Cannabis for Private Purposes Bill: public hearings day 3

Meeting report

Election of interim Acting Chairperson

Mr R Dyantyi (ANC) said that the Chairperson had indicated that he would be late. Mr Dyantyi proposed to “get the ball rolling.”

Mr X Nqola (ANC) agreed.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) suggested that an Acting Chairperson should be formally elected according to proper procedure, although the DA would not oppose Mr Dyantyi’s election.

Mr Dyantyi was elected unopposed as Acting Chairperson.

Oral submission: Umzimvubu Farmers Support Network
Mr Ricky Stone, Director, Umzimvubu Farmers Support Network (UFSN), opened UFSN’s submission on the Cannabis for Private Purposes Bill.

Public participation on the Bill

Mr Stone discussed the importance of public participation in the legislature and the logistical difficulties that faced UFSN in preparing its submissions, given the remoteness of its constituencies in Mpondoland. He played a short video from Mpondoland to illustrate this point.

In 2020, UFSN had requested, and received, an extension of the deadline for written submissions on the Bill. However, in the Committee’s meeting of 24 August 2021, the Chairperson had announced that public hearings would be held the following week. UFSN had objected that this was not enough notice, but had nonetheless prepared an oral submission. 

Input from Chief Luthando Dinwayo

Chief Luthando Dinwayo of Mantlaneni in Lusikisiki, Eastern Cape, said that he represented many people – most of whom were illiterate and very poor – who had been trading in cannabis “since time immemorial.” Mantlaneni was known nationally as the heartland of cannabis cultivation, and the apartheid government had even erected a police station right at its centre to try to stop cannabis production there.

The Prince judgment had had unintended consequences. Because people were now allowed to grow their own cannabis, the market for his community’s cannabis had diminished tremendously. The government should promote the cannabis trade through fair policies.

Chief Dinwayo discussed the effects on Mantlaneni of glyphosate spraying, used by the South African Police Service (SAPS) in the forced aerial eradication of cannabis crops, and advocated against by UFSN. The spraying had been “indiscriminate” – it had destroyed other crops, such as maize, and had even affected livestock, thus undermining people’s livelihoods.

The community in Mantlaneni rejected the Bill, and especially three aspects thereof:
- The community had never been consulted on the Bill;
- The licensing system was unfair to those who had been trading in cannabis for years; and
- The prohibition against exposing children to cannabis was incompatible with the role that children traditionally had in helping with cannabis farming. 

Input from Mr Greekson Zweni

Mr Greekson Zweni, Director, UFSN, and a traditional doctor, discussed the indigenous and cultural uses of cannabis in medicines, in rituals, as animal feed, as a contraceptive, and as an income-generating commodity. In the last respect, Mr Zweni said that the cannabis trade had promoted the development of Mpondoland. However, the Bill denied communities their right to use cannabis in these ways.

The Bill destroyed indigenous culture and marginalised indigenous communities. Its provisions, and especially the licensing system, would enrich the very rich – indigenous communities could not afford the licenses.

UFSN recommended that the government should:
- Regulate cannabis in “a farmer-friendly manner,” so that farmers could benefit from the industry;
- Assist farmers to grow cannabis legally and to compete on international markets; and
- Permit each household to cultivate at least one hectare of cannabis.

On the last point, Mr Zweni said that the Bill’s restrictions on cultivation quantities would require him to disobey his ancestors’ instructions about the quantities of cannabis to be used in medicines and rituals.

The current Bill was unhelpful. A new Bill should be drafted, in accordance with South African customs and culture, and in consultation with all stakeholders, especially communities in cannabis-growing regions. 

Discussion

Acting Chairperson Dyantyi invited discussion, and Members asked questions (see below).

However, Mr Stone said that he had to register a formal objection – he did not think that UFSN had been given a full 20 minutes for its submission, and, even if it had, it was ordinary procedure for the Chairperson to alert speakers when they had two minutes left to speak. He thought that he should have been given the opportunity to complete the UFSN submission, and that the remainder of the submission would have helped answer Members’ questions. Would the Acting Chairperson allow him to finish making the submission?

Acting Chairperson Dyantyi assented.

Continuation of submission

Response to Eastern Cape provincial government submission

Mr Stone said that on the first day of the public hearings, the Eastern Cape provincial government had made a submission based on input from members of the public in the Eastern Cape. Contrary to what had been implied in that submission, UFSN sought to clarify that:
- The Eastern Cape government had not convened meetings with the khumkhulas or traditional authorities; and
- The people of the Eastern Cape did not approve of a system in which the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) administered medical cannabis licenses and the provincial government administered hemp permits.

On the latter point, UFSN argued against the distinction between hemp and cannabis, and argued that SAHPRA had the authority to regulate cannabis-derived pharmaceutical products only.

Response to the Bill

UFSN held that the Bill:
- Was unconstitutional;
- Was incorrectly tagged as a Section 75 bill;
- Would do more harm than it sought to prevent; and
- Had not been subject to meaningful public participation, beyond mere “lip-service.” 

Mr Stone said that, its participation in the current process notwithstanding, UFSN reserved the rights of its beneficiaries in two respects:
- The right to meaningful public participation; and
- The right to continue to cultivate, use, and lawfully trade cannabis.

The latter was entrenched in terms of customary and indigenous law rights, which were recognised in the Constitution and which were the only form of “license” that the amaMpondo cannabis farmers should require.

Recommendations

UFSN recommended that:
- Parliament should completely scrap the Bill;
- The President should invoke his executive powers to prohibit all arrests for cannabis offences, and to exempt industrial cannabis from the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act; and
- South Africa should accede to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement, so that it could seek compensation for “bio-piracy” of its indigenous cannabis varieties.

(See presentation)

Discussion

Mr Nqola asked whether the communities represented by UFSN had had the opportunity to express their point of view during the drafting of the National Cannabis Master Plan.

Dr W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) also wanted to know whether UFSN had read the Cannabis Master Plan, and whether it had provided any input during the drafting process.

Mr Stone replied that unfortunately UFSN had not made any submissions on the Cannabis Master Plan. The reason was that, as with the consultation process on the Bill, UFSN had not been given sufficient notice. The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) had alerted attendees at a meeting that it would be accepting public comments over the following seven days – a period which had included the Easter long weekend. As he had explained earlier, the geography of Mpondoland’s villages meant that it was simply impossible to hold meaningful consultations there within such a short period, especially over the sacred Easter weekend. UFSN had written to DALRRD and had asked for a copy of the Master Plan in Xhosa, so that its beneficiaries could understand it. It reserved its rights to be consulted on the Master Plan, and it was waiting for the final version of the Master Plan to be gazetted. Once the gazette appeared, UFSN would submit very comprehensive comments.

Mr Nqola said that UFSN was concerned that cannabis policy should extend economic opportunities to its constituent communities. Mr Zweni had said that rural farmers had to be given an opportunity to trade in cannabis legally. However, Chief Dinwayo had said that his community objected to the licensing system, and both speakers had disapproved of the Bill, seeing it as “a Western instrument” which privileged Western businesses at the expense of communities who had traditionally lived off cannabis cultivation. So, if UFSN objected to the licensing system and to the Bill, what legal instrument did it think should be used? How did UFSN think Parliament should facilitate legal cannabis cultivation and trade?

Mr Nqola also noted UFSN’s concern about the possibility that large companies might exploit the cannabis sector, to the disadvantage of the Mpondoland communities which lived off the proceeds of cannabis cultivation. What did UFSN advise Parliament to do about this? How should the Bill be amended, extended, or otherwise improved to protect rural growers from big business? The Bill was still being processed – it was not a final draft. The intention of the current public consultation process was precisely to give members of the public an opportunity to contribute to the Bill’s development, so that the final product would represent the people.

Mr Stone replied that it was unrealistic to attempt to license each amaMpondo individual who was involved in cannabis farming. Instead, cannabis should be regulated at the point of processing. This was realistic and simple to implement, and it had been implemented in Jamaica, Columbia, and Morocco. It was implemented through a cooperative system, with primary and secondary cooperatives. Cannabis was weighed and graded at a cooperative hub, and then processed accordingly. The current regulatory framework reflected a “Western narrative” in which the amaMpondo and other Africans were seen as a source of low-cost labour. That was not the correct approach – indigenous farmers had the requisite cultivation skills.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen noted that, according to the submission, UFSN had in 2018 participated in a workshop on the drafting of the International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy. Had those guidelines been adopted? Had they been implemented in South Africa? If not, why not? The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJCD) might also be able to provide input on that.

Mr Stone replied that the guidelines were not law and were not binding. Instead, they were intended to be a reference tool for diplomats, lawyers, policymakers, and civil society organisations who sought to ensure that human rights were at the centre of all drug policy. Various governments in Europe were considering the guidelines. UFSN’s written submission made further reference to them.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen asked whether crops in Mpondoland were still being sprayed with glyphosate. Had residents experienced any side effects from the glyphosate?

Mr Stone replied that crops were not being sprayed with glyphosate anymore. The policy had started in the late 1990s and ended in 2016, due to legal action by UFSN. It had had many side effects, which were still being investigated. There were high rates of cancer in the region. The South African Medical Research Council had found an increased incidence of oesophageal cancer and a very rare form of cancer called non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Mr Dyantyi ceded the chair to the Chairperson, who had joined the meeting. 

The Committee noted an apology from Adv S Swart (ACDP).

Oral submission: Cannabis Trade Association Africa
Mr Tebogo Tlhopane, Chairman, Cannabis Trade Association Africa (CTAA), made a submission on behalf of CTAA.

CTAA held that the current regulatory and legislative framework for cannabis was “fragmented.” There was a need for single, broad cannabis bill which would also permit and regulate commercialisation. 

Discussing the current regulatory framework, Mr Tlhopane said that CTAA took issue with:
- The “pay-to-play model” in medicinal cannabis, with high and exclusionary barriers to entry;
- The role of SAPS, “the most corrupt organisation in South Africa,” in enforcement;
- SAHPRA’s “credibility,” given its unscientific regulations and apparent alignment with the interests of big pharma; and
- The disabling of the hemp industry through the low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) threshold, which was incompatible with the climate and did not allow domestic producers to compete internationally.

Recommendations

CTAA recommended that cannabis should be regulated as follows:
- Grade cannabis like fruits, with licensing requirements depending on the grade of the product;
- Classify all non-medical-grade cannabis as a foodstuff;
- Remove industrial cannabis and hemp from the schedules to the Drugs Act and the Medicines and Related Substances Act;
- SAHPRA to regulate medical-grade cannabis products (compounds and those making medicinal claims);
- DALRRD to grant cheap hemp cultivation permits and marijuana growing permits;
- Increase the regulatory thresholds of THC and cannabidiol (CBD); and
- Permit the sale of recreational cannabis to all adults, as per the alcohol regulation model.

CTAA estimated that, correctly regulated, the local cannabis industry could be worth R20 billion and create five million jobs.

(See presentation)

Discussion
Dr Newhoudt-Druchen said that she would ask CTAA a question which she had forgotten to ask UFSN. During the public hearings, the Committee had heard about cannabis seeds and the sale of cannabis seeds. It had been said by many organisations, including CTAA, that cannabis had been grown in South Africa for a very long time. Yet it had also been told that there was a need to import foreign cannabis seeds, instead of only trading in South African seeds. What was CTAA’s view about importing seeds to South Africa?

Mr Tlhopane replied that the seed issue was “a joke.” As Mr Stone had mentioned, the country had lost many cannabis genetics, like Durban Poison, to bio-piracy. There was no legislation around the management and registration of cannabis seeds, so there were no means by which to protect South African genetics through patents and other measures. Even if some seeds were imported, the local industry was reliant on South African genetics, because of its unique climate – it was too hot in South Africa to grow many foreign strains. Incidentally, South Africans, especially in the Eastern Cape, did create their own new genetics, which were suited to the climate. However, those genetics had to be registered, so that they could be recognised and protected as South African intellectual property – just as rooibos was.

The Chairperson noted that CTAA recommended specific increases in regulatory thresholds for THC (see slide 10). What were those recommendations based on?

Mr Tlhopane replied that there was no scientific evidence that THC was harmful, especially at low concentrations of 2% or 3%. So it would not be a “train smash” to increase the THC thresholds, and it was necessary to do so to accommodate the South African climate and allow the cultivation of legally compliant plants. Even a THC concentration of 5% should not be a problem. Currently, farmers were limited to 0.001% THC. That regulation was impossible to comply with – maybe it was possible in Siberia, where it was extremely cold. So there was a disconnect between the regulations and the agricultural reality. The low THC thresholds were destroying an industry that had not even been born yet. He did not know whether the regulations had arisen out of “fright,” but they certainly were not supported by science – if they were, the regulators would have proved it by now.

The Chairperson asked whether CTAA’s proposal to increase the industrial hemp THC threshold to 3% was supported by science.

Mr Tlhopane said that CTAA was making a moderate proposal so as not to “shock the system,” given the very low threshold in place currently. Even a 5% THC concentration would be fine – such products would not have extreme effects if consumed. The regulations had to be anchored by what was realistically possible for cultivators. Cultivators could not comply with the current regulations, because of the ultraviolet levels in South Africa, and so those regulations had to be increased. In any case, the regulatory thresholds were higher everywhere else in the world – why should South Africa be different?

The Chairperson said that he hoped CTAA would have an opportunity to make a presentation to the departments that led the Cannabis Master Plan, so that it could pursue its arguments further.

Mr Tlhopane added that it was crucial to remove at least low-THC hemp from the schedules to the Drugs Act and the Medicines Act. If that had been done immediately, the Committee could be facilitating a different conversation in this meeting – Parliament could be talking about how to implement specific objectives to grow the industry, rather than about how to start. The way to start was to remove that legal obstacle in the schedules. It was a very strong obstacle, and prevented local producers from pursuing any commercialisation whatsoever.

Oral submission: Nyahbinghi National Council
Mr Sibusiso Mtshali, Nyahbinghi National Council (NNC), made a submission on behalf of the NNC.

Mr Mtshali said that the NNC rejected the Bill. The NNC’s main objections to the Bill were:
- Lack of public participation and consultation, including among the Rastafari community;
- “Racist, Eurocentric, and penal-based” views of cannabis, its uses, and its users;
- “Myopic, speculative and non-scientific” limits on quantities for possession and cultivation;
- Complete disregard for indigenous knowledge and uses of the plant;
- Failure to promote an inclusive, sustainable cannabis economy to benefit the Rastafari; and
- “Complete negation” of human rights, and denial of economic opportunity and self-reliance.

Mr Mtshali said that religious and indigenous knowledge should be given equal weight to science in cannabis policymaking. He discussed potential unintended consequences of the Bill, including stigmatisation and the “cannabalisation” of natural resources by international pharmaceutical companies.

Recommendations

The NNC recommended:
- Replacing the narrow Bill with a broad-based cannabis policy, which should go beyond private use;
- Establishing a stakeholder cannabis advisory body and a state-funded cannabis research programme; and
- Removing SAPS from its enforcement role.

On the last point, Mr Mtshali said that cannabis offences were victimless crimes. The only potential victims were individuals who abused cannabis, and substance abuse was more appropriately handled by the Department of Social Development (DSD).

If the Bill was adopted, the Rastafari community should be legally exempted, to guarantee the rights of that community to practice its cultural and religious beliefs without prejudice.

The NNC also requested the opportunity to participate in drafting the Cannabis Master Plan.

(See presentation)

Discussion
Dr Newhoudt-Druchen noted that, according to the submission, the NNC had previously made a submission to the Department of Correctional Services, requesting permission for inmates to use cannabis for rehabilitation. The request had apparently been referred to Parliament. When had the submission been made, and when had it been referred to Parliament? She had been a Member of the Committee since 2019, and she had never heard of this request.

Mr Mtshali replied that he would have to confirm the date, but the submission had been made sometime between 2010 and 2015.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen asked whether the NNC had ever made an oral submission or presentation to another parliamentary committee.

Mr Mtshali replied that this was the NNC’s first engagement with a parliamentary committee.

Oral submission: Mpumalanga Rastafari Community
Ms Letty Mabasa, Mpumalanga Rastafari Community (MRC), made a submission on behalf of the MRC.

Ms Mabasa said that most of the oral submissions thus far had mentioned the Rastafari community, in recognition that the Rastafari were the custodians of cannabis and had borne the brunt of its criminalisation in South Africa. Most police brutality against the Rastafari community was cannabis-related, with Rastas stigmatised as drug users. As the custodians of cannabis, the community sought complete freedom, for everybody, in respect of cannabis.

The MRC opposed the Bill, arguing that it violated 13 sections of the South African Bill of Rights and seven articles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In particular, the MRC objected to the provisions which placed limits on cannabis cultivation, possession, consumption, and exchange, and especially the prohibition on public possession and consumption.

Recommendations

The MRC supported:
- The complete legalisation of cannabis;
- The equal distribution of cannabis wealth to South Africans;
- The removal of cannabis from the drugs schedules; and
- The abolition of licenses and permits, which marginalised indigenous people, favoured large pharmaceutical companies, and were already subject to corruption.

Ms Mabasa said that the Rastafari community should justly receive land, funding, and – for those who had been mistreated, brutalised, or wrongfully convicted – compensation and a commission of enquiry.

(See presentation)

Discussion
Dr Newhoudt-Druchen said that the submission was very clear, and thanked Ms Mabasa for the passion and courage she showed on her community’s behalf. 

Oral submission: New Race Consciousness
Mr Ras Inity Thulo Mpholo, Secretary General, New Race Consciousness (NRC), made a submission on behalf of NRC.

Mr Mpholo described his own experience, and that of others in the Rastafari community, of subjection to police raids and discrimination at university, even following the Prince judgement.

Proposed amendments: Preamble

NRC objected to the Bill’s stated aim of protecting “adults and children against the harms of cannabis,” given that there was no evidence that cannabis caused such harms, especially in comparison to substances like alcohol, tobacco, and even sugar. 

NRC also proposed inserting into the preamble that the Bill aimed to “create a framework to empower previously disadvantaged, marginalised, and disenfranchised adult members of religious, linguistic and cultural communities on account of possession and use of cannabis.”

Proposed amendments: Insertion of additional sections

NRC proposed inserting three additional sections to the Bill, providing for:
- Redress programmes for cultural, religious or linguistic communities such as the Rastafari;
- The use of cannabis for health purposes; and
- Exemptions applying to cultural, religious and linguistic communities, and to cannabis for sacramental, religious, or cultural use.

Proposed amendments: Definitions

NRC proposed amending the definitions to:
- Insert a definition for “medical practitioners,” inclusive of indigenous herbalists and traditional healers;
- Insert a definition for “remuneration,” exclusive of consideration, gifts, and rewards; and
- Amend the definition of “possess in private.”

Other proposed amendments

Finally, NRC proposed amending the Bill to:
- Exempt the Rastafari community from cultivation, cannabis, and consumption offences; and
- Provide for the release of and redress for those previously convicted of cannabis offences. 

Mr Mpholo also commented on the Cannabis Master Plan, and recommended that the deadline for public comments on the Master Plan should be extended.

(See presentation)

Discussion
Mr Dyantyi said that he appreciated Mr Mpholo’s passion.

The Chairperson agreed that the submission had been clear and Mr Mpholo’s passion was evident.

Oral submission: South African Drug Policy Initiative
Dr Keith Scott, Chairperson, South African Drug Policy Initiative (SADPI), made a submission on behalf of SADPI.

Dr Scott said that SADPI did not condone the use of cannabis by children, and supported laws which punished those who provided cannabis to children. Moreover, it urged cannabis users not to use cannabis while using any other psychoactive drugs.

Existing cannabis legislation

Dr Scott said that the “draconian” existing drug legislation had distorted people’s views of cannabis and its users. He urged Members to “take a step back” and view the cannabis issue as though it had never been banned, instead of attempting to tinker with the existing legislation.

South Africa’s current drug laws were based on the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs, which had banned cannabis. But this attempt to ban widely-used drugs like cannabis had, in South Africa and elsewhere:
- Created a trillion-dollar illicit drug market, controlled by gangs and organised crime;
- Encouraged gang-related turf wars which regularly killed innocent bystanders; and
- Resulted in the persecution of drug users and drug traders.

Prohibitions on cannabis had been based on ignorance, prejudice, racism, misplaced moralism, and political expediency. Banning the trade of a popular substance did not abolish the trade – it only drove the trade underground and into the hands of criminals. In fact, in 1961, the United Nations had already known that this was true in respect of alcohol – due to the disastrous failure of prohibition in the United States and Russia – which was why alcohol, though extremely toxic, had not been outlawed alongside cannabis. 

Fundamental realities underlying drug use

Dr Scott said that though drug use was a “multi-factorial” issue, it was not a complex one. Drug regulation had to take into account the following “fundamental realities”:
- Humans had a natural desire to use mind-altering substances, and had been doing so for thousands of years;
- Markets for drugs were driven by demand, not by supply;
- Around 80% of first-time users of a drug never used that drug again;
- Most people who used drugs regularly did not develop addictions or drug abuse problems; and  
- Voluntary drug use – and therefore drug trade – was a victimless crime, and should never be criminalised.

The harms of cannabis

Dr Scott asked Members to imagine that all drugs were unregulated, and they were obliged to ban those that were the most potentially harmful. He focused on comparing cannabis with alcohol.

A cannabis overdose could cause acute psychosis, cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, or cannabis-induced catatonia, all of which were reversible. It was unlikely that cannabis caused violent behaviour, given its sedative effects. Scientific research had also shown that cannabis did not cause schizophrenia or other psychotic illnesses. At most, in some individuals who would ultimately have developed schizophrenia anyway, excessive cannabis use – especially in children and teenagers – could trigger schizophrenia earlier than it otherwise would have manifested.  

On the other hand, alcohol use was strongly associated with many fatal conditions, and with violent behaviour. Alcohol was clearly more harmful than cannabis, and should be banned before cannabis. At the very least, cannabis should be fully legalised, and regulated within a similar framework to that currently used for regulating alcoholic beverages.

Medicinal cannabis and SAHPRA’s role

Dr Scott distinguished cannabis-based pharmaceutical medicines from cannabis used for self-medication. The former had to be submitted for SAHPRA registration, but, beyond that limited subset of cannabis products, SAHPRA should have “absolutely no say” in cannabis regulation.

Thus cannabis should be regulated in the same way that caffeine, another psychoactive substance with a similar safety profile, was regulated. Caffeine occurred in some prescription and over-the-counter medicines, which were registered by SAHPRA, but it also occurred in many widely available grocery products, which were not registered by SAHPRA.

In previous meetings, Members had expressed interested in the possible use of cannabis in treating COVID-19. On that issue, there was no conclusive scientific evidence in either direction, and establishing such evidence would require valid clinical studies, costing at least $1 billion and regulated by SAHPRA. In the meantime, however, there should be no law preventing COVID-19 patients from using cannabis if they believed it would help.

Way forward for Parliament

Dr Scott reminded Members that they were obliged to consider legislation on the basis of some kind of cost-benefit analysis – an analysis to which current drug legislation had never been subjected. He listed the harms that existing cannabis laws had done to the economy, to individuals, and society, especially in and through the criminal justice system. A failure to fully legalise cannabis would perpetuate these problems, as well as further delay the much-needed commercialisation of cannabis.

The Bill and existing cannabis legislation were discriminatory and inequitable, and did far more harm than good. The more punitive the laws were, the worse the effect on individuals and society.

Dr Scott concluded that cannabis use and trade should be fully legalised, and regulated under a similar framework to that currently used to regulate alcohol. If the Committee’s process did not achieve that imperative, it would be a “tragedy,” and would not be supported by any scientific evidence.

Discussion
Adv Breytenbach asked whether cannabis use had any harmful or concerning short-term effects on the user’s cognitive skills.

Dr Scott replied that, if smoked, cannabis’s effects were immediate. There was evidence that it had a sedative effect and impaired cognitive skills and reflexes. That was an important issue in the discussion about whether to test drivers for cannabis use. However, cannabis was a very mild drug. Provided one did not take too much of it, there would not be any severe reaction or any substantial decrease in cognitive skills. In fact, a lot of regular users found that it helped their focus and creativity. The effects all depended on the individual user.

Adv Breytenbach said that she was trying to ascertain whether cannabis had any effects which would require regulating cannabis use differently to alcohol use. Was driving under the influence of cannabis the same as driving under the influence of alcohol, so far as government and government controls were concerned?

Dr Scott replied that driving would have to be addressed differently when it came to cannabis. THC, the primary psychoactive component of cannabis, stayed in the body for a long period of time – it was mainly stored in the fatty tissues and then released into the bloodstream. This meant that people – especially regular or heavy users – could have THC in their blood for several weeks after using cannabis, and without experiencing any impairment whatsoever. So a positive cannabis blood test was not an accurate reflection of somebody’s level of impairment. He did not think it would be a valid test, and there might be resulting legal problems. An alternative to blood tests might have to be found. However, as other submissions had pointed out, cannabis had been used extensively in South Africa and elsewhere in the past, and it had not been a big issue that no testing was done. Perhaps cannabis users would say that that was because they did not drive after using cannabis.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen commented that she, and others who had grown up during apartheid, had been “brainwashed” about cannabis. They had been told never to take cannabis, but they had not learned anything about the plant itself. The public hearings were changing her mindset.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen said that SADPI’s written submission mentioned and objected to two clauses – clause 1(1)(h) and clause 5(a)-(d) – which did not appear at all in the current Bill. There had been the same discrepancy in the submission from Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). She wanted SADPI’s opinion on the current version of the Bill. Should it be written off completely?

Dr Scott replied that he was not a lawyer, but SADPI had been established to promote the legalisation of all drugs, for the reasons discussed in its submission. The Bill should provide for the legal regulation of cannabis, and cannabis should be controlled by as few laws as possible. He was not sure how that would be achieved legislatively. But if Members were at any point confused about how cannabis should be regulated, they should simply think about the regulation of alcohol. How did government control the production, sale, and use of alcohol? People could make their own alcohol at home, for example. SADPI’s argument was that the same framework should be applied to cannabis. It was simple. 

Dr Scott said that Parliament should certainly eliminate any laws which imposed incarceration and severe penalties for cannabis offences. Those were not merited. The side effects of cannabis were similar to those of caffeine – and, in fact, there were recorded cases in which caffeine, but not cannabis, had caused deaths. So why was cannabis controlled by all these “crazy” regulations? As he had said, the main reason was that the status quo was a severely punitive legal framework, which Parliament and the courts were trying to adjust and make less severe. Instead, Parliament should look at the issue from the opposite direction – it should begin by imagining that cannabis was unregulated, and look at the facts to determine which regulations were merited. It should also consider existing examples of frameworks used to control drugs – and alcohol regulations were a good example, because, although they were not perfect, how they worked was well understood.

Oral submission: South African Cannabis Community and Regulatory Association
Ms Janet O’Donoghue, co-founder, South African Cannabis Community and Regulatory Association (SACCRA), made a submission on behalf of SACCRA.

Ms O’Donoghue said that, for SACCRA, to central point to recognise regarding the personal, private use of cannabis was that it was unconstitutional for the law to regulate or mandate the private activities of any adult, unless there was sufficient evidence of criminal activity.

Another point emphasised by SACCRA was that the scheduling of cannabis in the Medicines Act and Drugs Act was unscientific and contrary to the best interests of the people.

SACCRA held that the Bill:
- Derogated several constitutionally protected rights, including the right to privacy;
- Irrationally “compartmentalised” the cannabis plant; and
- Was economically discriminatory and precluded an equitable legal cannabis market, especially due to SAHPRA regulation.

Recommendations

SACCRA recommended that the Bill should be abandoned – it was unnecessary and therefore a waste of time. Instead:
- Cannabis should immediately be rescheduled to Schedule 0, such that cannabis would be regulated under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act;
- To test alternative models, the national Department of Health should immediately issue cannabis research permits to several diverse organisations, including SACCRA members, and ideally provide funding; and
- Ideally, cannabis should ultimately be de-scheduled entirely.

Ms O’Donoghue said that such an approach was compliant with international law, including the 1961 Single Convention. She also asked Members to consider SACCRA’s proposed economic and regulatory model.

(See submission)

Discussion
The Chairperson said that he thought it important for SACCRA to contact DALRRD and the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, so that it could provide input on the Cannabis Master Plan.

Oral submission: Rastafari Ganja Council (Free State)
Ms Mimi Semela, Chairperson, Rastafari Ganja Council (RGC), made a submission on behalf of the RGC’s Free State branch.

Ms Semela said that the Rastafari community – and other communities that used cannabis – had not been consulted during the drafting of the Bill. The community asked to be considered during the drafting of any future cannabis-related legislation.

Proposed amendments: Preamble

In the Bill’s preamble, the RGC recommended:
- Omitting the reference to protecting “adults and children against the harms of cannabis”;
- Inserting that the Bill aimed “to respect the rights of adults belonging to indigenous cultural, religious and linguistic communities to sacramental use of cannabis”; and
- Inserting that the Bill aimed to “review the sentences of persons arrested on account of possession of cannabis.”

Proposed amendments: Definitions

The RGC proposed inserting definitions for:
- “Medical practitioners,” inclusive of indigenous herbalists and traditional healers;
- “Sacramental use”; and
- “Remuneration,” exclusive of non-monetary consideration, gifts, and rewards.

Other proposed amendments

Ms Semela was disconnected from the platform, and Adv Ras Sipho Mantula, Rastafari Institute for Human Rights, continued the submission.

Adv Mantula said that the RGC also proposed amending the Bill to:
- Allow the use of cannabis by children for health purposes, with a caregiver’s permission;
- Provide for exemptions applying to cultural, religious and linguistic communities, and to cannabis used for sacramental, religious, or cultural purposes;
- Exempt the Rastafari community from cultivation, cannabis, and consumption offences;
- Permit smoking cannabis in the immediate presence of non-consenting adults in a private place;
- Permit smoking cannabis in the immediate presence of children during sacramental ceremonies; and
- Extend the expungement of criminal records for cannabis offences to those still in prison.

The RGC also proposed amending the Bill to provide for reparations, redress, reconciliation, and reintegration for previously disadvantaged Rastafari communities. This would include providing that the Rastafari community:
- Should be issued medicinal cannabis permits;
- Had, alongside indigenous knowledge practitioners, special status to obtain research permits;
- Should, with RGC representation, own a combined 40% stake, for 50 years, in large pharmaceutical companies and other entrants to the cannabis industry.

Adv Mantula concluded by showing photos of police brutality against the Rastafari community, to illustrate that SAPS would not properly enforce any such legislation.

(See presentation)  

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked RGC for its submission, and especially for its concrete proposals about how the Bill should be amended. It was important for the Committee to hear the public’s suggestions on how the Bill should be improved.

Oral submission: Rastafari Community of Zayan
Ms Molebogeng Miyene, Rastafari Community of Zayan (RCZ), made a submission on behalf of RCZ.

She discussed the Rastafari experience under apartheid and since 1994, emphasising continued persecution and a lack of government consultation on cannabis policy.

RCZ held that the Bill:
- Undermined the cultural rights of Rastafari and indigenous communities;
- Marginalised Rastafari and indigenous communities;
- Criminalised Rastafari communities; and
- Perpetrated the stigmatisation of cannabis.

Recommendations

When the Chairperson reminded Ms Miyene of the time limit, she asked whether the time limit could be extended.

The Chairperson replied that she should stick to the allocated time – the Committee would read all submissions, including the presentations that accompanied the oral submissions.

RCZ recommended amending the Bill to:
- Amend the definition of “cannabis”;
- Provide for designated smoking areas to accommodate the Rastafari in public places;
- Exempt indigenous and Rastafari communities from the cultivation, possession, transportation, and trade limitations and offences in clauses 2, 3, and 4;
- Exempt the Rastafari community from the offences involving children in clause 6;
- Exempt the Rastafari community from the regulations permitted under clause 9; and
- Decriminalise cultivating and dealing cannabis.

Ms Miyene also outlined various other requests from RCZ, including:
- Remove cannabis from the schedules to the Drugs Act;
- Disband SAHPRA and recall all cannabis cultivation licenses and permits; and
- President to apologise publicly to indigenous and Rastafari communities. 

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked RCZ for its submission. The Committee would study all the submissions and DOJCD would respond to the issues raised.

Ms Miyene told the Chairperson that it was nice to see him again – they had been interviewed together on SABC.

Mr Nqola light-heartedly greeted the man standing behind Ms Miyene.

Programme for the remainder of the meeting

While the Committee was awaiting the next organisation, a member of the public said that he had completed a research proposal about the legal status of cannabis at the University of the Fort Hare.

The Chairperson replied that he could send the research to the Committee in writing. During the public hearings, the Committee only heard from organisations that had asked in advance to make submissions.

The Committee adjourned for a short break.

Upon the Committee’s return, Mr Nqola suggested that the Committee should listen to a different oral submission while waiting for the absent organisation. The Committee was wasting time that it did not have.

The Chairperson replied that the relevant organisation – the Marcus Garvey branch of the RGC – was the last organisation scheduled to make a submission.

Mr Priest Zerah, Provincial Chairperson: Eastern Cape, RGC, said that he had only been informed of the meeting an hour before it started, so he had not prepared in advance. However, he could make an oral submission.

The Committee secretary said that he did not think Mr Zerah represented the branch of the RGC that was scheduled to make a submission. Perhaps he wanted to make a submission in a personal capacity.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had to hear a submission from the organisation that was scheduled to make a submission – the Marcus Garvey branch of the RGC. Did Mr Zerah represent that organisation?

Mr Dyantyi said that he did not.

The Chairperson said that, in that case, Mr Zerah could not make a submission.

Ms Semela said that she was not from the Marcus Garvey branch but she had assisted in coordinating the RGC submissions. The Marcus Garvey branch’s written submission was a 64-page document incorporating submissions from more than eight organisations in the region, including the Eastern Cape branch of the RGC. Mr Zerah was an activist from the Eastern Cape branch, so his submission had been included in the Marcus Garvey branch’s submission. He could therefore represent the Marcus Garvey branch.

The Chairperson sought to confirm that Mr Zerah was a representative of the Marcus Garvey branch of the RGC.

Ms Semela replied that Mr Zerah represented the Eastern Cape branch of the RGC, but that the Marcus Garvey branch of the RGC had collated submissions from various structures – including the Eastern Cape branch – in its written submission. So Mr Zerah’s submission would cover part of the submission that the Marcus Garvey branch would have made.

Oral submission: Rastafari Ganja Council (Western Cape and Eastern Cape)

Mr Zerah made a submission on behalf of RGC structures in the Western Cape and Eastern Cape.

He said that the Bill was unconstitutional and discriminatory, from the first to the last page. It did not protect the Rastafari community’s sacramental rights.

The Eastern Cape branch of the RGC wanted:
- “Total control of the plant, from seed to sale”;
- To help the government keep cannabis, a natural commodity, in the hands of the poor, to support and develop impoverished indigenous communities; and
- “Nothing without us” – that is, for government to listen to and consult with the communities which had been using cannabis for centuries.

The approach that the RGC suggested was supported by both science and scripture. Cannabis was natural and was less harmful than sugar, and it would be inappropriate to continue persecuting and incarcerating its users.

Mr Zerah said that he would send the Eastern Cape branch of the RGC’s written submission to the Committee. The RGC was a national structure, and – as in the government itself – each province was distinct. He represented the Eastern Cape.

Discussion

The Committee secretary said that the representative of the Western Cape Marcus Garvey branch of the RGC, who had been scheduled to make the submission, had arrived in the meeting.

Mr Dyantyi objected.

The Chairperson said that the Committee could not let all the provinces of the RGC make a submission. The Marcus Garvey branch had requested to make a submission, and it had been represented by Mr Zerah in the foregoing submission.

Mr Nqola told Mr Zerah that the Committee had noted his views.

Mr Nqola made further comments in Xhosa, but the Chairperson asked the interpreter from Parliamentary Language Services not to translate his remarks, because it was disruptive.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson said that it was the end of the Committee’s public hearings on the Cannabis for Private Purposes Bill. He thanked observers and all those who had made submissions for participating in what had been “lively” and “vibrant” hearings. 

The Chairperson said that the Committee would find time in its programme to go through all public submissions, and DOJCD – which had attended all three days of the hearings – would respond to some of the issues raised therein. After that, the Committee would begin clause-by-clause deliberations on the Bill. Its programme would depend on the Constitutional Court’s decision about the date of the local elections. There was a lot of work before the Committee.

The Chairperson asked DOJCD when it would be ready to respond to the public submissions. He thought it would require quite a lot of work to go through all the submissions.

Adv Sarel Robbertse, State Law Adviser, DOJCD, agreed that it would be a lot of work. However, DOJCD would probably be ready to present its responses on 21 September. Because there had been so many submissions, the responses would probably take two days – they could be presented on 21 and 22 September.

The Chairperson said that the Committee still had to consider its updated programme.

The Chairperson asked members of the public and the media to leave the digital platform once the meeting was formally adjourned. Members would stay, to discuss “something else.”

The meeting was adjourned.