Pubdate: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 Source: Zambia Daily Mail (Zambia) Copyright: 2012 Zambia Daily Mail Contact: http://www.daily-mail.co.zm/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/5401 Author: Samuel Silomba Note: The author Samuel Silomba is the Drug Enforcement Commission public relations officer. DEC'S REACTION TO THE DEBATE ON LEGALISING CANNABIS THE Drug Enforcement Commission wishes to respond to the article that appeared in the Zambia Daily Mail newspaper on 3rd September 2012 entitled: 'Legalising marijuana; to smoke or not to smoke?' written by Professor Kenneth Mwenda, and to the letter written by Robert Sharpe addressed to the Editor of the same newspaper on 6th September 2012 on the subject of marijuana. It was sad to note that, to a large extent, Professor Mwenda's article was skewed towards inciting Rastafarians to push for the legalisation of cultivation, sale and use of cannabis in Zambia. For instance, the author questioned why Rastafarians in Zambia cannot bring a court order before the High Court against the law that prohibits the cultivation, smoking, selling or buying of cannabis. Although the law on narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances permits the cultivation and use of cannabis for the purposes of medicine and research, it is important to appreciate that cultivation, possession and trafficking in cannabis are criminal offences in Zambia. Therefore, those who wish to engage in the debate about legalising cannabis need to take into account the historical background to the criminalisation of cannabis use in Zambia. The control and regulation of the use of dangerous drugs, including cannabis, in Zambia, is traced to the year 1923 when the colonial government enacted what was called 'Opium and habit Forming Drugs Regulation Proclamation No. 10 of 1923'. After independence, Zambia revisited the colonial drug laws and enacted the 'Dangerous Drugs Act No. 42 of 1967' which prescribed administrative and regulatory provisions in the area of drug use and drug handling. It further created restrictions, prohibitions and specific penalties for possession of drugs without a licence or authorisation. In 1989, the Zambian government enacted a piece of legislation called 'Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act No.7 of 1989, which led to the creation of the Drug Enforcement Commission through Statutory Instrument No. 87 of 1989. In 1993, in consultation with international and regional organisations, Zambia enacted the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act No. 37 of 1993 (Now Cap 96 of the Laws of Zambia under volume 7). Cap 96 of the Laws of Zambia domesticated the United Nations (UN) Convention on the control and prohibition of cannabis. The UN single convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, Article 28 (control of cannabis) forbids member states from cultivating cannabis plants for industrial or horticultural purposes. Hence, legalising the cultivation of cannabis in Zambia would imply the undoing of the International Treaties to which Zambia is a signatory. The above genesis to the criminalisation of marijuana in Zambia also puts to rest the argument advanced by Robert Sharpe in his letter to the Editor of Zambia Daily Mail that Zambia is being influenced by the Americ an government in the war against illicit drugs. Zambia has a history on illicit drugs which has and continues to determine the development of drug law in the country. In addition, African countries have recognised the threat that cannabis cultivation, trafficking and abuse pose to the socio-economic development of the continent. At the 22nd Meeting of Heads of National Law Enforcement Agencies (HONLEA), Africa, it was highlighted that cannabis remained the most widely cultivated, trafficked and abused drug on the continent. It was also revealed that cannabis cultivation was a threat to food security as some peasant farmers in rural communities were replacing the cultivation of staple crops such as rice, yam, maize and cassava with cannabis. The HONLEA meeting further revealed that cannabis abuse adversely affected the productivity and achievement of development in African communities and posed a direct and serious threat to the health of the citizens. Professor Kenneth Mwenda endeavoured in his article to understate the negative effects of cannabis use by dwelling more on the perceived benefits of the drug. This perception needs to be corrected. Apart from causing the feelings of euphoria and relaxation, cannabis use leads to numerous negative effects which have been documented in a number of studies. These adverse effects of cannabis use affect the health, physiological and psychological aspects of an individual user. Professor S.W. Acuda of University of Nairobi outlined some of the harmful consequences of cannabis such as psychosis characterised by restlessness, confusion, panic, paranoia and hallucinations. Professor Acuda further argued that cannabis use may lead to the development of 'amotivational syndrome' which is characterised by slowly progressive loss of energy and drive resulting into memory impairment, poverty of ideas and deterioration in personal hygiene. Other health consequences, as highlighted by Professor Acuda, include; lung diseases, chromosome abnormality, carcinogenic effects, suppression of immune systems, occurrence of bronchitis, damage of the respiratory system and malfunctioning of male reproductive system. Other scholars such as Professor Ogunremi of University of Ilorin, Nigeria, point out that cannabis use in females may lead to menstrual disorder by interfering with ovulation. Professor Ogunremi also argues that chronic cannabis use in females may lead to embryo toxicity resulting in small and abnormal babies. He adds that cannabis use may cause brain toxicity which can lead to dulled emotional expression and chronic psychosis. The question is: Can one consider the above effects of cannabis inconsequential as proposed by Robert Sharpe? Currently cannabis and alcohol abuse account for the highest number of clients that have been counselled and rehabilitated by the Drug Enforcement Commission. Legalising cannabis will not only lead to increase in the number of addicts, but it will also result in Government redirecting money, which could have been used for developmental projects, to the treatment and reintegration of addicts. In his article, Professor Mwenda extends his argument by warning young people not to ask their parents whether they had ever smoked marijuana as it is considered rude and disrespectful in Zambian culture. By warning young people not to ask their parents whether they had ever smoked cannabis, Professor Mwenda is indirectly encouraging young people and the rest of the population to try to smoke marijuana by minimising the adverse effects of smoking cannabis. His argument seems to point to the fact that cannabis is harmless as it has also been smoked by all the parents. It is also vital to state that the economic argument for legalising cannabis cultivation and use to generate tax income has been considered for a long time now as un-ethical and un-economical. The economic argument is based on poor fiscal logic as any reduction in the cost of drug control will be offset by much higher expenditure on public health. The question raised by Professor Mwenda needs to be answered conclusively: Legalising Marijuana; to smoke or not to smoke? Current research does not support the idea that marijuana is harmless. Many studies indicate that marijuana usage leads to crime, violence, drug dependence and the use of other drugs. Cannabis is a gate-way to hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin. As outlined above, marijuana use can cause severe health problems. While many negative consequences of marijuana are clearly known, others are less obvious. Hence there is no doubt that marijuana use has numerous negative consequences. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom