Dear Editor,
I wish to respond to Mr. Timothy Mc Intosh’s letter in the Stabroek News on 23 January, 2019, titled ‘Let’s have a good discussion on our approach to marijuana’. Thanks to Mr. Mc Intosh for the reference to the article in Guardian’s Online Edition (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jan/22/take-power-away-criminal-gangs-legalise-drugs).
I read the article and it was indeed very informative and reinforces the argument for reform of drugs policies. In this instant, it is the legalization of marijuana.
Both Mr. Mc Intosh and Timothy Jonas mentioned countries which have legalized marijuana and have implemented supporting regulations and measures. The countries mentioned are: Canada, Netherlands (Holland), Portugal and Uruguay. I would like to inform both gentlemen that in the United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Index for 2018, under the ‘Very High Human Development’ category, Canada is number 12, Netherlands at number 10, Portugal at number 41 and Uruguay is at number 55. California is a state in the USA which falls at number 13 in the same category. Guyana on the other hand, is at 125 in the ‘Medium Human Development’ category.
Essentially what this means, is that the countries stated in the argument of these two gentlemen, are very highly developed at various levels to, in the first instance, ensure proper legislation and regulations and the effective enforcement of the legislation and regulations. Secondly, the social sectors are highly functional, including proper support and other required systems, such as safety nets.
Additionally, the GDP per capita income for Canada is over 45,000 USD, Netherlands it is over 48,000 USD, Portugal over 21,000 USD and Uruguay over 16, 000 USD, whereas in Guyana, it is over 4,000 USD. This means that in Canada, Netherlands, Portugal and even in Uruguay, there is money to go around; to purchase milk, cheese, bread, school items, transportation, among others; and also to purchase marijuana, if persons so desire. It also means that at this stage of the development and growth of these countries, they have mechanisms to make these decisions without having severe negative impact on their society.
In the case of Guyana, with GDP per capita being over 4,000 USD, our security sector for example, particularly the private security services; have many of our grandmothers and mothers in their employ so that these women can support their grandchildren and children.
In the societal cultural context, Guyana is mostly a male-dominated society, hence many of the leaders are men, however, when decisions such as legalizing marijuana are made or other similar decisions which may negatively impact families or our children; it is largely the responsibility of our women to deal with and live with the consequences. Our women are bearing and largely raising our society’s children. They are the ones, mostly dealing with issues of addiction in relation to our children, etc.
Are you saying Mr. Mc Intosh and Mr. Jonas, that if decisions have to be made between purchasing marijuana and milk for the children, that milk will be chosen over an addictive substance?
Another point is that, Guyana is not an island on its own somewhere; it is a part of a regional and (international) community. Guyanese are already subject to all sorts of screening and security impediments when traveling to other countries, if Guyana legalizes marijuana, are we going to ensure that Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and the USA change their laws to accommodate this behaviour?
Guyana is about to become, I think, the 7th highest per capita income country in the world, (I stand to be corrected) as result of our oil and gas industry, this will change the entire financial landscape in the country as it relates to our income earners. Our taxation policy may very well be reassessed since taxes may not be the main income earner for the Government. Hence, the argument of taxes from a ‘marijuana industry’ may be irrelevant.
Additionally, even though in some countries the use of marijuana is legal, the cultivation is not, in some cases, except with strict regulations. Will the Ministry of Agriculture have a ‘Marijuana Cultivation Department’ to provide support and extension services? In addition to taxes, would Guyana export marijuana as one of its foreign exchange earners? Would the Guyana Revenue Authority have a ‘Marijuana Tax Collection Department’? Would the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Business have Departments to explore markets and trade agreements and negotiations?
Let’s not be too broad in our attempt to find a solution to this matter, the problem that Mr. Mc Intosh, Mr. Jonas and ANUG are trying to solve in this case, is the criminalization and incarceration of our young people for small amounts of marijuana; therefore the focus should be on alternative sentencing rather than on legalization.
Let’s plan how we will use all of that oil money to fix families and develop stable homes so that our women do not have to work as security guards in the nights but have the option of staying at home with their children and grandchildren; nurturing them, assisting with school assignments; and encouraging our young people to build their own homes and businesses instead of using the oil money to purchase more marijuana.
ANUG’s approach to building a constituency should not be allowing our young people to use drugs freely but rather, to focus on strengthening the institution of the family and improving the quality of life of the citizens.
Please don’t give our women another unsolicited burden to carry ANUG.
Yours faithfully
Audreyanna Thomas
