Ganja and gambling debates lose out to cruise fight
(CNS): As the battle over the referendum question on the development of cruise berthing facilities reaches fever pitch, a week from Election Day, debates on the other two questions — about the introduction of a national lottery and the decriminalisation of the use and small possession of ganja — have been almost non-existent.
While the two issues have been mentioned in passing, it has become evident that the country seems indifferent to these two questions, while the cruise fight is dominating social media and other debate forums.
Surprisingly, the many churches on the islands and the various church organisations have said very little on either the ganja or the gambling issues.
CNS has reached out to the Cayman Ministers Association for comment about what could be considered moral questions. We are still waiting for a response on how these subjects, especially the idea of gambling in the form of a national lottery, are being handled from the pulpit.
Nevertheless, this week, a number of people involved in promoting the legalisation of cannabis released the position paper they submitted to the government as part of its consultation on the ganja question.
Two of them, local psychiatrist Dr Marc Lockhart and local attorney Orrie Merren, in their personal rather than professional capacities, are encouraging the public to vote ‘yes’ on the ganja question as another incremental step towards a more liberal regime in relation to the legal use of the drug and a possible future industry for the Cayman Islands.
The use of medical tinctures was legalised in 2017, but since then, no further changes have been made. It is still illegal in Cayman to consume the drug without a prescription, and even those with prescriptions cannot smoke, drink or eat the drug in its natural state or grow their own plants.
In a detailed discussion document, the two men, who have long supported a change in the draconian laws in relation to the use of ganja, have argued that, in the wake of the referendum, Cayman could adopt a wider decriminalisation model than politicians have implied, despite concerns over the international drug treaties that Cayman is bound by as an overseas territory of the UK.
“Courts, in certain jurisdictions, have held that the Wide Decriminalisation model is based upon constitutional privacy rights as well as the right to health and personal liberty,” Merren and Lockhart said. “In the Cayman Islands, this type of decriminalisation has an even firmer constitutional basis as our privacy rights… are amongst the strongest fundamental rights and freedoms in our Bill of Rights that can act as constitutional safeguards against UN international drug conventions.”
In their very detailed and technical submissions, the men argued that the various benefits of CBD outweigh any detriment and that it is safe for human consumption. They argue that wider decriminalisation would pave the way for legal scientific research, supported by clinical health trials that could be conducted here.
They also say that if people were allowed to cultivate their own plants, they could avoid the risk of purchasing contaminated products. This would also discourage the illicit drug trade, where ganja laced with hard drugs is smuggled into the country along with guns and other contraband.
Users who grow their own plants retain control and can avoid dealing with criminals, while police resources can be directed to the traffickers rather than ganja gardeners who have no connection to the criminal world.
“With proper implementation, limited resources can be better applied towards tackling problems associated with hard drugs and serious crime, as well as re-focusing efforts concerning personal uses of cannabis toward rehabilitation and drug education,” the men submitted.
How the next government handles the ganja question depends on the result of the referendum and who ends up in power. While most MPs have said they will be directed by the vote, all three questions are non-binding and merely a guide.
Nevertheless, the UPM government has argued that the vote still matters. In a press release issued Thursday, the CIG said the result is a “crucial step in the policy-making process” as those voters who express their views next Wednesday will give valuable insight into public sentiment.
However, all three questions, including the ganja question, are not well defined, and the decriminalisation proposition could be interpreted very differently by whoever takes the reins of power.
What is certain is that the vote can only give the government an idea that voters are for or against the current, arguably outdated, and draconian situation that currently exists. Some candidates are arguing purely for the narrowest form of decriminalising by removing only criminal conviction but still fining for possession and consumption.
Other candidates see the potential for a wider approach and the development of local cultivation. Either way, however, a yes vote may still see little to no change, and a no vote would not necessarily bind a future administration from holding another vote on a more detailed proposal based on a specific question about a broader, but safer, legal regime.
The question about the national lottery is also vague. There has been little indication on how a lottery would be run or fit into the current legal structure of a prohibition on all forms of gambling.
Another issue is feasibility. Lotteries are more attractive when the prizes are big, but given Cayman’s relatively small market, administering it, raising money for good causes and providing an attractive enough jackpot may prove unfeasible even if it receives voters’ support.
Meanwhile, on Thursday evening at 7pm, Radio Cayman is hosting an open mic panel programme with Tourism Minister Kenneth Bryan, who has spearheaded the referendum and all three questions, along with Elections Supervisor Wesley Howell. Voters are encouraged to submit questions both before and during the programme to publicconsultation@gov.ky or call 949-8037 during the show.
See Lockhart and Merren’s full submission in the CNS Library.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Public education on 3 Questions:
Cruise Pier.. 6% Should Fail.
Gambling…4% Should Fail.
Ganja…1% Should Fsil, but will Pass, due to ignorance Botes, who don’t know the difference between Decriminalize small amounts for Medicinal/Personal use vs. Legalize foridiors to be smoking outside restaurants and offices, snd on public areas, and people getting fired from jobs for showing up full of second hand smoke.
And more high driving accidents.
Lazy churches, bad mind cops, and conflicted politicians will see Cayman youth fail even more, as legit WEED HEADS.
Cayman gone to krapp now.
Good buddeh, you stoned awa?
If we are so short sighted to vote yes to a port we deserve to fail.
Ganja would solve many of societies ills. Better to have a bunch of stoners chilling at home than a bunch of drunk drivers or drunk people fighting etc etc
Casinos would just create more crime. This is a standard statistic for casinos.
Yes to ganja.
No to casinos.
The vote is not on Casinos – its on a government run lottery
NO, NO, NO.
No to everything. Government can’t manage any of it.There is enough drugs and the politicians don’t care. They are easy to get votes from. I wouldn’t want government in charge of a lottery. They are wasting enough government money as it is.
Cayman a ‘Yes’ vote for Decriminalizing small amounts of Ganja and National Lottery Introduction will do far less damage to what is left of our natural environment than voting ‘Yes’ to a cruise berthing structure. I am a generational Caymanian and have no fear saying that Cayman is losing its ‘flair’ as a tourism destination other than for the ‘MAGA RICH’ to launder their money by buying up huge chunks of real estate in our country. Cayman must never think that our tourism industry can not crumble, and the entire country for that matter, so we must do everything in our power to sustain our natural environment that is the top reason why the average tourists visits our shores.
Do remember my fellow Caymanians, bigger and more power economies throughout the world and time have crumbled due to greed, power and control over its people.
What does imported Jamaican ganja have to do with Caymanian flair and tourism product?
You definitely don’t smoke if you think all the cannabis here is Jamaican gas-can smuggled garbage. Things have changed.
Territory , “ The entire territory for that matter “.
Right! Who needs a dock when you can smoke dope instead
Maybe a casino at the end of the dock and make it a place where it’s legal to smoke weed. A trifecta!
More like
Who needs to work, when you can get high instead.
Cool Irie and Jamaica here we come.
“Do you support the decriminalisation of the consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis?”, is the question posed in the referendum.
That has to be the most shortsighted and stupid question I have ever seen in a referendum. It does not call for legalising supplying storing, distributing, selling or any other of the activities that must take place in order to supply these decriminalised “small amounts”.
The obvious point that the morons who wrote the question mindlessly miss is: Where the hell are these “small amounts” going to come from? Not all consumers will want to–or be able to–grow their own “small amounts”. Absent fully legalising all aspects of local trade in cannabis, the only possible answer is: the ganga will come from illegal–yea, criminal–sources. That is by definition if only “small amounts” are “decriminalised”. The outcome to limiting it only to decriminalising possession of small amounts is that the illegal drug trade expands exponentially to accommodate the vastly increased demand.
I am still voting Yes, but palming my forehead at the stupidity of the question.
To be honest and upfront with voters, the thrust should be: Legalise it!
If I’m not mistaken, I think there’s a legal barrier to fully legalizing it because we are still a British territory, so they can only go as far as decriminalizing it.
@CNS The site has always had a caching issue. Depending on your backend, there are various straightforward solutions to make sure the page is current.
CNS: It’s not a caching issue on the backend or the server.
If we can allow 18 year olds to buy unlimited litres of liquor, we can decrimalise cannabis so that when they’re caught with 3.45 litres of rum in their car along with two spliffs, they get the same slap on the wrist for the weed as they get for the amount of alcohol that could literally KILL them whereas you cannot overdose on any amount of ganja.
Stop the hypocrisy. Stop ruining young people’s lives. We all make stupid mistakes and currently more people consume cannabis than alcohol in the free world. Get with the times and come off the 1945 reefer madness propaganda spread to oppress minorities fueled by racism.
Vote YES to decriminalizing cannabis – this is not legalizing it.
Gambling and Ganja did not lose out. If you see the rampant spending to convince us to vote yes on the docks, it might be interpreted that way. They will be handed the second defeat this election on this subject. Take back what is yours, Caymanians. Voting kills Giants; be a David.
Not legalize, but looking the other way as our youth have their brains fried and ambition removed.
No NO NO. to the slippery slope ahead.
I have a Master’s degree and bun ganja regularly (have a legal medical card but the oil too expensive).
Stop generalizing. It’s the user, not the plant. I suffer from insomnia and depression – the pills only gave me bad nightmares and made me feel wired all day.
The medical plant aka ganja does miracles for me and makes me feel normal, not lazy.
How many persons were arrested for possession of ganja in 2023? 73. What percentage is that of the persons that uses it? What would be interesting to know how many of those persons would have a criminal record anyway if it was decriminalized. It would appear that the Police and the Courts have already decided to decriminalize it.
If you’re extrapolating use based on how many people the RCIPS caught you off to a bad start Lmfao
Look to your left. That person likely consumes ganja. It’s 2025 teedee.
And the person to your right…Cocaine.
Coke is processed with gasoline and other harmful chemicals into an unnatural compound
Cannabis is grown with sun, soil and water. The tree is cut, dried, and then you can bake it into cassava cake, cookies, even brew a tea. All natural. Don’t need to smoke it for medical benefit.
Let me guess, Southern New Hampshire?
The paradox is: how do we decriminalize something – sensible as that might be – that is also illegal to grow here, without also voting yes to the narco transshipment economy that supports the illegal supply chain, and the money laundering that sends funds back? I am all for decriminalizing and even legalizing small recreational quantities, if folks want to do that *and not drive*, but no to that supply chain that also brings cocaine, guns, ammo, thugs, and fuels our unchecked gang leaders. There are lots of other framework parts that are missing that flow into this question, and none of our politicians can be trusted to oversee it competently.
You whomsuever you are@8:03 pm pm knowa nutin about nothing. Yes you can overdose from cannabis. Speaking from an informed viewpoint, enough St Anns red or Colombian Red will put ya in a coma fe days and ya cant move no limb or bat an eye; and if da na an overdose bredren, the word is obsolete.
@CNS: For some reason, Thursday articles (and relevant comments) only showed on my phone Friday morning, even though I kept refreshing my browser throughout the day on Thursday. I wonder if others are having the same issue.
CNS: Sorry about that. Try clearing the browser cookies. That usually works.
Hi CNS, I always view your site in incognito mode. If I don’t it seems the cookies prevent me from seeing your newer articles and comments until days later.
Ie regular browsing your site is 3 days behind, incognito up to date. It isn’t a problem on our end and has been this way for ages.
CNS: Yes, I know but I can’t find out what the problems is. I think I may have to change the theme.
Cheap junk is what the problem is.
Vote yes to the piers and that is exactly what you will get.
Cheap junk for tourists getting high on the public beach, cheap junk in tourism, and even more cheap junk in the waterfront shops already selling “souvenirs”.
Is that the image Cayman wants..?
try refreshing using Control+F5 as that will refresh the page and the cache.
@CNS Yes, I’m having the same issue and have been for at least a month. I’ve cleared my cache, done all that you should do from an IT perspective but after a day it’s back to the same issue. Have tried in 3 different browsers. Think it might be a CNS issue.
CNS: My working theory at the moment is that it’s a theme issue. This one is no longer being updated so it may be developing quirks. I’ve started looking for a replacement. In the meantime, I hope you’ll all bear with us.
@CNS thanks for acknowledging there’s an issue and working to resolve it.
Listening to the ‘debate’ and ‘discussion’ on this issue has been near maddening.
At least the cruise debate insofar as it exists actually rouses anger in me, but the cannabis ‘debate’ is liable to get me an extended stay in the Poinciana facility in East End at this rate.
Genuinely sat mouth agape listening to one of the usual 60+ year old bible beating sort talking about how he was only interested in ‘facts’ while citing Sodom and Gomorrah with a straight face.
The entire discussion is basically just reefer madness redux which while mildly entertaining is entirely predictable and completely unserious.
Yes
Yes
Yes
No Port
Yes Lottery
Yes Cannabis
YES Port
no Weed
no Lotto
Here was me thinking you had to be stoned to vote yes to a damn cruise port.
Stoners are smarter than that.
Methinks he protesteth too much. This sentence “In their very detailed and technical submissions, the men argued that the various benefits of CBD outweigh any detriment and that it is safe for human consumption” muddies the water. It’s not CBD that is being voted on, it is THC. Was that an error or intentional misdirection on the part of the speaker, or an error by CNS?
CNS: I’m leaving this question in the hopes that Mr Merren, who sometimes comments, will answer. If we’ve made an error, we will correct it.
The question is on decriminalizing cannabis. THC and CBD are just some of the cannabinoids present in cannabis. So, the vote is to decriminalize cannabis as a whole, which includes THC, CBD, CBG, etc. No intentional misdirection, more like a misunderstanding.
Nobody buying cannabis for the CBD, I can tell you. LOL.
CNS reported it correctly and accurately. It was intentional. However, I do wonder whether Guido Marsupio may be intending to be coming from a somewhat different angle and perhaps can aim some clarity. I hope this might provide a bit of context.
The question being voted on, pursuant to s4(2) Referendum (Cruise Infrastructure, Gambling and Cannabis) Act 2025, which reads:
“Do you support decriminalisation of the consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis?”
Possession or consumption of small amounts of “cannabis” is the focus — there is no distinction between cannabinoids (e.g., CBD, THC, CBN, CBG, etc.) in the referendum question. That is the simple and accurate answer.
“Cannabis” (as defined under art.1(b) United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 as amended by the 1972 Protocol) “means the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and the leaves when not accompanied by the tops) from which the resin has not been extracted, by whatever name they may be designated l”.
In R v Marigiotta [2023] EWCA Crim 759 at [17] per curiam English Court of Appeal, Foxton J stated:
“It will be noted that the definition of cannabis is by reference to specific parts of the plant, either on their own or in combination with other parts, a definition which only applies if the resin has not been extracted. It will also be noted that the definition does not require any particular level of THC in the specified parts of the plant.”
In England’s Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, where Class B drugs are listed in Part II of Schedule 2 thereof include “cannabinol, cannabinol derivatives, cannabis and cannabis resin, any ester or ether of cannabinol or of a cannabinol derivative” — “cannabinol derivatives” is defined exactly verbatim as Part IV of Schedule I to the Misuse of Drugs Act (2017 Revision) of the Cayman Islands.
In R v Margiotta [2023] EWCA Crim 759, when distinguishing between the cannabinoids cannabinol (CBN) and cannabidiol (CBD), Foxton J held, inter alia, that:
“For the avoidance of doubt, cannabinol and CBD are not the same substances. Cannabinol is psychoactive and CBD is not. For that reason, the latter is not a “controlled drug”.”
(Please note: I disagree that cannabinol (CNB) is psychoactive, but it is (to be most accurate) semi-psychoactive. However, the tetradro-hydro derivative of cannabinol (THC) is definitely psychoactive.)
There is room to argue that CBD is not a “controlled drug”, but that is not recognized in jurisprudence to be the law in the Cayman Islands. However, there may be room to make such arguments and see what the courts decide, provided the right unique fact-scenario presents itself (although it would be better for Parliament to pass new legislative policies and provide the remedy).
There are various differences between Cayman’s and England’s Misuse of Drugs Acts. Most notably in England, “cannabis”, “cannabis resin”, “cannabinol” and “cannabinol derivatives” are Class B controlled drugs.
However, in the Cayman Islands, “cannabinol, except where contained in cannabis or cannabis resin”, “cannabinol derivatives” and “cannabis extracts and tinctures of cannabis” are “controlled drugs” listed in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Act.
In Cayman law, “hard drug” (as defined under s.2(1) Misuse of Drugs Act) “means any substance or product specified in Part I of Schedule 1” — these are listed in the same category as “Fentanyl”.
Therefore, in Cayman law, where the classification is that of a “hard drug”, there is likely to be a bit more of an uphill battle, than in England, where it is a Class B controlled drug. This is something that ripe for rectification by Parliament.
Truthfully, much of the drug classification of “cannabis” and “cannabis resin” is quite irrational and was not supported by a proper scientific basis when originally classified. That might be some of the confusion.
In Lorenzo Stubbs v Attorney General of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas (unreported 1 August 2023: 2021/PUB/con/00001) at [10]-[11] per the Supreme Court of Bahamas, Klein J stated:
“The manner in which hemp/cannabis became listed as a dangerous drug, both under the various international treaties and in domestic legislation, is also worthy of comment. It was not until the 20th century, following the International Opium Conference at the Hague in 1925, days that the international criminalization of Indian Hemp began. In fact, according to some accounts, the decision to ban the import and export of Indian hemp at the 1925 conference was based on a claim by the Egyptian delegation (then grappling with an opium epidemic at home) that Indian hemp was as dangerous as opium, even though there was no scientific evidence to support this, and Hemp was not even on the conference agenda!
At the time of adoption of the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs…, the main active compound in cannabis had not even been established. As a result, cannabis and cannabis resin were listed alongside other known drugs, whose active compounds are specified, while “extracts and tinctures of cannabis” where included in the active compound table in lieu of a known active substances.”
In Infinity Hemp Bermuda v H.M. Customs [2019] SC (Bda) 84 Civ (14 November 2019) at [4] per Supreme Court of Bermuda, Hargum CJ stated:
“By way of background the cannabis plant (cannabis sativa and cannabis indicia) contains over 80 so-called cannabinoids. The most important and most investigated cannabinoid is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This is the substance that is responsible for the psychotropic effects of cannabis…Another important cannabinoid that occurs in large quantities in the plant is cannabidiol (CBD). Unlike THC, it does not possess any psychoactive actions. It interacts with various receptors and evidently also reduces the psychotropic effects.”
In R v Margiotta [2023] EWCA Crim 759 at [22], Foxton J stated:
“On 24 January 2019, the World Health Organisation recommended amending Schedule I to the Single Convention [on Narcotic Drugs] to clarify that CBD was not a narcotic drug, and removing cannabis [and cannabis resin] from Schedule IV, which lists narcotics perceived as particularly dangerous. Amendments to the Schedule IV were made in [22 January] 2021.”
Its good that we have a lawyer to explain it in such a complicated fashion.
Think billable hours.
The article stated: “In their very detailed and technical submissions, the men argued that the various benefits of CBD outweigh any detriment and that it is safe for human consumption. They argue that wider decriminalisation would pave the way for legal scientific research, supported by clinical health trials that could be conducted here.”
From Mr. Merren’s comment above, the statement should have been “…benefits of cannabis outweigh…” and it seems possibly intentional mis-direction on the part of the speaker.
my issue with decriminalising “small” amounts is, the question is undefined and open ended. what is a “small” amount. i would like to know before parliament says that a “small” amount is 5lbs. i will be voting no for this.
Well, you’d have an issue with the cruise berthing, too.
Remember, this isn’t binding. Nobody will ever think that 5lbs is a small amount. Even the govt site has 10g as an example.
Vote yes, and ignore the hysterical suggestions of everyone suddenly toking on spliffs 24/7.
im not opposed to it. if its 10g, ill vote yes for it. the port however, thats a big fat no.
Small amounts in other legal jurisdictions are considered 28g or less. 5lbs is certainly not a small amount.
@7.21:
That is a silly argument.
The referendum is non-binding. Thus, even if the question specified, say, 10 grams or less, parliament can change it to whatever quantity they deem to be appropriate.
That being said the referendum question [Do you support the decriminalisation of the consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis?] is no less stupid as it leaves open the question where the hell these “small amounts” are going to come from. Drug dealers are salivating.
Maybe you are missing the point to the question- this isn’t about legalizing ganja at all, it will still be illegal. All this would be is, if you are caught with a joint on the beach and that is all you have on you, you will get a fine and a slap on the wrist- you will not get sent to the poke and you will not have a criminal record.
They are likely to set some laws in place ie, 1st offense is a small fine, 2nd offense is a larger fine 3rd offense is prison
One Foster’s bag is the correct measure.
I would think the medical community would be asked to weigh in on what a small amount is. None of us are experts (or smokers)