The Tribune

By LEANDRA ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

lrolle@tribunemedia.net

A RASTAFARIAN man has launched an appeal against a drug charge he received last year after being found with $150 worth of marijuana, arguing that certain sections of the Dangerous Drugs Act are unconstitutional and infringes upon his fundamental rights.

Lorenzo Stubbs, 33, was arrested last December after police found 1.6 ounces of marijuana at his home.

Stubbs pleaded not guilty to the offence, which he believes is in violation of his rights, and is now appealing the charge before Justice Loren Klein. Stubbs’ trial before the Magistrate’s Court is presently on hold pending the outcome of his appeal.

The Rastafarian is challenging the constitutionality of Section 29 (6) of the Dangerous Drugs Act and is also seeking declaration that his rights as outlined in Article 22 of the country’s Constitution were infringed upon.

Article 22 states: “Except with his consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, and for the purposes of this Article the said freedom includes freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his religion of belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

In view of this fact, Stubbs contends that the Dangerous Drugs Act, which prohibits possession of the drug, violates his constitutional right to practice his faith as a Rastafarian.

The 34-year-old is represented by attorneys Bjorn Ferguson and Rhodreka Strachan. He is also requesting vindicatory damages.

During a hearing before Justice Klein yesterday, Mr Ferguson argued that Stubbs, a longtime Rastafarian, was not found with large quantities of marijuana, but only $150 worth, which, he said, Stubbs used for religious purposes.

Referring to the rights outlined in Article 22, Mr Ferguson said: “His right is breached because marijuana is viewed in their faith as a Eucharist, a holy sacrament and in order for Stubbs to enjoy the full practice and observance of that faith, possession of marijuana has to take place.”

Mr Ferguson also contended that using marijuana as a sacrament is not much different from Christians partaking in communion.

The attorney also sought to reject the idea that marijuana is a “dangerous drug,” which he claims is simply not accurate.

“Marijuana is a plant, unprocessed and used in its natural state,” he told the court. “Every one of those other drugs…there has to be some processing and added chemicals to make the end drug. Marijuana is a plant created by God .. and so, the legislative objective cannot be reasonably justified where you infringe upon the Rastafarian faith which rely on this plant.”

To further support his argument, Mr Ferguson also pointed to a report conducted by a CARICOM commission that concluded there is no scientific evidence to suggest that marijuana is dangerous, adding that there is no logical reason for having the substance labeled as such in current legislation.

“There is no rational connection to having Indian hemp placed in the legislation as dangerous and going so far to infringe upon the adherence of Rastafarianism,” the attorney said.

Shifting his focus on the hardships experienced by Rastafarians, Mr Ferguson said the community has suffered a “decades” long assault because of the provisions outlined in the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Mr Ferguson further reminded the court that it is their duty “to uphold the Constitution against contraventions by either the executive or Parliament” to protect affected parties’ basic rights.

And where such contraventions are found, he said the court must act.

However, Crown attorney Cordell Frazier, in her submissions, countered that to declare Section 29 (6) of the Act unconstitutional simply “cannot stand.”

Ms Frazier contended the Act was enacted in the interest of public health, and not as a means to discredit the Rastafarian faith.

She also noted that religious freedoms are not hindered in The Bahamas, but only have limitations, which in Stubbs’ case is for the sake of public health.

As it relates in the CARICOM report on marijuana, she highlighted the matter as being irrelevant to the case.

“We are solely here to look at the constitutionality of that provision and we say that the authorities at the time were acting under the written law,” she said yesterday.

Section 29 (6) of the act, she argued, not only speaks to the criminalisation of marijuana, but other drugs as well and warned that declaring it as unconstitutional could also result in several implications.

“The provision is a general application and if the court was to strike it down as being unconstitutional, it will affect the right of any person to possess cocaine,” she said.

After hearing both arguments, Justice Klein informed the attorneys he would notify them of his decision after careful consideration.