The Tribune

By TYLER MCKENZIE

THERE is an old phrase about giving out bouquets and brickbats – bouquets in praise and brickbats in criticism, and this week, the government has earned both.

I’ll start with the bouquets.

It has taken some time to get here – but the plans revealed for legislation over marijuana are comprehensive and, I would say, thoughtful.

The bills will, if passed, open up the pathway to medical use, which is an area where the laws have long fallen short of the latest research.

The renowned CNN medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta has filed a series of reports in recent times about marijuana and cannabis usage.

In an article earlier this month, he noted that he had been sceptical about the use of cannabis as a medicine, even having written a few years earlier in Time magazine that the evidence simply was not there, but that he had “spent time with patients - even young children – who changed my mind. I came to the realisation that in some cases, not only did cannabis provide relief, it was the only thing that did so”.

He details too the way in which it has been taken up by seniors – as a sleep supplement, for example – and the case of a child who takes it to deal with seizures, and whose seizures have gone from more than 300 a week to practically none.

In terms of medical use, our antiquated laws are simply not keeping up with current medical advice – although there are still disputes in the medical value of such usage – so these revisions open the door to treatment that may make a substantial difference to people’s lives.

It is also notable that there will be a religious exemption for Rastafarians. I go to church each Sunday, and my Christian community drinks wine at communion, with no sign of a liquor licence for the church, and sometimes with minors taking a sip despite the drinking age laws. If a Christian religious community can have an exemption, then so can a Rastafarian one.

The laws will also see small amounts of possession decriminalised – although the laws are not opening things up to broader recreational use.

Now, I’ll be honest, in spite of what I say above, I’m actually hesitant about marijuana usage becoming more common – because, despite it all, there are hazards.

I hate the smell of weed, and would hate for it to become prevalent. Imagining the Downtown area or every bar smelling of weed would drive me away from such areas, and others too perhaps.

I’ve also seen the effects on others of bad trips or excessive marijuana usage which has taken good and productive employees and seen them ending up losing jobs or their way in society.

But you know what? I’ve seen those same kinds of effects on people from alcohol too – but that’s legal. How many fights in bars are fuelled by alcohol? How many times must police break up drunken encounters? How many times is domestic violence the outcome from a partner getting drunk first?

So is weed any worse than booze? Both have effects on our society.

The laws being introduced tiptoe into those kind of changes rather than lift the restrictions completely – and I think personally that is a good thing.

There are hazards, but these bills seem to be broadly well thought out, and thankfully there is a consultation starting now. I hope that consultation is one that will be heard – the outcome of the gender violence legislation shows the hazard of not listening properly – and that there is room for changes where good advice prompts such alterations.

A bouquet for the government on this issue – well done, indeed, and especially to Attorney General Ryan Pinder for shepherding such a potentially controversial topic through to this stage.

Alas, time for a brickbat.

In July 2022, 35,000 gallons of diesel spilled into the waters off the coast of Great Exuma when a vessel contracted by Sun Oil was delivering fuel.

It was so serious that Deputy Prime Minister Chester Cooper dashed off with a full entourage in tow to inspect the damage.

Back in February, Mr Pinder said that the company responsible would face penalties. He said at the time: “They will absolutely see penalties. We prepared our litigation materials, we’ve conducted all of the interviews, and received all of the reports. We are prepared to file a civil action.”

He also said: “The owners of the vessel have approached the government recently and started engaging in negotiations regarding the appropriate fines. We have a fine analysis that we would have done. A lot of the fines under our environmental laws are dependent on the environmental damage that was done.”

And yet last week, when asked about the fine, his response was a terse “I don’t disclose confidential settlements at the Office of the Attorney General, you know that.”

FNM chairman Dr Duane Sands was swift to respond, saying: “The attorney general of The Bahamas, the lawyer in charge of protecting the interests of the people of this country, said that we don’t have the right to know how much of our money was collected in a fine when the environment was violated.”

He asked: “Is it because the sum was a pittance? Was it because the owner of the company deserved a special fine different from anyone else? And was the fine even appropriate for the level of environmental damage?”

I read the court stories that appear in the news each day – and I read about people being fined for drug possession, for fraud, for assault. I know that every day people get stopped by police and fined for this being wrong with their car or that being wrong with their insurance. None of these are confidential – so why is the perpetrator of a 35,000 gallon diesel spill that prompted an announcement in Parliament and urgent damage limitation measures able to skip by without us knowing what the penalty is?

We have laws in place to hold environmental polluters to account – and yet we have not done so here, we have agreed a settlement instead. This is in truth not a fine, but an agreement.

There should be absolutely no reason why the Bahamian public should not know to the cent what the cost of the environmental spill is and what the amount the company responsible must pay is.

Anything less is shameful, and if it is not revealed, then the next time a member of this government boasts about transparency, then laugh in their face.

A well-deserved brickbat on this issue, which shows utter contempt for the Bahamian people.