Hon. S Shaikh, MP
Chairperson: Select Committee on Security and Justice (National Council of Provinces)
For attention: Hon. S Shaikh, MP
Per email: [email protected]
Dear Hon. S Shaikh, MP
Comments on Cannabis for Private Purposes Bill [B19 – 2020]
1. We refer to the invitation for written submissions on the Cannabis for Private Purposes Bill hereinafter (“the Bill”).
2. Umphakathi Okhathazekile (CYPSA) is a national non-profit and public benefit organisation, focused primarily on youth upliftment and work amongst grassroots communities nationally. We have to date motivated over one million learners nationwide via our drug awareness campaigns, in addition to many other activities and we represent grassroots communities in all nine provinces.
3. CYPSA requests the opportunity to appear before the Select Committee on Security and Justice (National Council of Provinces) to make an oral presentation to the Committee. Our representatives may include the Executive Committee Members listed below, or alternative representatives of the organization as determined by our Executive Committee Members’ possible commitments elsewhere:
4. We have grave reservations about the Bill itself, as well as specific provisions of the Bill, despite further amendments having recently been made to the Bill. Having worked closely with educators, learners, and drug addicts alike for almost 15 years now, we remain apprehensive about the effects that the adoption of this Bill will have on South Africa’s youth, our education system, and our society.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE BILL
5. This Bill was supposedly aimed at freeing up resources by avoiding arrests and resources utilized by arresting and prosecuting cannabis users for what is now considered a minor offence. However, having worked with over 20,000 drug users during the past 15 years, CYPSA is all too aware of the link between cannabis use and a progression to the use of harder drugs and criminality, more specifically heroin (“whoonga” / “nyaope”) in South Africa. The link between cannabis and heroin is especially strong within the South African context, where cannabis is used as a medium in which to smoke cheap powdered heroin.
6. CYPSA objects to the use of this Bill as a vehicle for the first step in implementing a “harm reduction” approach to dealing with drugs and drug addiction in South Africa. We fear that this may be the first step towards legalizing the use of all drugs for recreational purposes in South Africa. Harm reduction measures which have been implemented in first world countries are showing little signs of success and have largely resulted in increased drug use and criminal activity. Further, a European or American model for harm reduction cannot simply be imported into South Africa, a third world country with a unique demographic model. Unlike foreign nations, South Africa has a population pyramid that indicates a large cohort of young people and that we are a “young” nation, versus “older” nations who are more mature and more responsible decision makers.
7. CYPSA objects to the fact that it was considered unnecessary to refer the Bill to the National House of Traditional Leaders in terms of section 18(1)(a) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act,[1] as it was felt that the Bill did not contain provisions pertaining to customary law or customs of traditional communities. Rural communities are the communities most affected by the cultivation and abuse of cannabis and cannabis cultivated in rural areas supplies markets in cities and towns. It is unacceptable that traditional leaders have not been adequately involved in the processes surrounding this Bill.
8. Elders and parents in grassroots and rural communities have no knowledge of, or means to access, the processes through which this Bill is currently passing and are unaware of the opportunity currently being provided for public comment on the Bill via electronic platforms, resulting in a deficient public participation process.
EFFECT OF CANNABIS DECRIMINALIZATION ON THE EDUCATION SYSTEM
9. Feedback received by CYPSA after visiting schools in all nine provinces, has highlighted the reality of the challenges created by cannabis abuse within the South African education system such as:
- A decline in academic performance of learners and an increase in learner dropout rates;
- Leaners in the classroom who cannot be taught and are disruptive whilst under the influence of dagga;
- The progression of learners from dagga abuse to the abuse of harder drugs such as heroin (“whoonga” / ”nyaope”);
- Dagga-fuelled violence, sexual assaults and other criminal offenses committed by learners under the influence of dagga, which includes threats of and acts of violence by learners carried out against educators;
- Members of the public targeting learners as a source of income via the sale of dagga laced muffins and dagga itself in communities and near schools; and
- The misconception in the minds of learners that dagga is a safe substance and fuels creativity and improved learning, whereas cannabis has been shown to cause a drop in the IQ of learners who use the drug versus the IQ of learners who do not.[2] This decrease is not reversed once cannabis use is stopped.
10. Of great concern to CYPSA is the effect that the Bill is likely to have on South Africa’s education system. CYPSA is of the opinion that the black letter law of the Bill does not adequately anticipate, nor does it provide for, the practical ramifications of cannabis decriminalization on the South African education system. CYPSA has observed first-hand that the decriminalization of cannabis for private use by the Constitutional Court has already created a misconception in the minds of South African learners that dagga is a safe substance that is in fact now legal and may be freely used by adolescents.
11. Section 1(1) of the Bill defines an adult as being “a person who is 18 years or older.” Within the South African education system, many learners still completing high school are over the age of 18 years old. How will those learners who are over 18 years of age, who partake of cannabis before school and during break times, and then return to school and disrupt classes and teaching, be dealt with under the proposed Bill?
12. Injuries due to cannabis intoxication during school hours and on school premises are likely to increase, resulting in claims for damages against the DBE.
13. Cannabis decriminalization via this Bill will result in late coming, absenteeism and school dropout escalations due to the increase in the availability and consumption of cannabis. Due to their addiction to cannabis and likely subsequent progression to the use of other narcotics such as “whoonga” / “nyaope”, many learners will drop out altogether.
14. Regular cannabis users will resort to funding their habits by encouraging the use of cannabis amongst their peers. Even those who do not smoke cannabis themselves, may see schools as a lucrative marketplace where they could earn a considerable income. Teachers or learners may supply learners directly and learners already see selling cannabis to acquire cell phones, fashionable clothing, and other luxury items otherwise unavailable to them. It will not be illegal for a learner over the age of 18, or a teacher, to be in possession of smaller quantities of cannabis and they can claim that the cannabis in their possession is intended for personal use.
LACK OF MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF BASIC EDUCATION
15. CYPSA believes that educator, South African teachers unions and the Department of Basic Education have not been adequately consulted in the preparation of this Bill and that the provisions of the Bill will only serve to add to the already almost impossible situation that South African educators face in our nation’s schools.
16. When accidents happen due to learners or teachers being under the influence of cannabis, who will be held responsible? What will happen in the event of a cannabis related injury or even death which takes place on school property during school hours, and will the DBE be held responsible for these incidents?
17. How will cannabis decriminalisation via this Bill affect discipline procedures with regards to aggressiveness and lethargy in school classes on the part of learners who have legally consumed cannabis before school or during break times as they are over the age of 18? Will the DBE be liable in cases of aggressiveness and injuries resulting from cannabis use amongst older learners?
18. Teachers regularly report that they already face challenges in disciplining their learners and that after they have smoked cannabis they cannot be taught or disciplined at all. Attempts to discipline a learner under the influence of cannabis has often resulted in violent acts directed at the teacher concerned, and such incidents will only become more common should this Bill be implemented in its current form.
19. How will cases of cannabis toxicity, commonly reported because of learners having consumed cannabis muffins or other cannabis edibles, resulting in the need for medical treatment during school hours, be handled? Will the DBE be liable for medical costs in such cases?
20. How will increased cannabis use amongst adolescents because of this Bill, impact learner IQ average and matric results on a national level? It is well established in literature that cannabis use lowers IQ average. In an Australian study conducted over a 30-year period it was shown that persistent cannabis users experienced a decline of 8 IQ points between childhood and adulthood (see article below). Will the DBE be held responsible for further deteriorating national matric results?
21. Whilst having had the right to protect their learners from cannabis pulled out from under them, it is likely that those in education will be the very ones called upon to answer for poor school results and will be expected to come up with a way to remedy the situation.
VIOLATION OF THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD PRINCIPLE
22. The Bill raises significant concerns regarding its potential to violate the “best interests of the child” principle enshrined in South African law, should it be adopted. This principle is a fundamental tenet of the Children’s Act,[3] and is based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which South Africa has ratified.
23. Exposure to Second-hand Smoke: The Bill defines smoking cannabis as being to “inhale or exhale smoke produced by ignited cannabis” or “vapour or aerosol of cannabis produced by a vaping device producing cannabis vapour or aerosol.” Whilst the Bill provides for penalties for any adult permitting a child to possess or use cannabis, or causing a child to ingest cannabis, one need only think of a child living in a home where parents and siblings smoke or vape cannabis in their so-called “private” space. By the Bill’s own definitions, children will themselves be smoking cannabis when they inhale the second-hand smoke produced by their parents and siblings and no meaningful mitigation of this harm is possible as it is not realistic to think that every home can be monitored for child exposure to cannabis and cannabis products.
24. Impaired Parental Judgment: Cannabis use can impair parental judgment and coordination, potentially putting children at risk of accidents, neglect, or harm.
25. Increased Risk of Substance Abuse: Easier access to cannabis will increase the risk of children experimenting with the drug, leading to potential long-term substance abuse issues.
26. Unsafe Storage and Accessibility: The Bill does not adequately consider, nor does it provide stringent enough guidelines for the safe storage of cannabis and cannabis derived products in households, making cannabis more accessible to curious children, thereby increasing the risk of accidental consumption.
27. Role Modelling: Parents are considered role models for their children and children often mimic the activities of their parents and older siblings and relatives. The Bill’s leniency toward cannabis use by adults will send a message to our youth that drug use is socially acceptable, and even desirable, further undermining efforts to promote drug-free environments and a drug free generation.
28. Inconsistent Messaging: The government’s efforts to combat drug abuse amongst children, is undermined when government simultaneously considers the legalization of a drug that is harmful to children’s physical and mental health and is shown to lead to the use of “hard drugs” such as heroin (“whoonga”/ “nyaope”) and cocaine. Changes to legislation surrounding cannabis have already sent out the message to South Africa’s youth that cannabis is now legal as observed by CYPSA at schools across the country.
29. Child Custody and Parental Rights: Cannabis use can complicate child custody disputes, especially when the best interests of the child are considered, as it raises questions about one or both parent’s ability to provide a safe and stable environment. CYPSA recently visited schools in Pretoria, during which visits several learners shared stories of abuse at the hands of parents and family members who are “high” after smoking cannabis.
30. Psychosocial Effects: The Bill does not adequately address the psychosocial impact on children living in households where cannabis is being used regularly, potentially leading to emotional and behavioural issues.
31. Educational Implications: The increased normalization of cannabis use will negatively affect children’s performance at school and compromise their prospects. Parents legally using cannabis in the evenings may fail to get their children to school on time or at all, to assist them with their homework or to provide a home environment conducive to academic achievement.
32. Legal and Regulatory Gaps: The Bill is inadequate in providing for and ensuring control over private cannabis use and ensuring that the best interests of the child are safeguarded.
EXPOSURE OF MINORS TO CANNABIS AND CANNABIS DERIVED PRODUCTS
33. In the United States, where cannabis has been decriminalized or legalized in many states, the number of young children unintentionally exposed to edible cannabis products jumped by 1375% over a 5-year period and the legalization and decriminalization of cannabis has been causally linked to poisoning incidents involving children. This trend will certainly evidence itself in South Africa should the Bill be adopted, as it opens the way for more cannabis to be present in more homes, thereby exposing more children to cannabis and cannabis derived products, such as edibles. See articles below:
34. Cannabis related poisoning incidents are not new to South Africa, with recent high-profile incidents of South African learners having been poisoned by cannabis edibles having made international news headlines. The most recent of which involved approximately 90 learners who fell ill after consuming cannabis laced muffins, many of whom had to be hospitalized. This event took place prior to the passing of the Bill, which will certainly lead to a surge in such incidents involving children should it be adopted. See articles below:
THREAT OF INCREASED ROAD ACCIDENTS AND FATALITIES
35. Cannabis consumption and its association with fatal road accidents has been the subject of numerous studies in the United States, where cannabis has been either legalized or decriminalized in several states, shedding light on the potential risks posed by driving under the influence of cannabis.
36. A comprehensive review published in the journal “Epidemiologic Reviews” in 2017 examined 24 studies and determined a substantial link between cannabis use and an elevated risk of fatal traffic accidents.[4]
37. Supporting this evidence, a study featured in “JAMA Internal Medicine” in 2018 analysed data from over 2 million drivers involved in fatal car crashes and concluded that the presence of THC, the psychoactive component in cannabis, was correlated with an increased risk of fatal accidents.[5]
38. Furthermore, a report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the United States highlighted the impairing effects of cannabis on cognitive and motor skills necessary for safe driving, with a direct association between cannabis presence in a driver’s system and an elevated risk of accidents.[6]
39. A study published in the “American Journal of Public Health” in 2019 explored the prevalence of cannabis use among drivers involved in fatal accidents in the United States. The study’s results revealed an increasing trend in cannabis use over time, solidifying the link between cannabis consumption and its contribution to fatal road accidents.[7]
40. A further cause for concern is that the whilst the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development plans to farm hemp from which the narcotic Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-8 THC) can be derived, there is no provision for this substance in the proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act[8] it would seem, as only THC is referred to in the proposed amendments.
41. In conclusion, a convergence of evidence from systematic reviews, large-scale investigations, and authoritative reports underscores the definite link between cannabis consumption and an elevated risk of fatal road accidents. These findings necessitate a comprehensive approach involving education, regulation, and enforcement to address the growing concern of cannabis-impaired driving and ensure public safety.
42. However, it remains to be established how driving under the influence of cannabis in South Africa is to be avoided, policed and how the costs involved in testing for the presence of cannabis in the system of road users are to be funded, now that the Bill plans to open the flood gates of private cannabis use resulting in increased incidences of drivers under the influence of cannabis.
LACK OF MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
43. CYPSA believes that the Traffic Police, Traffic Departments, and the Department of Transport have not been adequately consulted during the preparation of this Bill. The smoking of cannabis in private will result in people who then leave their location and enter vehicles to travel. Accidents resulting from drivers under the influence of cannabis will result in the loss of lives, even the lives of innocent road users who do not use cannabis.
44. CYPSA believes that the Department of Transport is not adequately equipped to deal with the increased burden of testing for and policing of cannabis road users that this Bill will place on them. Whilst THC, the narcotic ingredient in cannabis now appears in proposed amendments to Road Traffic Act,[9] it is not clear where funding will be sourced for the equipment required to detect the THC levels of drivers on a national scale.
HEMP CULTIVATION AND DELTA-8 THC
45. CYPSA notes that whilst the Bill has been amended to remove provisions relating to hemp cultivation, the memorandum on the objectives of the Bill still make mention in paragraph 1.4 of plans by the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development to proceed with plans to cultivate hemp.
46. However, Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol, also known as delta-8 THC, is a psychoactive substance found in cannabis and hemp. Delta-8 THC is one of over one hundred cannabinoids produced naturally by the cannabis plant but is not found in significant amounts in the cannabis plant. As a result, concentrated amounts of delta-8 THC are typically manufactured from hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD).
47. Delta-8 THC has psychoactive and intoxicating effects, like delta-9 THC (i.e., the component responsible for the “high” people may experience from using cannabis). The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is aware of media reports of delta-8 THC products getting consumers “high.” The FDA is also concerned that delta-8 THC products likely expose consumers to much higher levels of the substance than are naturally occurring in hemp cannabis raw extracts.
48. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received 104 reports of adverse events in patients who consumed delta-8 THC (hemp derived) products between December 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022. Of these 104 adverse event reports:
(i) 77% involved adults, 8% involved paediatric patients less than 18 years of age, and 15% did not report age.
(ii) 55% required intervention (e.g., evaluation by emergency medical services) or hospital admission.
(iii) 66% described adverse events after ingestion of delta-8 THC-containing food products (e.g., brownies, gummies).
(iv) Adverse events included, but were not limited to hallucinations, vomiting, tremor, anxiety, dizziness, confusion, and loss of consciousness.[10]
49. National poison control centres in the United States received 2,362 exposure cases of delta-8 THC products between January 1, 2021 (i.e., date that delta-8 THC product code was added to database), and February 28, 2022. Of the 2,362 exposure cases:
(i) 58% involved adults, 41% involved paediatric patients less than 18 years of age, and 1% did not report age.
(ii) 40% involved unintentional exposure to delta-8 THC and 82% of these unintentional exposures affected paediatric patients.
(iii) 70% required health care facility evaluation, of which 8% resulted in admission to a critical care unit; 45% of patients requiring health care facility evaluation were paediatric patients.
(iv) One paediatric case was coded with a medical outcome of death.[11]
THE MYTH OF “MEDICAL CANNABIS”
50. Section 3(2)(b) allows an adult to administer cannabis to a child without their knowledge and consent if cannabis is prescribed by a medical practitioner. The issue of so-called “medical cannabis” is one that is firmly rooted in the realm of science, and the safety and suitability of cannabis and its derivatives for medicinal use is something that can either be confirmed or disproved by scientific means alone.
51. There is still no clear definition of medical cannabis in the South African context, and we fear that the public are being misled as a result. There are groups in South Africa who claim to smoke cannabis for medical reasons, whereas to ingest cannabis by smoking the substance is harmful to the human body as confirmed by CANSA.[12]
52. A clear and concise definition of precisely what constitutes medicinal cannabis must be decided upon and presented openly to the public of South Africa for their consideration and comment, and science should dictate this definition.
53. All substances need to pass through extensive testing and strict screening processes before they can be registered with the Medicines Control Counsel and other medical bodies in South Africa. This process can take several years of intensive study. Side effects of any substance must be documented. Cannabis itself contains thousands of metabolites (chemicals produced when a substance is broken down by the body), all of these must be thoroughly tested and documented before cannabis products can be deemed safe and registered and released as medicine fit for public consumption.[13]
54. This process and the usual best practices should under no circumstances be ‘fast tracked’ or findings ignored due to public pressure and demand. Interference in these processes should not be tolerated and the fact remains that it has yet to be determined, scientifically, whether the health risks associated with the use of any cannabis based “medications” outweigh the benefits thereof.
55. It appears that many so-called cannabis-based “medications” make the claim that they are effective for the treatment of pain in cancer patients specifically. However, they do not cure cancer as is often claimed to mislead the public and thereby profit from the sale of these products and are only used as supplements to existing treatments for cancer symptoms. We fear that many may be supporting legislative amendments as they are under the false impression that cannabis derivatives will cure their cancer or that these new medications will be far superior to those already in existence. CANSA itself has stated that this is in fact not the case.[14]
INADEQUATE AND INCOSISTENT OFFENSES AND PENALTIES STIPULATED
56. CYPSA notes inconsistences in the offenses and penalties prescribes in section 4 of the Bill, in that the offenses which relate to the ingestion of cannabis or cannabis-based products by minors because of the actions of adults, carry some of the lowest penalties of all offenses detailed, but pose the highest risk to the psychological and physical well-being of the child. These provisions do not adequately protect the best interests of the child.
57. Whilst section 4(3)(a) of the Bill makes it an offense to fail to store cannabis in a secure space inaccessible to a child, the penalty of a fine of R2000 for committing this offence is woefully inadequate. It is also unclear as to why a more severe penalty of a 12 month prison sentence or fine is prescribed in section 4(2) of the Bill for a parent who permits their child to use cannabis, whereas the inadvertent use of cannabis or cannabis products by a minor will have the same results on the child as in a case where a parent permitted the child to use these substances.
58. The penalty provided for in section 4(2) of 12 months or a fine is woefully inadequate. To permit a child to possess or use cannabis, which is a drug, is a dereliction of parental responsibility. It is unclear how these penalties can be justified when one considers that a 10-year prison sentence is prescribed in section 4(6) for any adult causing a child to deal in cannabis. To allow a child to use cannabis is far more harmful to the child psychologically and physically and may even result in a child becoming a habitual cannabis user who eventually progresses to using so-called hard drugs.
59. Whilst section 4(8)(c) of the Bill makes it an offense for an individual to smoke or consume cannabis whilst in a vehicle or on a public road, this provision does not address those who smoke or consume cannabis privately before entering and driving a motor vehicle on public roads, thereby jeopardizing the safety and lives of innocent road users and their families. A cannabis high can last for several hours.
60. The penalty of a R2000 fine for operating a vehicle whilst using cannabis in section 4(8)(c) of the Bill is woefully inadequate when considering that lives are at risk, and when considering that to operate a vehicle whilst under the influence of cannabis is as dangerous as doing so whilst under the influence of alcohol, for which more severe penalties are prescribed in South African law.
61. We note that section 4 of the Bill in many cases makes no stipulation as to the value of fines that may be imposed for offences and that the fines which stipulated appear to be extremely low, and we consider these provisions deficient as a result. Amounts should be stipulated which adequately equate to the seriousness of the offense committed, to act as a serious deterrent to committing these offenses, and to avoid a situation where small fines are imposed as opposed to imposing the jail terms prescribed, thereby reducing the criminal sanctions envisioned to a mere slap on the wrist. With our countries prisons already crowded such a scenario is not unlikely, as courts may very well resort to imposing fines as opposed to jail sentences for offenses committed under this Bill.
EFFECT ON OUR COMMUNITIES AND OUR NATION
62. The lack of matriculants with Mathematics and Science skills is already well publicized. South Africa is currently bleeding professionals and qualified individuals at an alarming rate. Now is a time that we as South Africans should be doing all we can to safeguard and encourage the quality education of our young people, who we are relying upon to become the future professionals and leaders of our nation. Decriminalizing cannabis will only serve to lead to a dramatic increase in the skills shortage we already face in South Africa due to an increase in academic underachievement.
63. An increased availability of cannabis will lead to an increased use of cannabis within our communities. Once people progress from cannabis use to using heroin or crack cocaine, their drug use is accompanied by habitual criminality and violence. Increasing the availability of cannabis and removing penalties for the possession and use of cannabis, will ultimately fuel an increase in harder drug use and will place an increased demand on the SAPS and the criminal justice system of South Africa.
64. The effort to decriminalize cannabis for private use has simply resulted in a long list of new offences having been created in Section 4 of the Bill, which must now be policed and enforced, thereby burdening an already underequipped, underfunded and undermanned police force in the effort to try and legitimize the Bill and to give some consideration to protecting the rights and wellbeing of children which are being placed at risk by the Bill itself in the first place.
65. Increased use of cannabis in our communities because of this Bill will lead to an increase in cases of mental illness. Not only will this place an increased burden on South Africa’s already failing healthcare system, but mentally ill people are also often responsible for violent or sexual offenses.
66. CYPSA further believes that increased cannabis use in our communities will only serve to fuel the wave of Gender Based Violence (GBV) already sweeping through our country’s communities.
SATISFACTORY REGULATION OF CANNABIS A PRACTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY
67. To control and regulate cannabis in the manner suggested by the Bill is a practical impossibility, as has been seen even in first world and well-resourced countries such as the United States.
68. It is unclear how the offenses and penalties provided for in the Bill are likely to be policed in a country with an already overburdened police force who currently exhibit a lack of control over and ability to police substances such as alcohol and tobacco, which are currently readily available those below the age of 18.
RECOMMENDATIONS
69. CYPSA recommends that National and Local Government officials visit school districts to gain an authentic picture of what is currently happening on the ground, where in some schools 1 out of every 10 learners is addicted to cannabis, many of whom are already on a “high” early in the morning before school even starts for the day.
70. CYPSA would advise specifically stipulating schools and other similar educational institutions and places where children gather, under the rather vague definition of a “public place” under section 1 of the Bill, to ensure no doubt exists as to the fact that the provisions of the Bill apply to these locations.
71. We recommend that specific provisions be incorporated in the Bill or amendments be made to education law, to deal with school going learners over the age of 18 years and decriminalized cannabis in relation to the education system in general, to protect the Constitutional right[15] to a quality education of South Africa’s youth.
72. CYPSA believes that available funding and resources could be better utilized on improving the education system in our country than trying to regulate and police a decriminalized cannabis market. Thousands of South African learners are currently required to use pit toilets during school hours, have no electricity or running water at their schools, have no access to resources for research and study purposes, and many South African schools are in a state of disrepair.
73. CYPSA would also advise that more severe penalties be stipulated in section 4 of the Bill, for those in found to be in possession of cannabis on school premises or within a stipulated radius of schools and other venues where children gather, versus public places in general. CYPSA is aware of incidents were those selling sweets and snacks to learners on or near school property have been caught in possession of cannabis and cannabis laced muffins which were being sold to learners, and where unscrupulous educators and other school staff were caught selling cannabis to learners.
74 . Further, section 4 of the Bill must be revisited its entirety and inconsistencies and deficient penalties addressed.
75. With a global trend towards the decriminalizing of all drugs, even so-called “hard drugs” such as heroin and cocaine, CYPSA believes we as a nation should fight the global trend towards decriminalization and protect the minds and wellbeing of South Africa’s youth and rather make efforts to assist those struggling with substance abuse. More especially when one considers the negative results of legalization and decriminalization emerging in those nations where drugs have been decriminalized. See articles below:
76. More research is required, within the uniquely South African context, before a Bill such as this can be safely drafted and adopted, if it can be safely done so at all. CYPSA is not aware of any formal or meaningful research having been done into the likely results of cannabis decriminalization in a South African context to date, and it remains unclear whether this Bill and its provisions are based on or guided by any reliable sources of information whatsoever.
77. The rights of our children should be recognized and weighed against the so-called right of an adult to consume cannabis legally. For example, the child’s right to freedom of choice and the right to personal security, the right to a basic education and a safe environment, the best interests of the child principle, and the right of access to health care services. The Bill will not only have serious social implications, but also serious legal implications. The Bill should, but does not, adequately consider children’s rights and should not be passed in its current form.
78. All stakeholders, including the Departments of Education and Transport, and such as the Department of Health, must be consulted in the processes surrounding this Bill. The Bill to date has been approached with the criminal justice system and the right to privacy in mind, which by no means adequately considers the far reaching impacts on many other aspects of South African society that passing legislation such as this Bill is likely to have.
79. “Hemp” is not a purely industrial, safe, and non-narcotic variant of the cannabis plant as the public and legislators have been led to believe and should be regulated in the Bill. The request by the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development to amend legislation to allow for the commercial production of hemp in South Africa should be an approached with a firm eye on the potential for abuse inherent in any such amendments. Hemp should be subject to the same controls, regulations, and offenses, more especially in relation to offenses involving children, in order to avoid the need for South Africa to legislate after the fact in order to close the loophole created by failing to make provision for psychoactive products manufactured and marketed from hemp derivatives, as law makers in the United States are now being forced to do.
80. CYPSA therefore recommends that the Select Committee on Security and Justice (National Council of Provinces) take a cautious approach and reject this Bill on all, if not many of, the grounds listed above and request that adequate research be conducted of the likely economic and social impacts of the implementation of this proposed legislation and that the Bill be amended accordingly and thereafter submitted to a new round of meaningful public participation, which would include the participation of the inputs of the traditional leadership of all nine provinces. The future and wellbeing of our nation is at stake, and we can lose nothing by erring on the side of caution when considering such weighty changes to the laws surrounding dagga.
[1] Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003.
[2] Mokrysz C, Landy R, Gage SH, Munafò MR, Roiser JP, Curran HV. Are IQ and educational outcomes in teenagers related to their cannabis use? A prospective cohort study. J Psychopharmacol. 2016 Feb;30(2):159-68.
[3] The Childrens Act 38 of 2005.
[4] Asbridge, M., Hayden, J. A., & Cartwright, J. L. (2012). Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 344, e536.
[5] Li, M. C., Brady, J. E., DiMaggio, C. J., Lusardi, A. R., Tzong, K. Y., & Li, G. (2012). Marijuana use and motor vehicle crashes. Epidemiologic reviews, 34(1), 65–72.
[6] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2017). Marijuana-Impaired Driving: A Report to Congress.
[7] Terry-McElrath, Y. M., & Patrick, M. E. (2019). Simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use among US high school seniors from 1976 to 2018: trends, reasons, and situations of use. American journal of public health, 109(6), 929–934.
[8] National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996.
[9] National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996.
[10] FDA (2022) Available at: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/5-things-know-about-delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol-delta-8-thc (Accessed: 12 October 2023).
[11] FDA (2022) Available at: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/5-things-know-about-delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol-delta-8-thc (Accessed: 12 October 2023).
[12] Herbst M C et al (2021) Available at: https://cansa.org.za/files/2021/09/Fact-Sheet-and-Position-Statement-on-Cannabis-in-South-Africa-September-2021.pdf (Accessed: 12 October 2023).
[13] Herbst M C et al (2021) Available at: https://cansa.org.za/files/2021/09/Fact-Sheet-and-Position-Statement-on-Cannabis-in-South-Africa-September-2021.pdf (Accessed: 12 October 2023).
[14] Herbst M C et al (2021) Available at: https://cansa.org.za/files/2021/09/Fact-Sheet-and-Position-Statement-on-Cannabis-in-South-Africa-September-2021.pdf (Accessed: 12 October 2023).
[15] Section 29(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
