In October 2020, The Tribune 242 reported that 'Speaking in the House of Assembly, Dr Minnis revealed several recommendations from the Economic Recovery Committee, adding the body was instructed to be bold and specific with its suggestions to combat the current economic crisis. The group’s recommendations include the full legalisation of marijuana for medicinal, religious, and recreational purposes coupled with a regulatory regime that oversees the production and manufacturing, sale, consumption and export of marijuana.' Since then, I did not come across much in terms of the progress made in this direction. The Economic Recovery Committee's recommendations for the full legalization of cannabis for medicinal, religious, and recreational purposes was in line with what I have said is most needed to make cannabis available to the people, especially the poorest sections of society, and for a nation to fully experience the full benefits of cannabis. Complete legalization enables farmers to grow cannabis as a valuable sustainable additional crop to boost their incomes. It provides sufficient cannabis for various businesses across the board to utilize cannabis for a range of applications - medicinal, recreational and industrial. Full legalization ensures that sufficient cannabis is available at the lowest prices, enabling the poorest sections of society who need cannabis the most to access the precious herb. Full legalization also makes it possible for a nation to export cannabis and earn valuable revenue.
Somewhere along the way these recommendations by the Economic Recovery Committee appear to have been binned. We must not forget that by the end of 2020, the powers opposed to cannabis legalization had unleashed the fake pandemic Covid 19 on the world, resulting in a flooding of the world with synthetic pharmaceutical drugs and petrochemical-based medical equipment. The fake pandemic greatly increased the wealth of the industries opposed to cannabis legalization. It enabled autocratic governments to tighten their grip on the people. Cannabis legalization initiatives across the world were affected by all this. The additional wealth gained by the entities opposed to cannabis enabled them to mount fresh challenges against cannabis legalization and pay corrupt politicians and lawmakers greater sums of money to ensure that cannabis remained prohibited.
The next thing I heard about cannabis legalization in the Bahamas was that a judge had overturned a petition by a citizen to legalize cannabis. The citizen stated that its prohibition went against the citizen's rights to practice religion. Cannabis was, until it was prohibited, one of the foremost entheogens used by different communities across the world in their pursuit of spirituality. The king-priest-hierarchy of various religions including Christianity, Islam and Hinduism wish to suppress cannabis so that the communities that used cannabis for spirituality can be absorbed into the hierarchy as the lowest classes - the working classes - to toil for the upper classes in the hierarchy. The king-priest-businessman hierarchy also wished to replace cannabis with opium, alcohol, tobacco and synthetic pharmaceutical drugs, products from which the hierarchy could reap vast profits and further enslave the lower classes. All this is clearly evident in the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission's report of 1894-95. The Hemp Commission was set up by the British colonizers of India to justify cannabis prohibition and promote opium, tobacco and distilled alcohol. The British colonizers along with the Indian upper classes and castes who constituted the king-priest-businessman hierarchy in India wished to enslave and subjugate the indigenous communities that consumed cannabis and worshipped gods other than those that the British colonizers and Indian upper classes and castes worshiped. The indigenous communities who were considered as the lowest classes formed a majority of the people in India, and still do. They cultivated cannabis extensively and it was available to them at almost no cost. This was a hurdle for the ambitions of the elites to convert them to the harmful alcohol, tobacco and opium. The followers of the god, Siva, were among the largest cannabis using communities in India and it was this community that was the most affected by cannabis prohibition. Myths such as cannabis caused insanity, cannabis users were the lowest classes, cannabis users were criminals, and that cannabis was more harmful than alcohol or opium were propagated by the ruling classes to justify cannabis prohibition. These actions by the elites were replicated everywhere where communities used cannabis as entheogens. Only a few communities exist today where the law has permitted them to consume cannabis for religious purposes - the Rastafarian community in a few places being the most prominent one.
The Bahamas citizen who moved the court for cannabis legalization for religious purposes was a Rastafarian but the judge refused to grant him reprieve, citing that there was little evidence that cannabis was used for religious purposes. This is most absurd given the mountains of evidence available, including freely on the internet, on this matter. The judge passed the buck to parliament stating that it was for the parliament to decide. Most governments and judiciary the world over are in the pockets of the entities opposed to cannabis and will do everything possible to prevent cannabis legalization, despite all the harms that this has resulted in. EW News reported that 'Indian hemp is classified as a dangerous drug under the Dangerous Drugs Act 2000 with its possession being banned, except for very limited scientific and medical purposes by authorized personnel. Stubbs however contended that the drug is a ‘sacred herb’, used as a sacrament in manifesting his faith as a Rastafarian and that he has a constitutional right to possess and use it. Stubbs also contended that to the extent that the DDA does not contain an exemption for religious use, its blanket criminal sanctions on the possession of cannabis infringe on his right to practice his faith freely. In the 40-page decision, Justice Klein differentiated between Indian hemp and marijuana, stating that while they belong to the same cannabis genus, they are of different varieties of the hemp family. He also highlighted that hemp has been used lawfully for medicinal and other purposes in India and China for thousands of years until its international criminalization following the International Opium Conference in 1925. In his judgment, Klein said that he found nothing anti-democratic or anti-rights in Parliament’s decision not to make allowances for the religious or recreational use of marijuana....The judge accepted that the failure to make provision for the religious use of marijuana amounted to an interference with Stubbs’ rights to observe and manifest his religion. “I also find that there is sufficient evidence and other material before the court to establish that the impugned provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act (DDA) are reasonably required to attain public policy objectives, whether for public health or safety. “Furthermore, in my judgment, the applicant has not provided any evidence or other material to satisfy the court that the failure to make an exemption for religious use is not justifiable in a democratic society, or that the legislative measures in the DDA are disproportionate to their objectives,” the judge noted. The move comes almost three years after the country’s Economic Recovery Committee called for the establishment of a regulatory body to oversee businesses engaged in the production, wholesale and retail of a potential cannabis industry. The Bahamas government said the “central component” of the 11 proposed measures is Cannabis Bill 2023, which would establish a legal framework for local marijuana cultivation to address medical demand and create economic opportunities for the country. The draft legislation’s primary goals are to decriminalize cannabis for medical and therapeutic use and to “bring relief to Bahamian patients facing various chronic and painful diseases and conditions,” according to the announcement.'
There are a number of concerns that I have with the judge's statements.
Differentiating Indian hemp - which I assume refers to cannabis indica - with marijuana - which I assume refers to cannabis sativa - is absurd, much like differentiating French wine with Chilean. The essential cannabis plant is the same though there may be variations in the proportions of compounds present. Over time we have seen that the main factors influencing the proportions of cannabinoids in a cannabis plant are related to the variety (there are possibly thousands of varieties in the world) which in turn are influenced by the soil, water and climatic conditions in which the cannabis plant grows. The cannabis indica/cannabis sativa division was created by Carl Linnaeus when he named the different plants but over time this classification has rapidly blurred given the scientific evidence from the discovery of cannabis plant varieties in many nations across the world.
When the judge states that cannabis was used as medicine and for other purposes in India and China before it was prohibited, he seems to miss out that the biggest use of cannabis in India was for spiritual purposes, after which came intoxication and then medicine. Regarding the use of cannabis for spiritual purposes, the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission of 1894-95 wrote that "It is chiefly in connection with the worship of Siva, the Mahadeo or great god of the Hindu trinity, that the hemp plant, and more especially perhaps ganja, is associated. The hemp plant is popularly believed to have been a great favourite of Siva, and there is a great deal of evidence before the Commission to show that the drug in some form or other is now extensively used in the exercise of the religious practices connected with this form of worship. Reference to the almost universal use of hemp drugs by fakirs, jogis, sanyasis, and ascetics of all classes, and more particularly of those devoted to the worship of Siva, will be found in the paragraphs of this report dealing with the classes of the people who consume the drugs. These religious ascetics, who are regarded with great veneration by the people at large, believe that the hemp plant is a special attribute of the god Siva, and this belief is largely shared by the people. Hence the origin of many fond epithets ascribing to ganja the significance of a divine property, and the common practice of invoking the deity in terms of adoration before placing the chillum or pipe of ganja to the lips." It is not just Shaivism, but most animistic and nature worshipping indigenous communities in India used cannabis for spiritual purposes, besides Sikhs, Muslims and high priests of the Hindu religions. Also, taking a strong stance against cannabis prohibition, the Hemp Commission recommended that cannabis not be prohibited, as it would interfere with the religious practices of the people. The Hemp Commission summarized as follows, "The Commission have little doubt that interference with the use of hemp in connection with the customs and observances above referred to would be regarded by the consumers as an interference with long established usage and as an encroachment upon their religious liberty." Despite the Hemp Commission's recommendations, the British Government prohibited cannabis, especially as ganja and charas. This was because cannabis prohibition had already been decided before hand itself, as the resolution that instituted the Hemp Commission states 'RESOLUTION.—In the despatch recited in the preamble, Her Majesty's Secretary of State informed the Government of India that, in answer to a question put in the House of Commons, he had expressed his willingness to request the Government of India to appoint a Commission to enquire into the cultivation of the hemp plant in Bengal, the preparation of drugs from it, the trade in those drugs, the effect of their consumption upon the social and moral condition of the people, and the desirability of prohibiting the growth of the plant and the sale of ganja and allied drugs. In accordance with the announcement thus made, Lord Kimberley requested the Government of India to appoint a Commission for the purposes stated, and to issue such instructions as would ensure that the enquiry should be thorough and complete. His Lordship is of opinion that the investigation can hardly be confined to Bengal, but should extend to the whole of India, and that the Commission should be instructed to ascertain to what extent the existence of the hemp plant all over India affects the practical difficulty of checking or stopping the consumption of ganja, as distinguished from other narcotic drugs prepared from the hemp plant, and whether there is ground for the statement that bhang is less injurious than ganja to consumers.'
Also, the 1925 International Opium Conference that the judge cites was, as its name itself shows, a conference in which the benefits of opium were greatly promoted, and the harms of cannabis was greatly amplified. Most of the attendees in the conference were significant stakeholders in the opium business, including the British government that had converted China and Burma to opium growing countries from where the produce was taken to Britain to be traded with the rest of the world. As stated earlier, the British wished to prohibit cannabis in India and replace it with opium since opium brought in far greater revenues for the state than cannabis.
Surgeon-Lieutenant-Colonel Crombie who had served as head of the Dacca Lunatic Asylum for some time appeared before the Opium Commission around 1892. Mr. Crombie showed statistics from the Dacca Asylum that linked cannabis use with insanity and this became one of the primary drivers for justifying its prohibition. The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission of 1894-95 found that there was almost no association between cannabis usage and insanity when it studied the situation in Indian lunatic asylums. It was found that cannabis as the cause of insanity was entered primarily by police officers arresting the lunatic because the magistrate before whom the lunatic was produced demanded that cause of insanity be recorded. The police officers had absolutely no medical experience to do this assessment. Through laziness, this cause of insanity was copied into the asylum registers and ultimately used to beef up the argument that cannabis caused insanity and hence needed to be prohibited. The Hemp Commission states that this particular myth is what influenced most nations to subsequently prohibit cannabis, even though there was no scientific or medical truth behind it. At the time that the Indian Hemp Commission was conducting its work in 19th century India, Burma (now Myanmar) was the only place where cannabis insanity had been stated as the justification for cannabis prohibition, based on the statistics from the Dacca Asylum. These statistics were produced and quoted by the asylum superintendent, Surgeon-Lieutenant-Colonel Crombie, in numerous instances, including before the Opium Commission, to emphasize that cannabis was most deleterious. Burma (now Myanmar) was, and still is, a vital conduit for opium trade between China and Britain and there were more than a few Chinese and British who viewed cannabis as a threat. The Commission states that 'Although these [lunatic asylum] statistics have been discussed seriously from year to year, they have not been much used as the basis of measures of ganja administration except in the case of Burma. In this case the Commission found that the measures taken in Burma were ostensibly based on the lunatic asylum returns which were quoted by more than one Chief Commissioner, special reference being made to the figures for the Dacca Asylum. This special reference to this asylum and the fact that it is situated in the most important ganja-consuming tract in India were among the reasons why the Commission summoned Surgeon-Lieutenant-Colonel Crombie (Bengal witness No. 104) as a witness; for he had been seven years Superintendent of that asylum. Before the Opium Commission also, and in an interesting discussion on opium published as a Supplement to the Indian Medical Gazette of July 1892, Dr. Crombie had incidentally spoken strongly of the evil effects of hemp drugs as seen in his asylum experience. The Commission hoped therefore that Dr. Crombie might be found to have devoted special attention to his asylum work, and to be able to speak with exceptional authority. He informed the Commission in his written evidence that "nearly thirty per cent. of the inmates of lunatic asylums in Bengal are persons who have been ganja smokers, and in a very large proportion of these I believe ganja to be the actual and immediate cause of their insanity." On oral examination by the Commission of Dr. Crombie, who used the Dacca asylum statistics to justify cannabis as a cause for insanity, it was found that 9 of the 14 cases attributed to cannabis insanity were inaccurate, and the remaining 5 appeared doubtful. Even if one considered the 5 cases, it only constituted 9% of the total cases and not the 30% that Dr. Crombie stated in his written evidence to the Commission.'
The judge appears to have ignored the harms caused by alcohol, tobacco, dangerous synthetic drugs like heroin and methamphetamine, and the misuse and abuse of synthetic pharmaceutical drugs when he states that cannabis prohibition is required for public health and safety. The above-mentioned drugs kill tens of millions of people every year. He also ignores the fact that cannabis is non-addictive and has been used for thousands of years safely as intoxicant and medicine by cannabis communities without any adverse effect to public health. Cannabis is universal natural medicine that can be administered to all age groups, using different modes of administration, and for a variety of diseases. The Indian Hemp Drugs Commision stated, in its study of medical uses of cannabis in 19th century India, that "Cannabis indica must be looked upon as one of the most important drugs of Indian Materia Medica.' This was, especially, the case for the poorest sections of society who could not access or afford any other medicine, even if they trusted in that medicine. These factors alone should have been sufficient to legalize cannabis, let alone its religious use.
Subsequently, I read an article in MJBizDaily that Bahamas was looking to establish a medical cannabis industry. This seemed to explain all that had happened up to this point. It seems to me that the ruling elites of the Bahamas and the industries opposed to cannabis were alarmed by the Economic Recovery Committee's recommendations to fully legalize cannabis as it would greatly affect the businesses of alcohol, tobacco, opioids, petrochemicals, synthetic pharmaceuticals, chemical fertilizers, construction, medical, non-biodegradable petrochemical based plastics, synthetic fibers, etc., and these industries had lobbied the government to put a hold on the initiative. Bahamas is a key tourist destination and I suspect that a significant part of its revenue comes from tourists belonging to the elite classes. The elite ruling classes probably fear that cannabis legalization will see dreadlocked Rastafarians smoking pot in all the tourist destination seducing their women. The decision by the judge appears to have been the judiciary doing its bit to ensure that the common man did not get his hands on the precious herb easily without the elites extracting a sufficient price.
Finally, the decision of the government to establish a medical cannabis industry shows that the elites realized that they could not keep cannabis at bay for much longer, especially given the harms to public health that its prohibition was causing. The elites decided that the best way to handle the situation was to control the cannabis industry by positioning the natural herb cannabis as another pharmaceutical drug i.e. medical cannabis, that could be priced and packaged in such a way that only the elites had access to it and both the pharmaceutical industry and the government profited from it. For the common man, this is as good as cannabis remaining prohibited. The common man will have to continue consuming alcohol, tobacco, opioids, synthetic pharmaceutical drugs and all the other poisons that made the elites rich, if he can access and afford these elite drugs, that is, while only the elites would benefit from cannabis as medicine. Thus, the existing class hierarchy can be maintained, with the common man not getting dangerous ideas about spirituality, equality, liberty, etc., and attaining the level of self-sufficiency resulting in his refusal to be slotted into the lowest class of the class hierarchy as the working class...
Cannabis legalization for all purposes in Bahamas, as recommended by the Economic Recovery Committee, would have boosted not just public health, industry, agriculture, spirituality and the environment in economically sustainable ways, it would have been a big incentive for tourism that the Bahamas is heavily dependent on. Amsterdam is one of the top tourist destinations in the world precisely because of its cannabis. Cannabis legalization would have enabled the Bahamas to walk down the path of sustainability in a world of increasing human-induced climate change. The inclusion of the natural herb cannabis in the Dangerous Drugs Act of the Bahamas is itself a travesty and not removing it based on all the evidence available shows that the persons responsible are still in charge...
As far as I know, this is where the story of cannabis legalization in the Bahamas currently stands...
Related articles
Listed below are articles taken from various media related to the above subject. Words in italics are the thoughts of your truly at the time of reading the article.
https://mjbizdaily.com/bahamas-looks-to-establish-medical-cannabis-industry/
Indian hemp is classified as a dangerous drug under the Dangerous Drugs Act 2000 with its possession being banned, except for very limited scientific and medical purposes by authorized personnel.
Stubbs however contended that the drug is a ‘sacred herb’, used as a sacrament in manifesting his faith as a Rastafarian and that he has a constitutional right to possess and use it.
Stubbs also contended that to the extent that the DDA does not contain an exemption for religious use, its blanket criminal sanctions on the possession of cannabis infringe on his right to practice his faith freely.
In the 40-page decision, Justice Klein differentiated between Indian hemp and marijuana, stating that while they belong to the same cannabis genus, they are of different varieties of the hemp family. He also highlighted that hemp has been used lawfully for medicinal and other purposes in India and China for thousands of years until its international criminalization following the International Opium Conference in 1925.
In his judgment, Klein said that he found nothing anti-democratic or anti-rights in Parliament’s decision not to make allowances for the religious or recreational use of marijuana.
....
The judge accepted that the failure to make provision for the religious use of marijuana amounted to an interference with Stubbs’ rights to observe and manifest his religion.
“I also find that there is sufficient evidence and other material before the court to establish that the impugned provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act (DDA) are reasonably required to attain public policy objectives, whether for public health or safety.
“Furthermore, in my judgment, the applicant has not provided any evidence or other material to satisfy the court that the failure to make an exemption for religious use is not justifiable in a democratic society, or that the legislative measures in the DDA are disproportionate to their objectives,” the judge noted.
https://ewnews.com/judge-marijuana-religious-exemption-for-parliament-to-decide
'Speaking in the House of Assembly, Dr Minnis revealed several recommendations from the Economic Recovery Committee, adding the body was instructed to be bold and specific with its suggestions to combat the current economic crisis.
The group’s recommendations include the full legalisation of marijuana for medicinal, religious, and recreational purposes coupled with a regulatory regime that oversees the production and manufacturing, sale, consumption and export of marijuana.'
http://www.tribune242.com/news/2020/oct/21/emergency-powers-continue-til-november-30/
No comments:
Post a Comment