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)”. 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:
http://www.gov.ai/documents/exco/Mn18-150.pdf
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. 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.
