There might soon be 3.2 million fewer criminals in South
Africa.
That is, if the press-dubbed Dagga Couple’s campaign to
re-legalise cannabis in South Africa succeeds. Jules Stobbs and Myrtle Clarke,
owners of the Jazzfarm north of Johannesburg, have issued a challenge to South
Africa’s Constitutional Court against the 1992 Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act.
“In short, the
prohibition of Dagga is unscientific, racist, irrational & wrong,” the
couple states on their website.
According to most sources, cannabis sativa, or merely cannabis, originated in Central Asia,
and its first recorded use was in 2700 BC, when it was mentioned by one of the
fathers of Chinese medicine.
Following its initial use, cannabis has stretched over the
centuries in varying forms and with varying amounts of support. Ancient
Egyptians used it as a remedy (in different forms) for various ailments.
Difficulties arose when Egyptian medicine effectively became Islamic medicine,
and cannabis’s psychoactive effects classified it under intoxicants according
to the Muslim sharia law. Prohibition was enacted ineffectively by the 13th
C, and Napoleon also tried his hand at criminalising the drug. Pope Innocent
VIII, of the 15th C, considered it, according to a UK cannabis
information site, to be an “unholy sacrament of the Satanic mass”.
However, there were times when cannabis was vastly popular,
and advocated by such figures as President George Washington and Queen
Victoria. Some states and countries made cannabis production mandatory, and hemp
– which is related to the cannabis plant – was a major industry throughout the
world.
In the 1900s things start to look bad for dagga. Various
countries outlaw the possession and use of cannabis and South Africa officially
makes it illegal in 1928.
The Dagga Couple claims that its criminalisation and
continued status as an illegal drug is due to racist and colonial laws, which
are sustained today through propaganda propounded by the United States. The
couple also claims that their constitutional and human right to ingest anything
they please is being violated by the prohibition of dagga.
“Isn’t it your right to self medicate, to injest[sic]
whatever you feel helps your situation?” their website proclaims. “There are
countless cancer, leukemia, glycoma, and multiple sclerosis patients (to list
but a few ) worldwide in the 21st century, who get 100% pain relief from
injesting[sic] dagga, whether by inhaling or eating or drinking the plant.”
Dagga has several modes of consumption, the most popular
being smoking joints or bongs
,
and oral ingestion via food. Studies have shown that the active ingredient in cannabis – THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol if you insist on the long version) – is three times more potent if orally ingested, since the smoking of cannabis inhibits some of the transmission of this constituent.
,
and oral ingestion via food. Studies have shown that the active ingredient in cannabis – THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol if you insist on the long version) – is three times more potent if orally ingested, since the smoking of cannabis inhibits some of the transmission of this constituent.
A large part of the Dagga Couple’s campaign is based on
their claim that there is no empirical, scientific proof that cannabis is
detrimental to anyone.
Furthermore, they suggest that is it s a “victimless crime”
(if, they assert, it is indeed a crime). This sentiment is echoed by various
articles circulating the online cannabis supporting community, with statements
that deny the validity of studies which show any detrimental effects dagga
might have.
An article published on MyNews24 from ‘Buzz’, stated: “Just
as Apartheid and similar establishments drilled the “White is right” mindset
into its citizens, we are still drilled with the misconception that “Dagga is
gaga”.”
From an early age, children are drilled with the basics:
caring, sharing and staying healthy is good; fire, strangers and drugs
(emphasis on dagga) are bad.
Among the reasons they list various detrimental
side-effects, the threat of developing Schizophrenia and the idea that dagga is
a “soft drug” which leads to the use of drugs such as cocaine and heroin.
Disappointingly, there seems to be no critical response to
the Dagga Couple, other than the disapproving comments from church groups and
uneasy parents. The call for empirical evidence as to dagga’s negative effects
on their website has gone unanswered (except for support messages from fellow
cannabis consumers). The information most base their aversion to dagga on is
labelled as “outdated”, “misinformed”, “propaganda”, “hearsay” and
“unscientific baloney”.
Whichever side of the debate you’re on, you will find
“evidence” among the myriad of studies surrounding cannabis with which to stake
your claim. The illegal status of cannabis makes it hard to conduct research
openly, and thus most people can only base their opinion on hearsay. However,
the Dagga Couple has a few veritable points.
South Africa is infamous for its overpopulated prisons, with
overpopulation currently at 137.25 % according to the Department of
Correctional Services’ website (amaBhungane places prison overpopulation at
139%). However, offenders incarcerated (and sentenced) in 2011 for narcotics
charges only stand at 2717. Whether the absence of offenders charged because of
possession or use of dagga would even make a dent is questionable.
Cannabis does, however, remain South African’s drug of
choice, and it is estimated that over 3.2 million citizens used cannabis in
2008, and this number steadily rose (although recent censuses have not been
completed as of yet). If the Dagga Couple’s campaign succeeds, there will be at
least 3.2 million fewer criminals in South Africa. It remains up to the
individual to judge whether this is a good or a bad thing.
Sources:
National Drug Master Plan – http://daggacouple.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/National-Drug-Master-Plan-2012-2016-June-20-2011.pdf
http://proxy.baremetal.com/cannabiscoalition.ca/info/Russo_HistoryCannabisChemBiodiversity2007.pdf
- History of Cannabis and its Preparations in Saga, Science and Sobriquet.
No comments:
Post a Comment