Timothy Ryan: A SECOND LOOK
The Minister of Welfare and Population Development has asked the Drug Advisory Board to formulate a drug masterplan for South Africa. This masterplan will ultimately direct the government’s response to the use, distribution, manufacture and cultivation of illicit drugs.
The decriminalisation of dagga is one of the controversial issues facing the board. At its last meeting, on January 23, board member Dr Sylvain de Miranda decreed that it is opposed to decriminalising dagga. There was no consultation, discussion, debate, vote or consensus with the other members on the issue.
More importantly, the decision was made before the conclusion of the public hearings on the draft of the drug masterplan, which are currently being conducted around the country. It seems the board does not believe the public is capable of debating the decriminalisation of dagga.
The official position outlined in a letter from the Department of Welfare and Population Development is: “The South African Drug Advisory Board does not approve the use or production of marijuana. [The] board will continue to develop suitable methods to deal with appropriate cases within the framework of national and international drug policies. Emphasis will be placed on measures of law enforcement, education, treatment, aftercare, rehabilitation and social reintegration.”
This position is taken in spite of the fact that the draft of the national masterplan, released in October last year, states: “Decriminalisation of drugs is another issue that needs to be investigated.”
Moreover, this position was adopted by the board after Dr Eddie Harvey of the welfare department started soliciting proposals from researchers to write papers for the board examining different perspectives on dagga decriminalisation and its implications in South Africa.
According to Neil Boister, a senior lecturer in law at the University of Natal, “decriminalisation refers to the concept that possession and dealing in a drug remain illegal, but are punished by less draconian methods than by imprisonment. [It] must be contrasted to outright legalisation, where no legal sanctions are attached to these activities.”
Minister of Correctional Services Sipo Mzimela has called for its decriminalisation to relieve prison overcrowding; Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs Derek Hanekom has called for its legalisation for commercial purposes; secretary of safety and security Azhar Cachalia believes decriminalisation needs to be debated. These officials clearly have concerns about the present legislation.
Also, in the August 1995 edition of the African National Congress journal Mayibuye, Duncan Harford argues that “the debate about the decriminalisation of dagga should be less emotional and more responsible. The war against drugs should not prevent open debate about the status of dagga and the people who use it.”
There are other concerns. Anecdotal evidence suggests that dagga use has medical benefits for glaucoma or muscular sclerosis sufferers and people receiving chemotherapy for cancer or Aids. Cape Town neurologist Professor Francis Ames says up to 70% of doctors treating cancer patients with chemotherapy are already unofficially “prescribing” dagga to help their patients.
The United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs decided in 1991 dagga should be rescheduled to schedule II, which would allow restricted prescription by doctors. This is not possible under current South African legislation.
According to the Medical Association of South Africa, 80% of black South Africans go to traditional healers, who commonly use dagga in some of their medicines. Could a traditional healer be arrested for dealing in dagga? With the current legislation in South Africa, the answer is “yes”. A patient who uses dagga could also be arrested for possession.
Another compelling argument relates to the cultivation of dagga – the main economic activity sustaining thousands of rural South Africans, primarily in KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape. Dagga flourishes almost anywhere, and it grows in the poorest soil. For many of these farmers, dagga is the only viable cash crop. The profit margin is high enough for small-scale farmers to achieve economic viability.
The cultivation of dagga is estimated to be a multi-billion rand industry in these provinces, surpassing sugar and bananas. Nevertheless, crop-substitution programmes have been suggested. It is an initiative that does not seem to be well thought out.
There does not seem to be much wisdom in attempting to replace dagga with conventional crops that are more difficult to grow and have significantly lower profit margins.
Police have been attempting to curb dagga cultivation for decades, but they have been largely ineffective.
In the 1951 report of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Abuse of Dagga, it was reported that the quick and lucrative returns of dagga production attract growers of all races, and large hauls of dagga crops periodically made by the police indicate the readiness of even well-established agriculturists to risk the penalties of the law in an effort to clear substantial profits.
Police activities have also had a new spin- off in recent times. Keith Cooper, director of the Wildlife and Environment Society of Southern Africa, explains: “Those farming dagga have been compelled to move into sensitive environmental areas such as remote indigenous forests.
“[These] farming activities contribute to soil erosion and damage to the areas. We encourage an investigation into ultimately decriminalising the propagation of this plant in South Africa.”
Essentially, the police are denying people in the rural areas their livelihood, and providing them with no alternatives. The result is violence between growers and police, migration of rural people to urban areas, factional violence between Inkatha Freedom Party and ANC members and the spread of political destabilisation.
The South African Police Service is in the difficult position of upholding a nearly unenforcable law, but it is not for the police to change it. Any changes in the dagga legislation must be drafted by the national government, guided by the Drug Advisory Board.
By choosing not to study or debate decriminalisation, the board is demonstrating a complete lack of vision, and relying on the preconceptions and misconceptions of the past to drive the development of the national drug masterplan.
In all likelihood, this plan, like the others of the past, will be relegated to the dustbin.
Timothy Ryan is a senior scientist with the mental health and substance-abuse division of the Medical Research Council