The Tribune

By INIGO 'NAUGHTY' ZENICAZELAYA

EARLY yesterday, news broke that Philip “Brave” Davis and Chester Cooper were returned as leader and deputy leader respectively of the Progressive Liberal Party as both went unchallenged at the party’s convention.

Before the convention, Davis made clear his preference that no one challenged for the top positions, which includes leader, deputy leader and chairman.

Now that both Davis and Cooper are “safe,” the drama, it seems, surrounds the position of chairman.

In that bout, former foreign affairs minister and current chairman Fred Mitchell (aka flyin’ Fred) will go toe-to-toe against former tourism minister Obie Wilchcombe.

Earlier in the week, Mitchell issued a voice note critical of Wilchcombe’s desire to contest for chairman.

On top of that, Davis made it clear that he didn’t think Wilchcombe could win and that he wanted his “team” to remain as it is.

Now I will be honest, ever since the PLP got overwhelmingly tossed out of government by Bahamian voters back in 2017, I’m not really sure what’s been going on behind the curtain.

Even a cursory glance, however, shows that not much has changed since the last administration besides the fact that their numbers in parliament isn’t even enough to have a starting five in a basketball game.

That aside, all this talk about uncontested conventions and who should and shouldn’t run looks bad. And is bad.

I saw posts on Facebook with PLPs fighting over how undemocratic it all is.

There were also voice notes circulating with party supporters arguing over who should and shouldn’t be allowed to use party colours and symbols on their election flyers.

Is this what the once mighty PLP has come to? Fighting internally over flyers?

There’s a completely logical question that has been borne of Davis’ hard line stance on these elections; if the PLP leadership is ‘carrying on’ like a dictatorship, with three and a half seats in parliament in 2019 (we see you Picewell), how on earth do they expect to attract new, dynamic talent to carry their banner in 2022?

‘Same old, same old,’ a buddy said to me earlier this week.

‘Ain’t nothing change from Perry dem time,’ another friend and PLP supporter said to me (while sucking her teeth) when I asked what she thought of the whole uncontested convention directive.

It truly would be shameful if after that electoral stomping they received in 2017 nothing has changed in the PLP.

If the powers-that-be in that party have not realised it’s time for fresh ideas and energy, and a new, democratic way of doing business then I don’t even know why they are bothering with a convention.

Go ahead, save yourselves a few dollars and just leave things the way they are until 2022. But please don’t act surprised when ‘ain’t nuttin’ changes’ and you end up with three seats next time.

More marijuana advice from our friends in the north

More potential blue prints from our neighbours to the north, pertaining to the legalisation and decriminalisation of marijuana, are making headlines. Especially when, potential presidential candidates are endorsing them, positioning certain states to potentially evoking positive change, when it comes to marijuana legislation and decriminalisation, in the United States.

On Tuesday, NewYork Representative and judiciary committee chair Jerry Nadler announced the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE).

Nadler was joined in the presentation of the proposed legislation by Senator Kamala Harris, a former California attorney general who is currently one of the leading candidates for Democratic presidential nominee in 2020.

The wheels are starting to churn a lot faster on Capitol Hill these days, especially when it comes to federal cannabis legalisation.

Last week, the Senate scheduled a hearing on the SAFE Act which would allow businesses operating within the state laws, access to national banks.

Harris offered these remarks regarding MORE -

“Times have changed — marijuana should not be a crime, we need to start regulating marijuana, and expunge marijuana convictions from the records of millions of Americans so they can get on with their lives.”

The MORE Act makes sense on multiple levels, and should be taken heavily in to account, when putting our polices in place in relation to the legalisation and decriminalisation of marijuana as a nation.

The MORE Act seeks to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, and would allow states to enact their own regulations as they are able to do with alcohol.

In addition, it would establish processes for expungement of past marijuana convictions, and protect individuals in government programmes, and those seeking citizenship from discrimination based on their association with the drug.

Sensible taxation, taxes of between five and ten percent on cannabis would also be instituted by the proposed legislation, to be used for funding grants to impoverished communities.

The revenue garnered from marijuana taxation, would cover the funding for employment training, business loans, and legal aid for those with prior minor cannabis-related convictions.

Senator Kamala Harris, is no stranger to marijuana legalisation.

In 2018, Harris’ name was on fellow 2020 Presidential hopeful Senator Corey Booker’s MJA - Marijuana Justice Act.

(Bookers contribution is much like that of Nadler, minus the emphasis on connecting communities with cannabis entrepreneurship resources).

Booker re-introduced the bill this past February, and it has been referred to the judiciary committee.

Also White House hopeful Elizabeth Warren, has previously proposed legalisation of cannabis in her twice-introduced Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States Act, which was also referred and stands in the judiciary committee’s docket.

Who will be our Harris, Nadler, Booker or Warren in this present administration or opposition for that matter?

Or will we sit idly by allowing a billion dollar global industry, with multiple investment and business opportunities for Bahamians to benefit off or go up in smoke.

This is one blossoming global industry we can’t approach on ‘Bahamian Time.’