An 80-year old friend was in terrible arthritic
pain for years. Recently, he told me he is
almost entirely cured. I asked him
how. He said he was cured since
Government legalized medicinal Cannabis.
He claims he imports his Cannabis oil, without a prescription, through
St Martin.
I had to smile. I am glad that he has got the pain relief he
needs. But, where, I asked him, did he
get the idea that Cannabis oil was legal in Anguilla. All parts of the Cannabis plant are
prohibited. That is the definition of
Cannabis. It “includes any plant of
the genus cannabis and any part of any such plant (by whatever name called)”.[1] Importation or possession of any part of the
plant is prohibited. It does not matter
if it is the flowers, or the leaf, or the branch, or the root, or a mere
extract, like Cannabis oil. It does not
matter if the oil contains THC or only CBD.
THC is not part of the definition.
I never heard of the law being
changed in Anguilla. My friend explained
that he checked with the Permanent Secretary (or PS). The PS sent him the link to the instrument
approving the use of medicinal Cannabis.
He forwarded me the link he says he was sent:
I checked it out. It is the minute of a meeting of the
Executive Council (ExCo, or the Cabinet of the government of Anguilla) in July
2018. Towards the end of the minute
there is an item headed, ExMin 18/382. This
reveals that ExCo did discuss exempting Cannabis-based products for medicinal
purposes under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act. They agreed that persons with prescriptions
from doctors in the UK, the USA, Australia, Canada and EU countries would be
allowed to import Cannabis-based products for personal medicinal use. They agreed that the A-G’s Chambers should
draft the necessary regulation and exemptions.
A regulation simplifies matters.
It is perfectly legal, and it would avoid any debate in the House of
Assembly. In this way, the reform would
be made by a simple regulation signed by the Governor. It must be published in the Official Gazette
to become law.
But this decision by ExCo did
not by itself change the law. Without
the new regulation, the importation of medicinal Cannabis oil into Anguilla
with or without a prescription remains completely prohibited and illegal. My friend must have misunderstood what he was
being advised. I am quite sure that no
PS in Anguilla would confuse an ExCo minute with an amending statute or regulation.
Given government’s decision a
year and a half ago to move forward, why has this sensible piece of law reform
not been completed? No reasonably
informed person today can legitimately continue to hold an objection to the use
of medicinal Cannabis. It is a simple
reform to implement. There are ample
precedents from around the Caribbean that are available. Since 2016, this reform has been made in the
Cayman Islands. Puerto Rico and Jamaica
have medicinal Cannabis programmes in place.
St Vincent since July 2019 issues licences to cultivate medicinal
Cannabis.[2] So, there is no shortage of good precedents
to follow. This could not be the
obstacle holding up this reform. What is
it, we would all like to know?
And, while we are on the
topic, we can ask what is holding up the legalisation of the recreational use
of Cannabis? A Bill for discussion
purposes was drafted by the A-G’s Chambers and published since July 2018. The only objection that was raised was that it
was ambiguous and self-defeating. The proposed
amendment said that possession of small amounts of Cannabis for personal use
was legal, but the A-G had a discretion to prosecute if, in his opinion, the
possession was for the purpose of supplying.
But possession for the purpose of supplying is already illegal under the
Act. Only possession of small quantities
for personal use is decriminalised.
Unless the A-G thinks he can prove the possession was for the purpose of
supply, there is no point in giving him a discretion to prosecute in the
absence of any evidence. Such a
discretion is susceptible to misuse by police officers. Why give the A-G such a discretion when it is
only his opinion that the possession was for the purpose of supplying? Surely, by now, after nearly a year and a
half, a more acceptable wording could be found.
And, while we are on the
topic, there is an additional question.
Why was there no provision in the Bill to wipe clean all past
convictions for possession of small quantities?
Keeping a record of convictions for something now considered inoffensive
only serves to blot the record of too many of our young people. The continued hanging around of the record of
these convictions means that an application for a police certificate of good
character will be unhelpful. Such
records hamper applications for visas and for employment by our young
people. It is only fair and just in
these cases that the record be wiped clean.
