Saturday’s protest called “Cannabis Reform Demonstration” has sparked off a few interesting discussions on the ether. The Times finds itself at the end of many an accusing finger for what seems to be a deliberate attempt to put cannabis in a bad light through “slanted” reporting and not so hidden innuendos. It’s not that reports on the harmful effects of drugs suddenly surface as the demo-day draws closer – it’s the deliberate attempt at confusion, putting cannabis on the same scale as the real killer drugs. I am not here though to go into the scientific evidence of the effects of drugs or to discuss the salutary effects of a good high or, for that matter, the negative consequences of control-freak prohibition.
Another interesting aspect has surfaced in this sudden revival of the Dope Discussion. MaltaToday carried a feature about the fact that “lurking behind next Saturday’s planned march in Valletta is a far wider-reaching challenge, which aims to end the absolute discretion enjoyed by the office of the Attorney General on decisions which would radically affect the possible sentences for certain crimes – drug-related offences being but one example.” Now I may be physically cut off from the Maltese scene but I have still to find a reference elsewhere to this aspect of the demo.
Is the demo or is it not a challenge to “the absolute discretion enjoyed by the AG’s office”? MT has quotes from two lawyers specialising in criminal defence – Joseph Giglio and Franco Debono. We do find a frank “admission” if you like halfway through the article that:
Independently of Saturday’s protest, lawyers like Giglio and Debono openly question the sheer breadth of the Attorney General’s discretion to choose between different courts (with all the serious implications for sentencing), in the light of a number of anomalous and often inconsistent decisions: including, but not limited to, the case of Daniel Holmes, whose 11-year sentence exceeded the very maximum he would otherwise have faced, had his case been heard before the Magistrates’ Court.
Well yes. The thing is that the aim of such a demo is probably best served if the demonstrators were to concentrate on the punishment – the severity of punishments determined by law for the crime of possession of cannabis and similar crimes. Even if it is not all out legalisation the problem here is more that a Welshman is in prison for 10 years for possessing what many would agree to be a harmless drug (though not the experts consulted by the Times). That is where the focus should be.
Whether politicians who in their spare time act as criminal lawyers (or should it be vice-versa) should be diverting the focus of the protest in connivance with a newspaper is questionable. I have no doubt that there could be an occasion to discuss the merits and demerits of the set-up for criminal prosecution and the very specific powers of the Attorney General but this is definitely not the time to be confusing issues. Taking advantage of public sentiment (even if a minority) with regards to the issue of penalties for cannabis-related crimes in order to rough through an amendment to an important part of our criminal procedure is just not done.
And one last note, one that we have often repeated from this blog. It is hard enough to be living in a country where human resources are not that easy to come by and therefore where specialisation in a field means you stand there with a few other good men or women. What we do not need is the two-hat politician who reforms the laws with one hand and benefits from them in his professional capacity with another. Good intentions or not is beside the point.
Like justice, law making must also be performed in a transparent manner.
