Editorial: Our children should be protected

The signs promoting the use of cannabis products near a school have been removed just days after they were put up, but the collective sigh of relief has not removed the underlying concern about why this happened and how to stop them.

Let us take an example that might be easier for people to associate with than what cannabis products do or do not contain. Would parents allow their young children to have an alcohol-free gin and tonic with their lunch?

Most of them would instinctively say ‘no’ for the same underlying reason given by the director of the school in question: use of any substance, whether alcohol, tobacco or even CBD, should not become normalised, especially when children are still at a vulnerable age.

There is a sound reason behind age limits on everything from seeing violent or R-rated films and being sexually active to cigarettes and alcohol: children, especially younger ones, are still developing their own identity and boundaries, and are therefore still very open to peer pressure. Responsible use – and knowing when to stop – comes with an understanding of how even legal substances or activities should be tackled, something parents can only hope their children will learn before they have to make their own decisions.

Which brings us back to the controversy of a shop promoting cannabis-related products so close to a school and before anyone starts preaching about cannabis use now being legal, this is absolutely not the issue at hand.

There was nothing subtle about the signs put up: there were clear calls to action relating to the consumption of cannabis. A slogan claimed it was the “legit way to relax”, while another said, “Don’t smoke weed to escape reality, do it to enjoy reality even more”.

What on earth was going through the minds of the owners, who have not been identified? We are talking about a shop right in front of Stella Maris College in Gżira and have to ask who allowed it in the first place.

As it is, college director Stephen Cachia contacted numerous authorities: the commissioner of police, the CEO of the Planning Authority and the executive chairperson of the Authority for the Responsible Use of Cannabis (ARUC). In the end, the children’s commissioner also strongly objected and action was taken by the ARUC in coordination with the Planning Authority.

However, the whole debacle has opened up a new discussion: it is one thing to legalise cannabis use but there are other aspects that need to be considered, including a ban on shops selling cannabis-related products near schools.

This issue of normalising use is clearly a prickly one. In fact, the ARUC insisted that the reform was “never intended to promote normalisation”. Good intentions aside, the issue was never those who have morals but rather those who look at commercial possibilities.

The ARUC also said that “effective regulation and responsible oversight remain essential pillars of the framework”, which takes us back to the concept of responsibility. Some caveats have already been drawn in the sand: for example, the ARUC oversees non-profit cannabis harm-reduction associations but does not regulate for-profit outlets selling products containing less than 0.2% THC (the psychoactive compound in weed).

Apparently a new bill is being drafted which would formally regulate such commercial operators and introduce enforcement measures. No one in their right mind would question this, but the timing? Really? More than four years after the legislative changes?

Why was this not anticipated at the time? Why did it take a shop opening up right in front of a school to bring up this issue?

On the one hand, we have the high-octane launch of Vision 2050, and on the other we have this example of how capturing headlines takes precedence over careful consideration of the unintended consequences. Beyond any other motive, our children should be protected.