Marijuana and the right to privacy

GANJA USERS OF NAMIBIA (GUN) PRESIDENT BRIAN JAFTHA ­WRITES:

The right to privacy is being violated by prohibiting the possession, purchase or cultivation of cannabis for personal consumption by and adult in a private dwelling.

We must do away with the moralistic and paternalistic assumption that marijuana used by adults in private is always wrong and unhealthy. The current prohibition limits the right to privacy.

There is no medical evidence that dagga in small amounts is harmful to users, particularly compared to the harm resulting from the use of alcohol. Nor is there proof that marijuana use causes violent or aggressive behavior or lead to the use of more potent or dangerous drugs. The Government must note that the personal consumption of small quantities of marijuana has been decriminalized or legalized in many other democratic countries and advanced economies.

The State continues to fail proving that the existing limitation of privacy is reasonable and justifiable. The relevant legal provision that criminalize personal, private use of dagga by adults must be declared unconstitutional and invalid. Namibian politicians must rectify this constitutional defect.

Even if the adult in question is not at home or in a private dwelling he/she is protected by the right to privacy. For example someone who has cannabis in their pocket for private consumption, and then steps outside their home or dwelling. That is provided the cannabis remains in their pocket and is for personal use.

The point isn't whether marijuana causes harm, but whether criminal prohibition is the best way to address those harms.



'SMALL FISH'

Namibian Police statistics suggest that most anti-drug activity is against those in possession of small quantities. These are people who are unlikely to play any strategic role in drug supply, and this deterrence or removal from the market has little prospect of having any impact overall.

The constitutional right to privacy is unjustly violated by law enforcement officers who stop and search any person, property or vehicle on the grounds of reasonable suspicion.

Article 13 provides that no person shall be subject to interference within the privacy of their homes, their correspondence or communication. Searches of the person or the homes of individuals shall only be justified where it is authorized by a competent judicial officer.

The criminalization of marijuana within the home is irrational, wasteful and it infringes on numerous constitutional rights. The State continues to fail to show that criminal prohibition is the least restrictive way to deal with the problems caused by marijuana.

Most drug arrests are made through stop-and-search or roadblock operations. A small proportion of charges (3% - 6%) are for dealing as opposed to possession. Very few drug arrests are made at ports of entry through special operations. Between 65% and 70% of drug charges are the possession of marijuana.

The presumption is that possession of over 100 grams (about 4 ounces) constitutes dealing. This means that every year police seek out and charge about one in every 150 people for possession of an amount of marijuana that weighs no more than an apple.



BIGGER HARMS ARE NOT ­PROHIBITED

Justifying the criminal prohibition of marijuana is not a matter of proving that it causes harm. Evidence of major harms has not been enough to lead to the criminal prohibition of, for example, alcohol, nicotine, sugar and firearms. The case that needs to be made is whether criminal prohibition is effective, proportionate and the minimally invasive way to address those harms.

The criminalization of cannabis was characterized by racism and the fact that many indigenous Namibians used cannabis. The alleged harms of cannabis is not as severe as historically argued. It also makes little sense to allow the use and possession of alcohol and tobacco and yet criminalize cannabis which is much less harmful.

The prohibition of the right to self-medicate infringes on basic human rights, which is provided for in the Namibian Constitution stating that everyone has the right to respect for his private life and family life.

When the State makes a claim to protect its citizenry, it should be ­required to thoroughly analyse exactly what it is that is being protected and to specify the justification for restricting a human right. Because a personal right is not specifically mentioned it does not mean the government can infringe upon it.

In moral terms, this is what the drug war means. It is the denial of self-ownership and self-determination.

Someone who can't decide what to put in himself does not own himself. The logic of the drug war is that the government owns you.

Look at all the rights trampled on in the name of drug war and we see how all rights are connected. People are denied the right to self-medicate and take the treatment they desire and that is effective. Not just in regards to illegal drugs either, but those that are regulated.

Medical freedom in its true sense is totally impossible without drug freedom. Because of the drug war, the right to travel is impeded, and the right to have and transfer money. Laws against money laundering have sprung up almost entirely because of drug wars.

Anyone who believes that the right to practice free enterprise is important must necessarily oppose the drug war.

All around us we see the police being militarized in the name of a drug war.

Justice delayed is justice denied . . .