know where you're coming from, Mister!

I'm not trying to lessen the social, physical, psychic aspects of marijuana, but the harshness of the penalties and the life- and career-ruining repercussions of something as relatively harmless as pot, especially given the history of its illegality, are WAY out of line.

[Double Standards on 18.04.06 at 17:02]

The only reason I mentioned about my past smoking experiences is because people such as yourself believe that if anyone smokes weed then they are destined to become losers and demotivated in such a way that their life becomes a waste. You must get that idea from those ignorant US commercials who say "pot" will just make yuo lazy and never do anything constructive or productive. If you have never experienced, which I am assuming you have not, how can you honetly pass judgement? Are you that easily persuaded by what you hear, read or see about a subject?
Another thing this "bright spark" would like to confirm is that I never said anything about legalizing it. But ruining people's opportunities because of being caught with a joint or two is outright stupid If i have ever come across a punishment that does NOT fit the crime it is this particular law. I agree also that alcohol is not in the same class as herb. Alcohol is alot more dangerous and destructive and therefore should nto be compared to marijuana.

[Backs on 18.04.06 at 17:25]

My point is simply that I don't think it is a good idea to tell young people about how it might be okay to smoke pot every day, especially during adolescent and teen years...seriously, you are doing more harm than good with that story. I have been as clear as I can in terms of the use-abuse-dependence continuum...most people will "mature out" before they get anywhere near dependence. You are also correct in regard to your comment about alcohol ~ as a legal drug it generates greater impact and we have all witnessed the family destruction. I have worked with all types of people who suffer either dependency or having to live with someone who is dependent...that is what I do. Let's just say that you can't learn what I do in a book or at a school...you are welcome to come and see what I do...you will find me on the frontline and in the trenches...my clients often call me from police stations and hospitals...some of my clients don't call me anymore....I have said my piece...the way we manage chemical use, abuse and dependence in this country is limited and challenged at best. I applaud anyone who wants to stand up and try and make a difference...if we have to begin with marijuana then so be it...we will get to alcohol...maybe!

[smith on 18.04.06 at 17:41]

"we will get to alcohol"

no we won't, it makes too much money for government.

You should study a little history.

[SmokingGun on 18.04.06 at 17:47]

They're working on it. No cold beer purchases? Give me a break. The only reason I could imagine someone in government would pass that law is because they have the franchise on instant chiller machines.

[Ethiops on 18.04.06 at 19:25]

Addiction to the co-dependency of recovery would be the worst. The need to stay convinced and justifying oneself through converting others! Becoming one of those that sees only alcoholics and addicts in everyone would send me off a cliff for sure. Buying into the idea of impending doom at the strike of one joint or one drink! Or having the feeling of needing to save people would be a great place to hide out and avoid ones own issues. One of the world’s renowned psychotherapists Scott Peck says that the addictions to drugs are the lesser of all the addictions and having worked with addicts, alcoholics, food addicts, gamblers and co-dependants it’s not hard to understand where he is coming from. Wayne P hats off once again…

[silencedogood on 18.04.06 at 21:03]

Ethiops,

I agree with the first bit, but for the second part which drugs was Peck talking about? Others besides weed?

I refer, or reefer ;), you to the classic AA scene in Half Baked for some of the extreme consequences of addictions to harder drugs like coke or crack. If you haven't seen it it's good for a chuckle, especially for those who are turned on.

[Ethiops on 18.04.06 at 21:37]

silencedogood - For the most part he was talking about harder drugs which makes his stand on reefer even that much lighter. I have never seen Half Baked but, it sounds right up my alley, nice one. Something to put my hands on for sure. ;))

[Intrigued on 19.04.06 at 09:21]

""Intrigued - people who rely on marijuana and other addictive substances "to cope" are often attempting to deal with deep down issues of low self-esteem. Your esteem issues have no place in a discussion on how to manage marijuana use in contemporary society. Please keep your hurt feelings out of this important discussion ~ I would appreciate that.""

First, I am certainly not aware of having any esteem issues. I challenge you to show where in my post one could reach such a conclusion, perhaps you could open my eyes and allow me to learn something new about myself. I also have no hurt feelings as you suggest. Again I don't know where your getting that from.

Second, the reasosn for people using marijuana, which are often esteem and psychological issues are very relevant. Like you I have experienced first hand the impact of drug abuse on individuals. Mine while working on a board of a woman's shelter where 80+% of our clients were addicts. Interestingly enough almost a similar percent suffered from abuse, esteem and other psychological issues. Our approach was to try to fix the pyschological issues before attacking the abuse as our experience was that the one fueled the other. In all cases we tried to be non-judgmental about all our clients' behaviour.

Pulling from that experience I have come to a personal conclusion that fighting the war on the demand side is a losing strategy. It doesn't work as billions of dollars of spending in the U.S. has proven.

I too worry about the impact of pot on young kids. But the current laws have not changed anything and only further harm those who are caught.

I believe you assumption is that decriminalization condones marijuana use and so will increase use. I'm not sure that is the case, but in the event that it is I do not condone decriminalization. You will note I suggested not enforcing the law which is differnet. I think that approach has an optics that says we still don't agree but recognize it is going on.

I also take offence at your suggestion that I am somehow or other soft on drugs. I am not. Read my post again. I think I am the only one who has recommended a zero tolerance, throw away the key approach to dealers.

[Backs on 19.04.06 at 18:24]

Intrigued - I have reviewed my posts and concede my "shot" at you was a response to the label "superior" which I assumed was some type of emotional response by you to statements I made about concerns I have. My concerns come from a clinical perspective in regards to people relying on chemicals to cope. To be clear I was talking about the early stages of dependency which for many people in Bermuda is an issue that lives on a continuum that ranges from minimal to severe. Emotional responses from a place of hurt have no place in the discussion and I apologise for mine. What I can share with you is that my firm's data confirms an increase in substance abuse and dependence related problems amongst our clients who hail from a very broad base of Bermuda's population (ie. race, religion, financial status etc). Therefore discussions like this one are of interest to me and the people I work with ~ licensed professional therapists and psychologists. The questions I raised above in regard to managing marijuana use stand ~ for example, how do people feel about an 18 year old babysitter smoking pot whilst watching their three and five year old children? How about someone smoking high potency pot (BC Bud)and driving a car? How do parents feel about their son dating a woman who smokes pot every day? How about drug testing? Do people think businesses have the right to drug test and base continued employment on an individual abstaining from illegal drug use? How about middle school and high school students? What should be done when a 13 year old is found to have THC in their urine? I believe these are some of the questions we need to form views on ~ my sense is the answers will help shape the way we manage the reality of marijuana use in our community. Currently the only " managing" is a law that says possession and use of marijuana is illegal ~ not very progressive in my view.

[Steve Moffat on 19.04.06 at 22:21]

Back's,

While I understand your points, and see where you're coming from, if the examples you quote in your post, are smoking pot at this moment in time then what difference does decriminalizing it make.

Decriminalizing it doesn't make it legal. It just gives the cop on the street some leeway to make his own decision on whether to charge someone with the crime of possession, and spend more time in flushing out the big guys. It also free's up a lot of time in the courts.

The babysitter who smokes pot today, will still smoke it if it's decriminalized. The person who doesn't might start, but then again he might not. As with all things in life, you make your own choices.

[Backs on 20.04.06 at 08:44]

For the record I appreciate the concept of de-criminalisation but have no idea what the actual rules are? Where can I use marijuana safely? Is there a limit to how much I can have in my possession? Does potency matter? How does one determine "intent to supply"? How do police determine whether or not to "charge" someone? How would this impact the current National Prevention Strategy? How does this impact schools and the way they are presenting marijuana use to the students? What are they presenting to the students ~ the last presentation I saw was led by a policeman and a recovering person talking about how it will put a person in jail or lead to a life of drug abuse and teenage pregnancy??(we all agree this to be "jaded" at the very least!). My experience tells me if nothing changes then nothing changes and therefore agencies such as ours will remain very busy! The bottom line is that marijuana use introduces people to a certain risk factor that is unpredictable. We cannot predict whose life will "fall part" as a direct result of the use and whose won't. Before I leave this blog my final question is for the Government : What is the Government's position on marijuana use in terms of its commitment to manage Public Health and Safety?

[Intrigued on 20.04.06 at 09:16]

Backs,

Your keen concern is obvious and appreciated. I agree that the role of government should be to educate children on the perils of drugs and that that isn't happening.

I also share you concern about individuals under the influence (of any drug - including alcohol) interacting with others in a fashion that may cause risk. I just don't think that fining individuals and giving them a criminal record mitigates the problem substantially.

Again, I believe the supply is the enemy. One possible addition to life in prison is stripping the suppliers of ALL their assets and giving those assets to groups like yours to mount education and prevention campaigns.

Perhaps knowing (i) they are going to jail forever; and (ii) that their assets will be gone, perhaps impacting their immediate family adversely, will make people think twice.

[Steve Moffat on 20.04.06 at 11:13]

Backs said

"For the record I appreciate the concept of de-criminalisation but have no idea what the actual rules are? Where can I use marijuana safely? Is there a limit to how much I can have in my possession? Does potency matter? How does one determine "intent to supply"?"

There are no rules, at least in the UK you can still be charged with possesion of 1 spliff. There are no safe places to smoke it.

It's left to the discretion of the arresting officer in the UK on whether or not to charge someone with possesion. The courts then decide what amount constitutes personal use amounts.

I would imagine that 1 bag is fine for personal use, but 2 could mean you are a reseller.

[Backs on 20.04.06 at 11:34]

For anyone interested check this link out...once again the debate is up for "grabs" in Canada in terms of what to do with marijuana.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060419.wpotdisc0418/BNStory/specialComment/home

[smith on 20.04.06 at 11:39]

People cought with small amounts aren't even arrested in Toronto. Some have gone to court, only to have the judge throw the case out as frivolous.
The government supplied weed is pretty good as well.

[Ethiops on 20.04.06 at 12:14]

Intrigued says - Again, I believe the supply is the enemy.

When we look at supply we understand quickly that it exists because of demand and nothing else. You don’t waste time bringing in something that people don’t want or need.

I’m for across the board legalization of cannabis and think we could use a café or three in every parish and a few more around the city. Holland found that cafes didn’t denature the areas they were allowed to exist in. In fact they found that in letting them operate it kept the streets relatively clean from weed dealers. And strangely enough built a wall between soft and hard drugs! Something else they stumbled on was that after an initial period of two years people smoking tended to drop. It seems the having the availability curbed the appetite to some degree. Thing I like most about the Dutch is that they made this an issue of health care and not a police matter! Hell, the police even go on film suggesting too legalise hard drugs. Yeah it’s weird seeing people actually attempt practising such complex applications as love and tolerance of others as a code.

A few by-products of all this is we will have taken the industry out of the hands of our young who fall peril to it in the long run in many cases. After a few years the big deal part of it will have settled and the petty crime rate will have dropped. Lastly our newly rekindled tourism would be about booming as no one in their right mind would fly over Bermuda to go to Amsterdam if they didn’t have to. .;)

In Barcelona it is tolerated to have weed plants growing in your home. I think 15 is the max but, some folk have up to 50 trees and say as long as you can prove it is for your private consummation its ok apparently. How sweet that is. Italy just went from allowing 0.8grams down to 0.5grams not much really when you think of it but, 0.5 makes one nice spliff, so being able to move about with at least one spliff on ones person is at the end of the day kinda cool.

[MaryWana on 20.04.06 at 13:06]

Whilst I am open to decriminilization I have one question regarding the opening of 'cafe's' as we have seen in Amsterdam. If public smoking is now banned (inside) how would the cafe's opperate? Seems like a novel idea..but not sure how exactly they would work out.

MaryWanna

[Uncle Elvis on 20.04.06 at 14:21]

how do people feel about an 18 year old babysitter smoking pot whilst watching their three and five year old children?

Um. Yeah. That would be.. uh... bad. Just like it would be bad for the babysitter to be using ANY intoxicant... alcohol, painkillers, cough syrup, even those evil cigarettes. No one's condoning bad behaviour, here. That's bad behaviour.

How about someone smoking high potency pot (BC Bud)and driving a car?

Again. Bad behaviour. using ANY intoxicant and driving a car is and would remain illegal.

How do parents feel about their son dating a woman who smokes pot every day?

Don't have kids, so I can't answer.

How about drug testing? Do people think businesses have the right to drug test and base continued employment on an individual abstaining from illegal drug use?

Hell yes! I need the cash! *grin*
I actually don't have a problem with this, as long as it is company policy and appies across the board. If it is a policy that they're planning on implementing, or have just implemented, I DO think that there should be a "grace period" for current employees, as well as an offer to get them help, if needed. I also think that there should be a three strikes kinda concept in the early days of the policy, to help it ease in.
So, yeah, I do think that an employer has the right to drug test, as long as it's an across the board policy, as well as a fair one.

How about middle school and high school students? What should be done when a 13 year old is found to have THC in their urine? I believe these are some of the questions we need to form views on...

Here, I'm more in the "The parents should do this" camp. I know it's a bit of a cop out and won't work, but there's a whole invasion of privacy issue, because of the fact that kids are bound by law to be in school. Y'know?

Ethiops,

You know I love you, man, but calling for a full on legalization is gonna put backs up on the "straights".
Run with the decriminalization thing first and work up to legalization.
When you say legalize at this point, people get the picture in their head of babies rolling up big fat kadungas and smoking in their strollers and toddlers making bongs our of their "Tickle Me Elmo"s.
But when you say decriminalize, when you say, ease up on the penalties, which ARE draconian at best, people picture that kid who had a poke hidden in his computer and got 12 years. We all have friends that have been screwed by the travel ban. Adressing that will take us that one step closer to the goal.

We can only go one step at a time. Hearst did too good a job of brainwashing.

[Backs on 20.04.06 at 14:43]

Thank you Uncle...actually I have no problem with a legalisation process...in fact there is merit in gong down this road. It is the way it is done that intrigues me....this current talk of "partial decriminilisation" only muddies the water in my opinion. For example it totally flies in the face of the Government's National Prevention Strategy...at least with a legalising process everything comes above board, it is measured, largely controlled and, given a reasonable preponderance of evidence, intervention and prevention strategies are implemented. This is what has happened in regard to cigarettes...I can live with that. What I can't tolerate is people claiming marijuana use is harmless and not a risk. It is clearly a health and public safety issue and stands in line for some progressive and creative reform.

[Ethiops on 20.04.06 at 15:43]

Uncle back @ ya ;) and I hear you man and also agree. I’m just hashing out a few ideas and planting seeds as I can. *grin*

Backs, may you find tolerance. Smoking marijuana given the right conditions wouldn’t harm anyone and there is an abundance of research that supports this. This is probably the reason many countries are lightening their laws around this subject. Anyhow I welcome your enthusiasm as I support the idea of treatment for those that require it and prevention for those in need.

[SmokingGun on 20.04.06 at 15:54]

"I’m for across the board legalization of cannabis and think we could use a café or three in every parish and a few more around the city."

Ethiops - I'm thinking we should open a chain of smoking cafes across Bermuda. "Mc Weed's Burger Joints." "Where the hunger never ends."

Banana Spliff anyone.....?