FURTHER to my column last week on a States Member’s proposition to decriminalise the possession of cannabis for personal use, it appears the greater the consideration given, the more illconceived it appears.

This is not a judgment on the merits and consequences of possession and use of cannabis. An argument used by supporters is that intoxicating liquor has, in the wrong circumstances, very serious negative health and social consequences. Ergo, we regulate the manufacture, sale and public consumption to militate as far as possible the adverse effects. Does this licensing regime for intoxicating liquor therefore bolster the argument for a similar regime surrounding the personal use of cannabis?

I postulated we should limit legal possession to cannabis produced locally. This would sideline organised crime involved in the illegal importation and distribution of cannabis. Yet, the more we all pontificate on the possible solutions, the more questions arise in relation to the whole proposition.

For example, what if local suppliers ran out of weed? Nightmare! Do we limit decriminalised purchase and possession to local residents? Would we be missing an opportunity to revitalise our flagging tourist and agriculture industries with all the extra employment and income tax? Must we accept that in going down this route we will become a cannabis tourism destination? Good, bad or indifferent?

Like it or not, the proposition is a sales exercise – arguably supporters do not understand this. The proposer must sell this concept to the Assembly, a great many Members of which will be at worst antipathetic, at best generally ambivalent, and with a very few odds and sods wildly enthusiastic.

The only realistic way forward is to garner support (inadvertent or otherwise) from non-Assembly bodies before a decriminalisation vote. Arguably the starting point for the proposition is to lay out the unsustainability of the status quo, proposing a way forward to save valuable resources, increase revenue and cut crime.

The proposition should therefore seek to direct the Council of Ministers to gather information from the States police, Customs, Health, Social Services etc as to the impact of illegal importation and consumption of cannabis, with their views on the benefits or otherwise of regulating production and consumption.

This albeit lengthy process will avoid allegations that we are putting the cart before the horse. However, I can foresee Health and Home Affairs Ministers plus antipathetic Members arguing this should not be a priority, although I am not sure this is justifiable. Arguably, though, agencies at the sharp end may have a totally different perspective.