Jangle and Marijuana

[Mosiah]

Badwud mash up di country?

Den send mi a GP now tuh ra ss!

By di way, di hammah lick hot!

[Sir X]

Historian a Retort

Ganja use is frowned upon by every English speaking nation in the Caribbean , you forgot Dutch , Spanish and French , So is Alcohol abuse but it is legalized taxed and treatment appropriated to any individual of need.

Jamaicans who are stereotyped because of crimes and drugs in various Caribbean Islands you attribute this soley to ganja ?All these Caribbean Islands grow and export their own brand of ganja , do you honestly believe we export ganja to T&T or Guyana?I will argue that Jamaicans who are stereotyped will always be stereotyped with an association with Ganja whether its legal or illegal because of our Rastafarian culture which promotes its use in society.

Crime is crime and it runs along different routes from drugs to racketeering , the fact that Jamaicans are involved in this has little to do with ganja , moreso desperation.

We are being harassed and held , interrogated already for said suspicion of trafficking ganja and its illegal , so tell me what will change the intensity of the suspicion/harrassement ?So while we appease Uncle Sam our society suffers locally by criminalizing our citizen for a plant that they use every day in a hypocritical manner, medicinal , culinary and socially?
Did I ever give you the impression that Jamaica exists in Isolation , I gave you a refernce to look at in how we should legalise ganja and I pointed to Europe.

While its illegal to have small amounts of Ganja in Jamaica for any use , in parts of Europe its legalized and even treated as a misdemeanor.For an Island that grows the plant wildly to wage war on Ganja is nothing less than social suicide when you see the role it plays in our society.
Here is what I propose and read well into it.

1) Legalise it like they do in Holland
A) set up red zones
B) tax it
C) set an age limit on it for Adults to start us , say 20
D)educate the population as per its side effects.
E)It must be noted and educated on John public that any attempt to export ganja is a 15 year fine for any quantity of Ganja.

Your argument about under production is ridiculous at best are the Dutch under producing , maybe you are right , if they banned Ganja their GDP might be higher.

People visit Jamaica for two things , white sandy beaches and Ganja, you can go to chill or smoke that’s our reality, Reggae sumfest etc draw crowds not only for entertainment but the consumption of Ganja.A study should be done of the Ganja black market of all our stage shows , concerts etc to see how much is actually being lost by us keeping it illegal.

My strongest argument for Legalization , I believe it would eliminate our debt in 10 years.
Look to Holland :

Cannabis and Marijuana Laws and Law Enforcement Procedures in Europe
- A comparative study
Would depenalization initiatives lead to full legalization?
NORML Annual Conference, February 3-5, 2000
Authors: Joel Auster, Jerome Thorel
16 countries surveyed: 15 members of the European Union and Switzerland
Legal Comparative Table included
In this study we will summarize how Western European countries' legal systems deal with cannabis-based substances. We will not explain what the laws are, but how these laws and regulations are applied.
We show that even if the legal systems have evolved towards a pragmatic approach regarding personal use and possession of cannabis-based products -- fines, cautions, probation, exemption from punishment, etc. are the alternatives -- European Union's 15 member states continue to prohibit drug consumption or possession.
We'll look at special countries like France, Germany, The Nederlands, and the UK.
And try to find out if some harmonization schemes may help national countries to adopt less restrictive regulations.
As the EU organization European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) puts it in their last report:
Legalisation is not considered an option in many member state, but they are aware that prosecuriton and imprisonnement of individuals with drug problems causes even greater problems.
(...)
Developments in European drug policies and new legal approaches towards illicit drugs show a shift towards decriminalization some behaviour linked to consuming and possesssing drugs for personnal use. Most Members States reject extreme solutions - such as full legalisation or harch repression - but continue to prohibit drug consumption while modifying the penalties an measures applied to it. Although the trend in many Member States is to reduce the emphasis on prosecuting and imprisoning drug users, police arrests and indicators of drug use in prison suggest some contradiction between theory and practise within some areas of the criminal justice system.
We have seen an internal survey made in November 1998 by the French Observatoire des Drogues et de la Toxicomanie (OFDT). The survey's goal was to compare the drugs' legal systems of 16 european countries (EU + Switzerland). The author explained:
"The first obstacle is to separate the law from practice, the frontier between them is difficult to undermine (...). Regarding the official distinctions between drugs it can lead to apparent contradictions - for example, in Belgium the law doesn't make any difference between products although a governement regulation says cannabis is a separate case. This can be explained by the fact that modifying police requirements or rules is an easier task than to modify the law. »
LEGAL CLASSIFICATION
Regarding cannabis and marijuana, all Member States have adopted the UN resolution classifiing these substances as illicit drugs. 11 out of 16 European countries classifies cannabis in the same category as heroin or other hard drugs.
According to the EMCDDA in its1998 report:
"Some Member States classify substances in terms of medical use and health risks, and also by the ways in which illicit activities are punished. These countries distinguish between the nature of the substance, varying the penalty accordingly. The countries in which this happens are Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom."
- Spain distinguishes between substances that do or do not cause serious damage to health;
- The Nederlands makes a distinction drugs that pose unacceptable risks (hard) and others;
- Britain makes some kind of differences between 'hard' and 'soft' drugs: it has 3 classes. Class A is the most controlled one (MDMA, LSD, cocaine, heroine); class B (cannabis, codeine); and class C for steroids, the less controled. But Britain has also 5 schedules for medical applications (cannabis is not included);
- Italy classifies also cannabis in class B, apart from the most controlled class A (hard drugs);
- Ireland considers cannabis is like LSD and opium, but not like heroin and cocaine);
- No distinctions between 'hard' and 'soft' drugs (ie, heroin in the same class as cannabis): Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland.
USE/CONSUMPTION
The distinctions between 'drug use in private' and 'use in groups' is not made in any of the surveyed European countries. But some make differences between 'non-regular users' and 'regular users'.
Concerning prosecution of users, i.e. how the use of drugs in general is controled, Europe is divided into 2 groups:
- 9 out of 16 countries (15 EU Member States + Switzerland) consider drug use as an offense in their Criminal Code.
- And it is not considered an offense in 7 countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, The Nederlands and Spain). In Tthe UK also, because officially only the opium use is prohibited.
POSSESSION
But several surveys have found countries indirectly prevent the consumption by prohibiting "possession" even of tiny amounts of the stuff. In this respect, laws vary also a lot:
6 to 7 countries don't prosecute for tiny amounts possessions and prefer probation to deal with (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland and Spain). The number 7 would be Britain, where it is said that since recent years -- as we will see it thereafter in this survey -- cannabis use and possession have lead to a simple fine.
SPECIAL CASES
HOLLAND
A particular country, as you know it, is the Nederlands. Even if it is seen in the US as a kind of "marijuana-heaven", The Neds have no anarchic legal systems regarding soft drugs.
YES: private use and cultivation of marijuana leaf IS free. BUT the law says, however, that you can be prosecuted, and condemned to 1 month of jail, if you "possess" up to 30 grams of marijuana. In practise, if you possess an sell less than 5 grams you are not prosecuted.
What is legal and controlled is the commercialization scheme of coffee-shops. And in theory, cannabis consumption should be reserved to these places. And it is also illegal and fiercely condemned to sell even soft drugs outside of this scheme.
So, Holland is a safe country for basic smokers, but its law system has more to do with decriminalization than with full legalization.
FRANCE
Surely the most repressive country in the whole Western Europe regarding simple use and consumption of cannabis-based products. The prohibition is the law even if the Justice ministry has passed requirements to prosecutors not to jail someone for tiny amounts considered as for personal use.
But in practise, the French law system is so harch that it has even be condemned recently in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The reason is as follow: the use of illicit drugs (of any nature) is a minor offense, up to 1 year in jail -- "minor", a question of speaking... --, while possession and trafic can lead to 20 years sentences, even life sentences -- according to the new Penal Code of 1994. But it happens that someone that is caught with tiny amounts of cannabis can easily prosecuted under the term of "detention of illicit drug with intent to trafficking by way of networked crime". And the Penal Code says that under this charge the police can keep you in custody for 4 days. Usually for a common crime even serious one the custody is fixed at 1 or 2 days. So the police have the power to impose this 4 days of custody (without the presence of their lawyer) for the possession of cannabis for personal use.
Says a French lawyer, Francis CABALLERO, that fights the prohibition for more than 20 years in France:
&laqno;A basic cannabis smoker can have his civil rights fooled, considered as a narco-trafficking criminal and be subject to police intimidation for 4 days without seeing a lawyer, while someone convicted for child pornography will have only a 24-hours custody with the right to see his lawyer after the 20th hour. That's how France is dealing with soft drugs.»
GERMANY
In April 29, 1994, the Federal Constitutional Court took a decision that could be considered as a step towards depenalization of cannabis use. In fact the court has only renounced to pronounce jail sentenses for use AND possession of small quantities (it is said exactly that the prosecution is "subject to "nolle persequi" by Landers' attorneys' of state).
These depenalization schemes were decided only under 3 conditions :
a) for "small amount" detained;
b) if the amount seized were for "irregular use";
c) and "when there is no "public interest" in prosecuting";
Since drug policy is decentralized in Germany, it is a matter of regions or Landers to decide what is a "small amount. It varies from 6 grams to 30 grams.
Schleswig-Holstein: 30 g
Hessen and Northrhine-Westfalia: 10 g - optional up to 30 g
Hamburg: "the volume of one match-box" or 10 g
Berlin, Bremen, Saarland: 10 g
Bavaria, Baden-Wurttemberg: 6 g.
So there is a big tolerance for smokers since then.
I interviewed Dr. Lorentz Boellinger, Dean of the Legal Department of the University of Bremen. He's a member of the Koln-based Association for Cannabis in Medecine and a member of the Amsterdam-based Foundation of Drug Policy and Human Rights. He explains the advantages of this policy:
"... It has influenced the police enforcement practice: at least in the Northern parts of Germany police bothers less about Cannabis, meaning it invests less resources in enforcing the law, so the chances of being caught even with "small amounts" (...) have decreased.
" The police in Bavaria and Baden-Wurttemberg (Stuttgart), however, has intensified cannabis control in order to defy the 1994 Federal Constitutional Court decision."
The police always has methods and means of "upgrading" suspicion or, what in German law is called, "reasonable cause" to start investigation. The police can easily define possession of small amounts as trafficking, enough reason to confine. But confinement can only last 24 hrs. max and contacting a lawyer is a must. This malicious procedure rarely ever happens, only if the police really want to hastle a special person. Only in Bavaria the police seems to use the instrument of confining for 23 hours as a deterrent and hastle. In most of Germany the Cannabis decision of 1994 has lead to a decrease of Cannabis enforcement and an increase in "hard drug" enforcement.
UNITED KINGDOM
The British law says (EMCDDA, 1998):
Possession of cannabis (a class B drug) carnes a maximum prison sentence of 5 years and/on an unlimited fine.
Supply of cannabis carnes a maximum sentence of 14 years and/or an unlimited fine.
Courts may also apply caution, probation or community service.

But I said earlier, Britain has begun to tolerate private use of soft drugs, while possession for small quantities is infrequently prosecuted. Very recently, in January, a think-tank called the Police Foundation recommended a radical new approach that could lead to an official depenalization of cannabis use and detention.
The weekly magazine The Economist said this Foundation "is widely seen as a quasi-Royal Commission". It report says:
(...) Under two grammes of cannabis, it suggests that possession should be treated as a minor civil offence. Above two grammes, there could be a charge of supply, but the committee is expected to stress that the law should distinguish between social and commercial supply.
(...) The possession of marijuana will remain illegal even if the committee's recommendations are accepted.
(...) "Depenalisation" of soft drugs in Britain would be likely to lead to tacit acceptance of the sale of cannabis much as the police currently allow brothels to function under the guise of massage parlours, even though allowing premises to be used for prostitution is illegal -- so said The Economist.
OTHERS
Spain : a "laxist" failure of depenalisation.
- Spain first passed a law in 1967 (under Franco's rule) that said the use of all psychoactive drugs are not an offense.
- In 1983, under the Socialist government of Felipe Gonzales, the distinction was made between hard and soft drugs.
- In 1992 a new law has stricly regulated the use of drugs in public places, although it is not considered as a crime - thus, no jail sentenses.
- No, it is said that depenalisation of cannabis is less and less accepted in Spain. And that around 80% of Spaniards are against any "legalisation" schemes. Thus : a laxist drug policy, a laxist depenalisation, can prevent legalisation.
Italy : a "pragmatist" success
- Italy passed its first law in 1930, in which it prohibit drugs consumption, but only in publlic places.
- In 1954 a new law says that "possession" of cannabis is forbidden. In 1974 a new one considers it is a serious offence leading to jail only for large quantities. But the private use AND possession is not prosecuted.
- And finally a 1978 law clearly states that the "consumption of drugs", of all sorts, is "completely depenalized". While possession could lead to an administrative fine.
- It is very well accepted now. 2 years ago some distinctions were made between possession in public and private places. But nothing else.
LEGALIZATION THROUGH EU HARMONIZATION ?
Right now there is no chance to see national laws regarding cannabis modified because of the European Union. Harmonization in this field has more to do with education, prevention, and therapeutic procudures for hard drug users. The reason is: the EU has no legal power concerning law enforcement, penal or criminal codes. These domains are the competence of Member States.
But, as a conclusion, I would say to a certain extent, that European laws can be used to ease national prohibition schemes.
Europe has developed a legal system under the European Convention on Human Rights - which is a protection system for the convicted people. The European Court of Human Rights is based in Strasbourg, and recently it has condemned France for illegaly convicted a man for possession of Cannabis. The Court said it was unfair to confine someone during 4 days without his lawyer's help, for the sole reason that he was in possession of illicit drugs.
Unfortunately this decision doesn't force France to change its law. But it is a positive example of how some extremist prohibition legal systems could be challenged by a supra-national legal system.
Another fact useful to note is that the EU legalized the cultivation of hemp, non-THC cannabis (less than 0.5% THC) for industrial purpose. Sometimes, this law has been used in France to challenge the conviction of people found guilty of possessing marijuana
And some says that the medical use of marijuana could also be a means to challenge the prohibition of the recreative use of cannabis.
But yes, all these means would never replace legalization schemes.

Top

[Gamma]

i too think it should be legal. it's illegality is the source of much woe. and i have a fundamental problem with a plant in its' natural state being criminalised. there are plants that are fatally poisonous or can cause much discomfort and i don't see them being crimialised. if the authorities could clean up the "cow itch" population in jamaica many would benefit.

i don't smoke it. i don't smoke tobacco and i do not drink either so my personal use is a non-issue. i have never been to amsterdam, but is it crime ridden because marijuana is legal there?

there are more salient points on the decriminalisation issue and i have raised them here before so i won't go thru it again...

[Historian]

Jamaicans who are stereotyped because of crimes and drugs in various Caribbean Islands you attribute this soley to ganja? I will argue that Jamaicans who are stereotyped will always be stereotyped with an association with Ganja whether its legal or illegal because of our Rastafarian culture which promotes its use in society.

First, X, I want to thank you for taking the time to respond, and in such detail, to my comments. It is clear that you are passionate about this issue of marijuana legalization, and while I most definitely am opposed to this, at the same time I fully respect your views and the detailed way in which you've stated these views.

I won't attempt to frame a detailed rebuttal, as like I stated above, as long as Jamaica maintains its laws against marijuana, then I have no reason to spend time in discussing or writing about the issue.

Crime is crime and it runs along different routes from drugs to racketeering , the fact that Jamaicans are involved in this has little to do with ganja , moreso desperation.

I agree with you, and it was never my intention to link both crime and marijuana. I was simply making the point that because of Jamaica's prominence in marijuana use, and also because of the high levels of crime (both not necessarily related), we have been labelled with one or both of these two stereotypes (ganja smokers and criminals). You and I both know that most Jamaicans who visit other countries are not law breakers by any means.

So while we appease Uncle Sam our society suffers locally by criminalizing our citizen for a plant that they use every day in a hypocritical manner, medicinal , culinary and socially?

Trust me on this, "Uncle Sam" can make or break us, so while we do our thing, it makes sense that we recognize that taking on the USA is a battle we cannot ever win! As far as punishment for marijuana use is concerned, I have always felt strongly that it is ridiculous to imprison someone for merely using a small amount of the substance. Certainly, that person is breaking Jamaica's existing law, but punitive punishment (for example, community service) would be much more appropriate when compared with the ridiculous punishments we now have on the books!

For an Island that grows the plant wildly to wage war on Ganja is nothing less than social suicide when you see the role it plays in our society.

Want to know what would be social suicide? Think of the increase in accidents from already reckless, indisciplined drivers who will now have the added benefit of marijuana in their system and the lethargy it brings! Think of the even more increased levels of our already too-high domestic abuse and rape incidents! Think there would be no correlation? Well, think again, brother!!

Your argument about under production is ridiculous at best are the Dutch under producing , maybe you are right , if they banned Ganja their GDP might be higher.

Do not take lightly my statement about the possible further fall in production and in workplace activity due to lethargy!! We are already producing far below the levels of several other Caribbean countries, which accounts for our dismal GDP! Aren't you concerned about Jamaica's economic situation at the present time?

People visit Jamaica for two things , white sandy beaches and Ganja, you can go to chill or smoke that’s our reality, Reggae sumfest etc draw crowds not only for entertainment but the consumption of Ganja.

And this makes you proud and feel good about your country? That is, that your country is a mecca for every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to do things that are illegal in their native countries (not including the Dutch here)? For every slacker and law breaker who wants to have a good time? How long would it be before certain countries placed travel restrictions on their citizens who want to visit Jamdown?

[Lionpaw]

Marijuana was made illegal to protect the billionaires' profits.


http://www.world-mysteries.com/marijuana1.htm

^^READ THAT. VERY IMPORTANT.


If tobacco is more harmful than ganja, why isn't it illegal also?

[Gamma]

or alcohol......

[Mosiah]

All mi a say, a plant can't be illegal.

[Sir X]

A REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON GANJA

TO

RT. HON. P.J. PATTERSON, Q.C., M.P.

PRIME MINISTER OF JAMAICA

PREPARED BY:


Professor Barry Chevannes, Chairman
Reverend Dr. Webster Edwards
Mr. Anthony Freckleton
Ms. Norma Linton, Q.C.
Mr. DiMario McDowell
Dr. Aileen Standard-Goldson
Mrs. Barbara Smith

August 7, 2001

CONTENTS


Executive Summary

i

Acknowledgements

1

Preface

2

Terms of reference

4

CHAPTER 1: METHODOLOGY

6

CHAPTER 2: THE MEDICAL-SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE

8

CHAPTER 3: THE FINDINGS

19

CHAPTER 4: THE LEGAL AND INTERNATIONAL CHALLENGE

42

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

56

APPENDIX A: PERSONS WHO MADE ORAL SUBMISSIONS

(Omitted)

58

APPENDIX B: PERSONS WHO MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

(Omitted)

70

REFERENCES

74

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Commission of Ganja, pursuant to its terms of reference and after a period of exhaustive consultation and inquiry from November 2000 to July 2001, involving some four hundred persons from all walks of life, including professional and influential leaders of society, is recommending the decriminalisation of ganja for personal, private use by adults and for use as a sacrament for religious purposes.
The Commission, after reviewing the most up-to-date body of medical and scientific research, is of the view that whatever health hazards the substance poses to the individual — and there is no doubt that ganja can have harmful effects, these do not warrant the criminalisation of thousands of Jamaicans for using it in ways and with beliefs that are deeply rooted in the culture of the people. Besides, there is growing evidence that the substance does have therapeutic properties.
The Commission interviewed over three hundred and fifty persons in all the parishes, and received written submission from over forty. The overwhelming majority of these share the view that ganja should be decriminalised for personal, private use. Many of them are personally opposed to the smoking of it. The Commission is persuaded that the criminalisation of thousands of people for simple possession for consumption does more harm to the society than could be done by the use of ganja itself. The prosecution of simple possession for personal use and the use itself diverts the justice system from what ought to be a primary goal, namely the suppression of the criminal trafficking in substances, such as crack/cocaine, that are ravaging urban and rural communities with addiction and corrupting otherwise productive people.
Decriminalisation of ganja will require appropriate amendments to the Dangerous Drugs Act, in particular Sections 7C and 7D.
The Commission, after very careful consideration of the legal issues involved, concludes that decriminalisation will in no way breach the United Nations Drug Conventions, which have been ratified by Jamaica. Especially is this so, when arguments of human rights, including the proposed Charter of Rights being discussed by Parliament, are taken into account.
Accordingly, the National Commission is recommending:

1. that the relevant laws be amended so that ganja be decriminalised for the private, personal use of small quantities by adults;
2. that decriminalisation for personal use should exclude smoking by juveniles or by anyone in premises accessible to the public;
3. that ganja should be decriminalised for use as a sacrament for religious purposes;
4. that a sustained all-media, all-schools education programme aimed at demand reduction accompany the process of decriminalisation, and that its target should be, in the main, young people;
5. that the security forces intensify their interdiction of large cultivation of ganja and trafficking of all illegal drugs, in particular crack/cocaine;
6. that, in order that Jamaica be not left behind, a Cannabis Research Agency be set up, in collaboration with other countries, to coordinate research into all aspects of cannabis, including its epidemiological and psychological effects, and importantly as well its pharmacological and economic potential, such as is being done by many other countries, not least including some of the most vigorous in its suppression; and
7. that, as a matter of great urgency Jamaica embark on diplomatic initiatives with its CARICOM partners and other countries outside the Region, in particular members of the European Union, with a view (a) to elicit support for its internal position, and (b) to influence the international community to re-examine the status of cannabis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The National Commission on Ganja acknowledges with gratitude the hundreds of people, old and young, male and female, artisans, workers, farmers, clerical workers, health, legal and other professionals, managers, unskilled and unemployed persons, policemen, clergy, self-employed, and visitors, who thought the work of the Commission serious and worthwhile enough to be interviewed or to send written submissions, letters and electronic mail.
We thank the Staff of the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), in particular Mrs Deta Cheddar, the Secretary to the Commission, for facilitating our work, to the OPM in Montego Bay, and to the Local Government Officers and Social Development Commission staff in the parishes, who provided logistic and other support. The Jamaica Information Service made invaluable contribution by bringing the work of the Commission to the general public. Our thanks go as well to the various members of the communications media, who kept alive public interest in the work of the Commission.
Our thanks are extended also to Chantal Ononaiwu and Natalie Ebanks for providing summaries of the laws and oral depositions, respectively, and to Ethnie Miller and Sonjah Stanley for surfing the Internet. Jacqui Getfield, an Assistant to the Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of the West Indies, Mona, worked closely with the Chairman. We thank her and other members of the Dean’s Office for their support. A special thanks to Dr Stephen Vasciannie and Lord Anthony Gifford for preparing briefs at the Commission’s request.
Without the verbatim transcripts provided by the team of stenowriters led by Mrs Lilleth Haughton, the Commission’s report would have been seriously handicapped. Special thanks, therefore, to Mrs Winnifred Mannaham and Ms Marjorie Goodgame, and to Miss Elaine Walker, Mr Garfield McKoy, Mrs Yvonne Jenkins, Mrs Clementina Barrett, Mrs Dorothy Ramsay and Ms Ursela Farquharson.

Professor Barry Chevannes, Chairman
Reverend Dr. Webster Edwards
Mr. Anthony Freckleton
Ms. Norma Linton, Q.C.
Mr. DiMario McDowell
Dr. Aileen Standard-Goldson
Mrs. Barbara Smith

PREFACE

For well over a hundred years, ganja has become the subject of considerable debate and investigation, beginning with the much celebrated India Hemp Commission of 1894, which was followed by no fewer than ten landmark Commissions and studies. Notable among these was the Commission of scientists and experts set up by Mayor La Guardia of New York in 1938, which took six years to complete its Report. Despite the favourable reviews of both these Commissions, yet another study was commissioned by the United States National Institute of Mental Health, subsequently renamed the National Institute of Health, on the long term effects of cannabis use. Led by Dr Vera Rubin of the Research Institute for the Study of Man and Professor Lambros Comitas of Columbia University, the study assembled a panel of United States and Jamaican scientists from the University of the West Indies, and carried out their extensive study in Jamaica from in 1970 and 1971. This study did not find any negative effect that might be attributable to chronic ganja use, but although it provided a basis for some States in the United States to ameliorate their positions, the debate has not only continued but intensified, in the wake of considerable increase worldwide in the smoking of cannabis, especially in the North Atlantic countries.
Then in 1977 the Jamaican Government set up a Joint Select Committee "to consider the criminality, legislation, uses and abuses and possible medicinal properties of ganja and to make appropriate recommendations." The Committee while rejecting legalisation, on account of Jamaica’s obligation to the 1961 Convention, unanimously concluded that "[t]here was however a substantial case for decriminalizing the personal use of ganja." It recommended specific amelioration of the law, and that there should be "no punishment prescribed for the personal use of ganja up to a quantity of 2 ozs. by persons on private premises." It further recommended that ganja be lawfully prescribed for medicinal use.

The fact that these recommendations have been shelved, and that the work of reputable scientists have been ignored would lead the sceptic to suggest that that could well be the fate of the present Commission. Contributing in no mean way to the scepticism is the factual consideration that the original proscription against ganja was never based on medical evidence, but now medical evidence is being sought to justify its continued ban.
In recommending decriminalisation for personal use, we do not share the pessimism.
After nine months of consultation and reflection, visits to every parish and hearings amounting to 3776 pages of transcriptions, the Commission is convinced that its recommendations will not go the way of those of all previous commissions and studies, notwithstanding the difficulties that will confront the Government due to Jamaica’s ratification of UN Conventions that seek to prohibit cannabis, except for research and medical-scientific purposes. The reason for the Commission’s sanguineness is what it has uncovered as an overwhelming national and growing international consensus that cannabis should be decriminalised, or at least differentiated from other banned substances.
Nationally, the consensus reaches across the lines that once divided us historically, and that continue to divide us socially, to wit party, class and religion, where none seemed to have existed before, even at the time of Joint Select Committee twenty-five years ago.
Internationally, hardly a week goes by without some intimation of changing attitudes to cannabis. In many States of the United States of America the use of cannabis for medical purposes has been declared legal. Earlier this year Health Canada, Canada’s Ministry of Health, issued regulations to create a government-regulated system for using cannabis for medical purposes, the first country to do so. This action has been quickly sanctioned by Parliament which now makes cannabis legal in Canada for terminally ill patients and those suffering certain painful debilities. In June 2001 the British press reports on the launch of a pilot scheme in London in which cannabis offenders are simply warned and sent on their way, instead of being cautioned, arrested, charged and tried. A British Parliamentary Committee is soon to review the matter. British practice lags far behind those of the Dutch and of a growing number of other European countries which have simply decriminalised the personal use of small quantities of cannabis. Portugal, according to press reports, has taken the very bold step of decriminalising the use of all banned substances. An international momentum is clearly underway.


The Report seeks to capture the extent of this national consensus. This is set out in Chapter 3, the main body of the report, but not before a discussion of the methodology (Chapter 1) by which we have undertaken our work and arrived at our conclusions, and a review of the most up-to-date scientific reports (Chapter 2). Having presented this, the Report turns to consider the legal and political implications of our general recommendation, in Chapter 4. One critical issue raised by many experts and witnesses is the attitude of the United States, and this too is taken into account in the context of discussion on our international treaty obligations. The Report concludes with a summary of the recommendations, in Chapter 5, which is followed by the Appendices.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Whereas there has been long and considerable debate in Jamaica regarding the decriminalisation or non-decriminalisation of ganja in well-defined circumstances and under specific conditions,
Whereas differing views have been urged on the advisability of allowing the possession of specified quantities of ganja, its permissible use by adults within private premises, while continuing to prohibit its smoking by juveniles or by anyone on premises to which the public ordinarily has access,
Whereas some Groups have proposed that its use as a sacrament for religious purposes ought to be sanctioned,
Whereas there is a body of scientific opinion which attests to its medicinal qualities and clinical value,
Whereas serious questions have been raised as to its impact on health, on patterns of social behaviour, its implications for the economy and possible effects relating to crime and security,
Whereas there are international treaties, conventions and regulations to which Jamaica subscribes that must be respected,
In consideration thereof a National Commission is hereby established, with the following of Reference:

1. 1. To receive submissions or memoranda, hear testimony, evaluate research and studies, engage in dialogue with relevant interest Groups, and undertake wide public consultations with the aim of guiding a national approach.
   2. To indicate what changes, if any, are required to existing Laws or entail new legislation, taking account of the social, cultural, economic and international factors.
   3. To recommend the diplomatic initiatives, security considerations, educational process and programme of public information which will need to be undertaken in light of whatever changes may be proposed.
   4. To consider and report on any other matter sufficiently relating to the foregoing.
   5. To make such interim reports as it may deem fit and a final Report within a period of nine months from the first sitting.

September 2000

CHAPTER 1
METHODOLOGY

1. Guided by our Terms of Reference the National Commission of Ganja (NCG) visited every parish capital except one, in addition to several other townships. Exception was Black River, the capital of St Elizabeth, substituting instead, on advice, the market town of Santa Cruz and the seaside village of Treasure Beach.
2. Hearings were of two sorts. The first was in camera, in order to provide those who wished the privacy to state their own views in confidence, and without fear of intimidation, recrimination or exposure.
   
3. The Commission also held hearings in public, in squares, markets and street corners of inner city communities and rural townships, in an effort to reach people who might not have been aware of the Commission or its presence, or who, though aware would otherwise not bother to respond.
   
   
   
   
4. Aware that a Commission set up to look into the decriminalisation of ganja at the present time would necessarily attract more of those in favour of changing the laws than those against any change, and fearing that in the midst of a vocal majority in favour of decriminalisation those against any amelioration might be inclined to be reticent, the Commission made it a special point of inviting the views of those it believed held conservative positions. Thus, apart from declared Christians interviewed as part of the general public, the Commission interviewed members of the Linstead Baptist Church, the President and students of the United Theological College of the West Indies, His Grace the Archbishop of Kingston, the Lord Bishop of Jamaica, the Chairman of the Church of God in Jamaica, the Reverend Dr Garnet Brown, and two theologians of St Michael’s Seminary.
   
   
   
   
5. Written submissions were also received voluntarily from many persons, most of them living in distant parts of Jamaica or abroad, by post or electronic mail.
   
   
   
   
6. Scores of organisations and professionals were targeted and invited to submit. While no more than 40% of organisations responded, due largely, we believe, to the fact that most had not worked through a position, those that did were of enormous import to the Commission.
   
   
   
   
7. The Commission also undertook a literature review, focusing on the most up-to-date summaries, owing to the voluminous corpus of medical and scientific studies that have been on-going all over the world in the course of the last twenty-five years.
   
   
   
   
8. A comprehensive review of the relevant laws and United Nations Conventions was made, and expert advice sought from legal luminaries.
   
   
   
   
9. Finally, the Commission availed itself of the opportunity of one of its members on a business trip to The Kingdom of The Netherlands to familiarise itself with practices in that country, one of a few in Europe to have de facto decriminalised and regulated cannabis use in small quantities.

CHAPTER 2
THE MEDICAL-SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE

http://www.rism.org/ncg.html