Weed Zones

THE conversation around the legalisation of marijuana seems to have reached a fever pitch these past few weeks, and hopefully this will lead to a thorough, level-headed examination of the subject.

Of course we have heard politicians promise to push for legalisation before, but the rate of change sadly remains much slower than dripping molasses. Might there be a better way to altogether think about this issue?

We have now heard prominent politicians like Prime Minister Nagamootoo and leader of the opposition Bharat Jagdeo endorse limited legalisation but I wonder whether their positions quite address the key disconnect between the pro- and anti-weed camps. This disconnect has long seemed to me to be housed in the dispute between health and law enforcement officials and young people over the relative costs versus benefits of marijuana usage, both to the individual and the society.

On the one hand, there are medical questions about marijuana’s effect on the brain, addictive properties and association with other illicit drugs that bear much more serious health effects. This is compounded by law enforcement arguments that marijuana is a gateway drug which serves to enable users to seek more powerful narcotics.

An increase in marijuana use would then be strongly correlated with an increase in the use of these drugs, swelling the policing burden in the war on such dangerous substances.
The other camp often counters with arguments about the drug’s health benefits and the creative boost it provides. Importantly, the New York Times writes that marijuana is much less addictive than tobacco, with about 9% of people showing some level of addiction as opposed to 15% for the very much legal tobacco plant.

Even further, the argument regarding marijuana’s health risks pales when compared to tobacco’s, which can cause cancer of the lungs and mouth as well as a myriad of serious health problems both for users and those in their environment.

This leaves the law enforcement argument as the standing one, and rather than attempt to discredit it I think we need to completely rethink our potential solutions to this vexing impasse. I want to suggest a compromise that answers well most law enforcement concerns, even potentially improving the state of law enforcement locally.

This solution will drive huge amounts of revenue for the state, create hundreds of high-paying jobs for those lacking qualifications and facilitate increased tourism and businesses investment. I want to propose weed zones.

Weed zones would simply be four square block areas in which it is legal to buy, sell, consume and carry marijuana. Outside of these areas farming and carrying large quantities of weed would only be allowed under licence by the government. Even further, these zones should specifically be located in economically depressed areas, like Sophia, Tiger Bay and Albouystown.

This will completely flip the dynamic, turning them into economic hotspots where those potentially engaged in illegal activity due to a lack of job opportunities will suddenly find themselves in a position to make substantial, sustained profits.

I’ll go further, and say that instead of requiring policing, neighbourhoods like Tiger Bay will become the safest places in Georgetown if the law is amended to allow these zones. The residents of the area who sell weed will themselves police their environment, because they will want to attract numerous customers, and that can only be done in a safe environment. And those few who engage in criminal activity will also wonder why even take those risks when there are easy profits to be made.

Additionally, because marijuana would be subject to taxation and licensing fees this should drive taxes up sharply. After all, those businesses selling this product must not only pay VAT but all other business taxes and fees. To even obtain a licence to trade in weed would certainly attract a substantial fee, which the state can mandate be renewed every few months.

Weed farmers and transporters would also face stiff taxation given the scale of their operations. Downstream weed products, like brownies or drinks may also be subject to taxation, as deemed feasible by authorities. And all this is readily enforceable because we would know exactly where this commerce was taking place.
Of course, it is now all too easy to see that this new revenue should go toward fighting the truly harmful drugs in our society, giving the police a vital lift in resources available to them.

How can law enforcement professionals now argue against weed zones? Won’t this benefit the broader society so much more than our current anachronistic approach? And if it all turns out not to be what we expect, how easy it would be to close the zones, limiting the experiments impact.

Really, the purpose of this solution is to move weed from the underground economy to the legitimate economy and in so doing turn a plague into a harvest for all involved. Zones allow us to control and monitor this process, so that widespread legalisation doesn’t lead to the chaos many fear.

Finally, spare a thought for those serving lengthy sentences for these crimes, for their children, for their entire communities. A compromise like weed zones might not be perfect, but it makes so much sense I strongly believe the question isn’t why weed zones, but why not?

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.