The Tribune

AFTER a long wait, the consultation over what to do about marijuana legislation is now under way.

The proposal on the table is that possession of marijuana of an ounce or less will be decriminalised, while Rastafarians using cannabis for religious purposes will need a licence.

The natural question is of course if possession of marijuana in such quantities is not illegal, then who will be doing the supplying?

It appears a system will be put in place where a licence must be applied for in order to become a legal supplier.

The legalisation or decriminalisation of marijuana has of course already taken place in many countries around the world and many states in the US just across the water – and it has not always gone as planned.

The law of unintended consequences often comes into play here – in that actions, especially of governments, often have effects that are unanticipated or unintended.

For example, Nikolay Anguelov, an associate professor at UMass Dartmouth, wrote in his book “From Criminalising to Decriminalising Marijuana: The Politics of Social Control” about some of those unintended consequences in the US – including the doubling of usage of marijuana since 2000.

In states where marijuana remained illegal for people under 21, for example, changing laws led to an increase in the number of those of that age group consuming the drug illegally.

Furthermore, while some legislation has been reportedly aimed at tackling social injustice, youths from minorities continued to be disproportionately arrested and convicted on marijuana charges.

Perhaps less unexpected is the increase in usage of marijuana following decriminalisation – but what are the knock-on effects of that for those who might need treatment as a result, and what level of expenditure will there be to ensure such services are available for those in need?

Here at The Tribune, we have seen many instances where marijuana has been an impediment to people in their lives, including occasionally workers who have been unable to hold down their job or cope in their life as a result of their usage.

Legal or not, there is of course a supply network already in existence, just as certain other businesses have existed outside of the law before becoming legalised.

Will it be the current unlawful suppliers of such drugs that become the legal suppliers? Or will other more corporate individuals move into that space?

If that is the case, then the occasional drug dealer who makes money by selling some weed here and there will need to make their money another way – will that be potentially a more violent way, such as armed robbery?

All of this of course is why through consultation is necessary – and close examination of what has happened before elsewhere. Decriminalisation may not actually lead to a reduction in crime as intended, and nor may it bring people a pathway out of a criminal lifestyle if they are simply supplanted by others.

The initial consultation is beginning, but a broad discussion of all the possible consequences would be a way to perhaps avoid some of those unintended consequences.

In next week’s Tribune, we will feature a number of guest writers in this editorial space. Each of the writers, from a variety of fields of expertise, has been asked to consider a question: “What is one thing – just one – that you would change?”

We look forward to those answers – but we would also invite readers to submit their own suggestions for what is the one thing they would change, and why.

As ever, readers can send their contributions to letters@tribunemedia.net or drop letters off at our Shirley Street office.

Perhaps some of your suggestions might just bring about such a change.