The legalization of recreational cannabis has divided the country into two camps, and for good reason.

In one corner, you have parents who are understandably concerned about the future of their children in a country where it will now be legal to smoke weed in their homes and grow up to four plants in a household, while still allowing the installation of cannabis. associations or clubs. The implications of what this will mean in real terms are still unclear, and as always, where there is uncertainty and a lack of proper communication, it sows fear and panic.

In the other corner, you have those who think that since a lot of people already smoke weed anyway, making it legal takes away the exciting and dangerous benefit of doing something illegal, making it akin to a drink. alcoholic. They also argue that removing all criminal repercussions will free up our justice system to deal with more serious crimes, rather than wasting time and resources for someone caught with personal use marijuana.

But first, a little background for those (like me) who were confused about the terms decriminalization / legalization. In 2015, the Maltese government removed penalties for using cannabis while it was in small amounts, effectively decriminalizing it. Since then, those arrested with small amounts in their possession have to appear in court and face a fine.

The new reform, however, went further, allowing those over 18 to carry up to 7 grams without risk of arrest or fine. Those who are between 7g and 28g will appear in court rather than a criminal court. Cannabis clubs must be non-profit and run by individuals, not businesses and cannot be located near schools or youth centers and cannot have more than 500 members. Unsurprisingly, it is the introduction of these clubs that is a wake-up call to many who see them as another lucrative exercise for those willing to dive into this new market.

Even though the law states that no one can smoke in public or in front of minors, and that no plants can be seen from balconies or terraces, the justified fears of many parents have not gone away. They are worried and worried about what this new legalization will mean when it comes to dealing with their teenager, the apprehension that legalizing pot will lead to more difficult drug use, and the possible effects of long-term use. cannabis term.

Mostly, they are upset and angry that their voices don’t seem to count. It was not only their individual voices that were ignored, but also those of 16 social welfare organizations who joined Caritas, the Oasi Foundation and the Catholic Education Secretariat to voice their concerns as to why they believe that this law will do more harm than good.

Their recommendations included introducing a cap on the percentage of THC, lowering the legal possession limit below 7 grams, and increasing the maximum amount a person is allowed to carry before appearing in court. . Previously, 300 submissions had been submitted during the public consultation. On December 7, 53 organizations presented a petition to Parliament urging the government to introduce stricter regulatory frameworks into the law … again, they were ignored and on December 14, the bill was passed without any amendments. .

The question arises on its own: why bother asking for a public consultation if you are going to ignore the public?

To make matters worse, this issue, like so many before it, has become bogged down in partisan politics. While there are those who are genuinely against the idea of ​​legalizing recreational cannabis, regardless of who proposed it, it is clear that there has been a loud lobby against the law by those who oppose it. anything that is proposed by the current administration, which they see as too progressive and liberal.

That said, even many Labor supporters aren’t too keen on the path their party is taking, which seems to be clinging to the remaining liberal question and rushing through laws, just so it can making international headlines, as we saw this week. This is not the first time that I can point out that there is a strong conservative core in Malta, especially among those raising young families, who feel that no one represents them. So where is the PN in all of this?

I found it revealing that the opposition must have been slapped on the fingers by none other than former nationalist prime minister Lawrence Gonzi who wrote in a Facebook post that “… someone has to prepare for this. ‘remove (the law) as soon as possible using all means. “It was obvious to everyone that he was referring to the current PN leader, Bernard Grech, who flip-flopped on this issue as he did it on others. Grech’s latest statement was that “a PN government would not trample on the rights of Maltese society but would analyze the situation by studying the data and consulting with experts”.

Frankly, I don’t know which experts still need to be consulted because most of them have already submitted their point of view. As for the data, he can just take a look at what happened in other countries that have legalized cannabis (and how they did it) and he will have his answer. Again, this was another missed opportunity for Grech to stand up for something and be the voice of voters who are uncomfortable with the way Labor does things when it comes to bringing in reforms. social changes.

As for the Labor government, while I agree with some of the liberal issues it has championed and helped push forward, like divorce and gay rights, there are times, as with the law. on cannabis, where I feel like he’s trying so hard to be ‘with it’ and ‘plugged in’ that he doesn’t see the big picture. Reading the above mentioned petition, for example, I see nothing wrong with anything that has been proposed and I do not understand why these amendments were not passed.

They were:

• increase the age at which cannabis use would be legalized by the bill from 18 to 25;

• increase the distance between cannabis clubs and schools, youth centers and post-secondary institutions from only 250 meters to 1 kilometer;

• double fines for smoking cannabis in front of children and in public;

• remove the possibility permitted by law to cultivate cannabis in residences adjacent to schools;

• regulate the amount of THC allowed in cannabis;

• remove the reference to education campaigns mentioned in the bill to clearly maintain the current situation where government drug use campaigns focus exclusively on preventive measures explaining the risks of cannabis use.

If the government had listened and compromised, it would not have really changed the substance of the bill, but would have made a big difference in how parents and welfare agencies think about it. Labor might feel like they have the upper hand because they are leading the polls, but flouting the electorate on such sensitive issues smacks of sheer arrogance and a complete disregard for what people think. . What happened to the art of compromise?

And what is even worse is that despite all its “progressiveness”, Labor is still terribly behind in other areas, which I would expect from a left government. Rather than obsessing over frivolous things like saying whether to say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays, or officially replacing words like mother / father with parent and husband / wife with spouse, he needs to take a look and deal with real issues such as social issues. and material poverty, defending the rights and safety of workers and protecting children from all kinds of abuse.

I sometimes get the impression that this administration has a checklist of what it wants to accomplish, but is so out of touch that it has entered the wrong checklist; one that does not square with what really concerns ordinary people.