THE British parliamentary report in favour
of legalising cannabis for medical purposes, and the decision of some
states in the US to make it legal to smoke it, raises the question: why
don’t we follow the Colorado example? After all, we are renowned for
growing the best stuff.
It is four years since Colorado voters decided 55%-45% to legalise
marijuana, allowing adults to possess, sell and cultivate limited
amounts.
The referendum was close and aroused passionate argument.
Those in favour argued that dagga (as we call it) was less harmful
than cigarettes or hard liquor and made life comfortable for chronic
illness sufferers. Those against predicted an increase in criminality,
violence, sexual crimes and general laziness. Added were the dangers of
driving under its influence. Some used medical arguments — paranoia
being one. The Colorado police were uniformly (ahem) against.
The legislation gave no blanket permission. One could sell it, but no
more than 28g per person. You could grow it, but only in a sealed-off
room. Each plant sold had to be tracked, and dried cannabis had to be
tested for its strength and sold in child-proof containers.
Since Colorado took the plunge, 24 other US states have followed —
four have made recreational use legal, and the rest approve only its
medical use. The four seem to have followed the Colorado experience,
seen the result and jumped in to get the same tax bonanza. There are
reports that 14 other states may do the same.
There are more advantages than increased tax revenue in making
cannabis legal. For a start, the number of people arrested for
possession has fallen by 80%, which has reduced the number of young
black Americans, in particular, who were being jailed or fined, cut the
cost to the state and made a dent in the tax-free incomes of the real
criminals of the drug trade.
Colorado’s state coffers have also benefited mightily. Last year,
about $130m came in, cash that is earmarked for schools, behavioural
health monitoring and the police.
For producers in what is now a billion-dollar industry, there are
still legal problems. US federal law has not changed. Banks risk
punishment if they accept cash from sellers or producers of cannabis,
which means it is a cash business. Nevertheless, entrepreneurs have
expanded their operations. One apparently employs 70 people with a
salary bill of more than $3m a year.
But it is not all peace and light. The police have no way of testing
drivers who may be "stoned" and claim they cannot keep up with the new
regulations.
So, what are the lessons we could learn? Well, legalising dagga
growing, distribution and sales has the potential to give a new source
of income for the South African Revenue Service. The black market has
already proved itself highly competent at growing, distributing and
selling dagga countrywide, so it is likely they would grow and create
more jobs if they were legal and not constantly harried by the police.
After all, the "pirate" taxi industry, once illegal too, is now
providing a valuable public transport service employing thousands.
The costs of jailing dagga growers and smugglers would be saved. Our
jails would be less crowded — and since the cultivation of dagga’s
cousin, hemp, would no longer be a problem, the expertise that already
exists in some of the poorest parts of SA could be marshalled into a
flourishing export industry.
In short, we have the best climate for growing both dagga and hemp,
and hemp fibres — as the motor industry worldwide knows — are already
used extensively. Cloth made from hemp is so durable that not so long
ago, a man could leave his shirts to his grandson, not to mention its
excellent qualities for rope-making.
We would be wise to watch Colorado and the other 13 US states closely
for the benefits that free enterprise can usher in when the law gets
out of the way.
• Bryer is a retired communications consultant
No comments:
Post a Comment