No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Jamaica's Marijuana Decriminalization Conundrum
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2014
Abstract
U.S. drug policy has, and continues to create tension between the United States and other countries. Using the August 2001 report of the Jamaican Commission on ganja, this paper uses the certification process to highlight some of the tensions inherent in the U.S. federal government's anti-marijuana legalization posture. This paper discusses the likelihood of the U.S. federal government changing the legal landscape for marijuana. It concludes by recommending, as potential solutions to address the tension between the US and its regional neighbours, regionalization of drug control and replacing the drug certification process with the Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism (MEM). The question becomes, is there a policy entrepreneur willing to agitate for a change in the policy environment?
Résumé
La politique américaine sur les drogues continue de créer des tensions entre les Etats-Unis et d'autres pays. À partir du rapport du mois d'août 2001 de la Commission jamaïcaine, cet article suit la procédure de certification pour mettre en lumière certaines tensions inhérentes à la posture du gouvernement fédéral américain contre la légalisation de la marijuana. Il débat de la probabilité que le gouvernement fédéral américain change le paysage légal concernant la marijuana. En conclusion, l'article recommande comme solutions éventuelles au conflit entre les Etats-Unis et ses voisins régionaux de régionaliser le contrôle des drogues et de remplacer la procédure de certification par le Mécanisme d'évaluation multilatérale (MEM). La question demeure de trouver un entrepreneur politique prêt à se battre pour un changement de l'environnement politique.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , August 2003 , pp. 91 - 114
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 2003
References
1 Statement of President George W. Bush at the nomination of John P. Walters as head of the Office of the National Drug Control Program (10 May 2001), online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010510-1.html.
2 Chevannes, Arry, The Report of the National Commission on Ganja (Kingston, Jamaica: Government Printing Office, 2001) at 55Google Scholar [Chevannes Report].
3 Ibid. at 3.
4 Ibid. at 4.
5 United Nations Economic and Social Council Commission on Narcotic Drugs, (2003) Report of the Forty Sixth Session (15 March 2002 and 8–17 April 2003), to be released in final form as UN ESCOR, 2002, Supplement No. 8. (E/2002/28), online: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/document_2003-04-30_1.pdf at 93.
6 Copy of the submission on file with the author. See also Henry Balford, “Decriminalization of Ganja could hurt Jamaica” Jamaica Observer (11 December 2003), online: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20031210T230000-0500_52938_OBS DECRIMINALISATION_OF_GANJA_COULD_HURT_JAMAICA_.asp; Moxam, Earl, “No to Ganja' Solicitor-General Against decriminalization” Jamaica Gleaner (11 December 2003)Google Scholar, online: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20031211/lead/lead1.html.
7 The United Nations Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs, 1961, as amended by the 1972 Protocol (the Single Narcotics Convention), to which Jamaica acceded in 1972; the 1972 United Nations Convention on Psycho-tropic Substances, which Jamaica ratified on October 6, 1989 and the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, ratified by Jamaica in 1995.
8 “Hawaii: Nation's First Medical Marijuana Legislation Signed Into Law, Visiting Governors Suffer Symptoms of Contact High”, online: http://www.drcnet.org/wol/141.html reports that Hawaii became the first state in the U.S. to decriminalize medical marijuana through the legislative process. Hawaii's legislation is considered significant because not all states have an initiative process. The Bill allows sick Hawaiians with their doctors' approval to grow, possess and use marijuana without facing state criminal penalties.
9 See Schmitz, Robert and Thomas, Chuck, State by State Medical Marijuana Laws; How to Remove the Threat of Arrest: Report prepared from Marijuana Policy Project (February 2001), online: http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/Med_MJ_RPT.pdfGoogle Scholar (retrieved 9 September 2003).
10 See United States General Accounting Office, Marijuana: Early Experience with Four States' Laws that Allow Use for Medical Purposes, (November 2002), online: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03189.pdfGoogle Scholar (retrieved 18 September 2003).
11 National Drug Control Strategy (2000), (13 November 2001), online: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/policy/ndcs00/chap3.html#13.
12 Online: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/enforce/map_m.html (retrieved 13 April 2001).
13 President Bush's Statement on the nomination of John P. Walters, Drug Czar, Office of National Drug Control Program (10 May 2001), online: http://www.whitehouse. gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010510-1.html.
14 The Office of the National Drug Control Strategy, through its then Director, General Barry McCaffrey, issued many statements ranging from the need to protect America's youth to protecting the workplace14. The following news headlines are indicative of the ONDCP's efforts to resist legalization; Barry R. McCaffrey, “Don't Legalize Those Drugs” Washington Post (June 29, 1999) A15, online: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/commentary/oped/news/commentary/oped/1999/062999.html. McCaffrey, B.R., “Legalization Would be the Wrong Direction” Los Angeles Times, (July 27, 1999) All, online: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/commentary/oped/news/commentary/oped/intlatim.htmlGoogle Scholar; McCaffrey, Barry, “District Doesn't Need Marijuana Initiative” Washington Times (July 24, 1997) C2, online: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/commentary/oped/news/commentary/oped/intlatim.html.Google Scholar
15 Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C, tit. 13 categorizes drugs into five categories based on three criteria: potential for abuse, currently accepted medical use in treatment and safe use under medical supervision. Drugs in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act are those substances that are designated to have a high potential for abuse, no currently acceptable medical use in treatment, and which lack any accepted safe use under medical supervision.
16 Transcript of President Bush's statement on the nomination of John P. Walters to be Head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010510-1.html; MediaMillWorks, Washington Post (11 May 2001), online: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/ sidbars/walters.html.
17 Executive Office of the President; Office of National Drug Control Policy; Washington D.C. Introduction: National Drug Control Strategy, online: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs03/intro.html.
19 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Drug Control Budget (15 September 2002), online: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/dcb.htm.Google Scholar
20 Smith, Peter H., Drug Policy in the Americas (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1992) at 17.Google Scholar
21 MacCoun, Robert and Reuter, Peter, Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times and Places (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) at 380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Ibid. at 371.
23 Ibid. at 372.
24 Ibid. at 373.
25 Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 22 U.S.C. 2314, c. 32.
26 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988. Available online at http://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1988_en.pdf.
27 See Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Majors List and the Certification Process: Fact Sheet (1 November 2000), online: http://www.state.gov/www/global/narcotics law/fs_001101_cert_process.html.Google Scholar
28 Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Fact Sheet on the U.S. drug certification process (circa 12 November 2000), online: http://bangkok.usembassy.gov/services/docs/reports/drugc.htm.Google Scholar See also Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State, The Certification Process Fact Sheet (12 November 1999), online: http://www.state.gov/www/global/narcotics_law/fs_991112_cert_process.html.Google Scholar
29 Report from Bridgetown, Barbados, U.S. Department of State International Information Programs, “U.S. Drug Certification Enhances Multilateral Cooperation” (1 March 1 2000), online: http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/bb1/wwwha301.html (accessed 30 September 2002).
30 U.S. Department of State, “2000 Narcotics Certification Determination” (30 September 2002), online: http://www.state.gov/g/inl/rls/rm/2001/jan_apr/1011.htm.
31 Bill Spencer, Deputy Director, Washington Office on Latin America, “Drug Certification” in Barry, Tom (IRC) and Honey, Martha, eds., Foreign Policy In Focus, vol. 3 No. 24 (September 1998), online: IPS http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol3/v3n24_table_body.htmlGoogle Scholar (accessed 11 July 2002).
32 Statement by Canada's then foreign minister, Lloyd Axworthy, in a press release announcing the MEM which was finalized at a meeting held in Ottawa from August 31 to September 2, 1999. “Hemispheric Drug Effort Evaluation Mechanism Agreement Reached In Ottawa” online: http://www.sgc.gc.ca/Releases/e19990902.htm.
33 As stated by the ONDCP deputy director on the occasion of the certification press briefing, “[we] are aware that there is a growing sense among some in Congress that there may now be more effective approaches to strengthening international counter-narcotics cooperation. Several different bills have been recently introduced in the Senate that would change the certification process in some way.” Online: http://www.state.gov/g/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2000/index.cfm?docid=1011.
34 Office of the National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, The National Drug Control Strategy (11 November 2000), online: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/policy/ndcs00/chap3_6.html#5.Google Scholar
35 Martin Cauchon, (15 September 2002), online: http://www.drcnet.org/wol/254.html#cauchon.
36 “2,500 coke smugglers nabbed 1999-2001” (7 September 2002), online: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20020609/lead/lead2.html.
37 Chevannes Report, supra note 2 at 56.
38 Participating countries were: Columbia, Venezuela, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada, Barbados, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Aruba, Curacao, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Panama and Jamaica. Reports of Jamaican law enforcement activities carried out during this period indicate that there were 635 raids and 48 roadblocks netting 1,971.62 kilograms of ganja seeds, 138,300 ganja seedlings, 17 chillum pipes, 168 ganja plants, 3.39 kilograms of hash-oil, 42.97 kilograms of cocaine, six crack pipes and 225 pieces of crack. A total of 660 persons were arrested, including 42 women, 52.91 hectares of ganja destroyed, and 24 50-gallon drums with ganja soaked in chemical, apparently to be manufactured into hash-oil were seized. The operations also netted 119 knives, seven illegal guns and 55 rounds of ammunition. Five vehicles were seized and 19 boats suspected to be on drug missions detained. “660 J'cans held in Drug Sweep” (15 October 1999), online: Jamaica Gleaner http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/19991015/index.html.
39 “Operation Libertador a Success” (22 November 2000), online: Jamaica Gleaner http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20001122/lead/lead2.html.
40 See “State Supreme Court Upholds California's Proposition 215, San Francisco Prepares to Grow Own Medical Marijuana Supply” (19 July 2002), online: DRCNet http://www.drcnet.Org/wol/247.html#prop215. Denny Walsh and Clare Cooper, “State High Court Backs Pot Law” Sacramento Bee (19 July 2002), online: http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/courts_legal/story/3635386p-4661236c.html. Denny Walsh, “Conviction in federal pot trial” The Sacramento Bee (1 August 2002), online: http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/courts_legal/story/3544448p-4571947c.html.
41 Ethan Nadelman, Cops Across Borders: The Internationalization of U.S. Drug Enforcement (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993).
42 Williams, David, “US backlash against ganja - Embassy official warns of decertification for Jamaica” Jamaica Gleaner (17 August 2001), online: http://www.jamaicagleaner.com/gleaner/20010817/lead/lead1.html.Google Scholar
43 Several countries in Europe have implemented medical marijuana initiatives, including The Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, and Belgium. Portugal has decriminalized drug use, possession and prescription heroin. Online: http://www.drcnet.org/wol/145.html#portugal. In July 2002, Britain downgraded marijuana to Category C thereby effecting a reduction in penalties wherein marijuana possession attracts a citation rather than arrest. This relaxation of the law keeps marijuana's illegal status but people using small amounts in private no longer face arrest: New York Times (July 10, 2002). Simultaneously the rescheduling increased maximum sentences for dealing from 10 years to 14 years and proposes to create a new criminal offense of supplying drugs to children. Nonetheless, the British changes have also been criticized for, among other things, making no provision for legal cannabis sales, safe injection sites for heroin users and for rejecting a reclassification of ecstasy (MDMA) from a Class A to a Class B drug. See “British Cannabis Decrim: One Step Forward, One Step Sideways, One Step Back” (7 December 2002), online: DRCNet http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/245/britaindecrim.shtml. However the landscape may be changing in The Netherlands, which has long been held as an example of more lenient marijuana policy. See story which notes that the one consequence of the changes in Holland June 2002 election are proposed changes to its drug policy: “Dutch government Plans to Restrict Coffeeshops, End Ecstasy Harm Reduction” (7 December 2002), online: DRCNet http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/246/netherlands.shtml.
44 Kingdon, John, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1984).Google Scholar
45 Ibid. at 174.
46 “Canadian Senate Panel Calls for Marijuana Legalization - Urges Regulation and Control, Rejects US Pressure” (9 June 2002), online: DRCNet http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/253/canadiansenate.shtml.
47 Singh, Ricky, “Barbados, US differ on security” Jamaica Observer (4 June 2002)Google Scholar, online: Jamaica Observer http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20020603t2300000500_ 26504_obs_barbados_us_differ_on_security.asp.
48 “Colin Powell Heckled at Earth Summit” CNN.Com (4 September 2002), online: http://www.cnn.com/2002AVORLD/africa/09/04/earth.lastday.glb/.
49 Evelyn Leopold, “Canada leads efforts to Oppose U.S. Court Position” Washington Post (10 July 2002), online: Reuters http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47823-2002Jul10.html. See also “United States ‘Unsigning’ Treaty on War Crimes Court; White House Move Is ‘On the Wrong Side of History’” (6 May 2002), online: Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/icc0506.htm.; http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/.
50 (UNODC/ED/2, 8 April 2003, p. 10).
51 See Martin Jelsma, “Breaking the Impasse: Polarisation & Paralysis in UN Drug Control”, Drugs and Conflict Debate Paper No. 5 (July 2002), online: http://www.tni.org/reports/drugs/debate5.htm#1.
52 See David Bewley-Taylor, “Habits of a Hegemon: The United States and the Future of the Global Drug Prohibition Regime”, Drugs and Conflict Debate Paper No. 5 (July 2002), online: http://www.tni.Org/reports/drugs/debate5.htm#9.
53 Ibid. Also see Donnelly, Jack, “The United Nations and the Global Drug Control Regime” in Smith, Peter H., ed., Drug Policy in the Americas (Boulder Colo.: Westview Press, 1992) 282 at 298.Google Scholar
54 See Abraham Lowenthal, “The OAS and the Control of Dangerous Drugs” in Peter H. Smith, ed., ibid.
55 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Washington. D.C., Report on Enhanced Multilateral Drug Control Cooperation, vol. 3, no. 21 (1 November 1997), online: http://www.ncjrs.org/justinfo/1997/nov0197.htm.Google Scholar
56 Pal, L., “Missed opportunities or Comparative Advantage? Canadian Contributions to the Study of Public Policy” in Dobuzinskis, Laurent, Howlett, Michael and Laycoc, David, eds., Policy Studies in Canada: The State of the Art (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996) 359.Google Scholar
57 Ibid. at 366.
58 Ibid. at 367.
59 Berthiaume, Denis, Klepak, Hal P. & Aureano, Guillermo, Hemispheric Addiction: Canada and Drug Trafficking in the Americas: The Focal Papers, Canadian Foundation for the Americas, vol. 5. 1997 at 5.Google Scholar
60 Ibid. at 27.
61 Ibid. at 28.
62 Canada, Senate, “Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy: Report of Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs” (September 2002), online: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/rep-e/summary-e.pdf.
63 Online: http://www.drcnet.Org/wol/251.html#healthcanada (accessed 15 September 2002).
64 “Canadian Cops Call for National Drug Strategy, Oppose Legalization” (30 August 2002), online: http://www.drcnet.Org/wol/252.html#canadacops; “Canada Medical Marijuana Battles Continue—Protests in Toronto, Minister Changes Tune” (30 August 2002), online: http://www.drcnet.Org/wol/252.html#canadacops.
65 In March 1998 Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs hosted the Drugs and Human Security in the Americas Expert Meeting. Discussions of this perspective are informed by my participation in that conference.