The first reading of the Bill on legalising the use of cannabis will, undoubtedly, create ripples and generate heated debate in society between those who wholeheartedly support its enactment and those who are concerned by the implications of such a change.
The Malta Insurance Association (MIA) had contributed to the consultation process and made its views and concerns public.
As an association representing insurers, the MIA’s remit is certainly not to take sides over the merits and demerits of legalising cannabis use but it has a duty to comment on the impact such a change is likely to have.
Insurers regularly handle claims over accidents where the circumstances raise many questions about whether the drivers’ ability to drive was impinged on by alcohol or drugs at the time. It is, therefore, not surprising that making cannabis use more easily accessible is of major concern to insurers.
The facts are unequivocal: drug use severely impairs the ability to drive safely, irrespective of whether such drugs are recreational or medically prescribed. It is no coincidence that drug manufacturers invariably include strong warnings not to drive or operate heavy machinery after taking medicine.
The MIA thus fully agrees with the position taken by the Malta Employers’ Association that a zero-tolerance approach should be adopted with workers found to be under the influence of drugs on their workplace.
A zero-tolerance approach is clearly also necessary with regard to driving under the influence of drugs.
An interesting report issued by the European Motoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) in 2018, called ‘Cannabis and Driving’, highlights the concerns that arise with the drug’s widespread personal use.
While acknowledging that more and more countries are legalising the use of cannabis, it argues that “if cannabis legislation increases the number of individuals in the population who use the drug, then the number of people who drive after using cannabis may also increase”.
The report adds that “evaluation of the impact of legislation on both the extent of driving under the influence of cannabis and the impact on road traffic accidents and associated injuries is therefore important”.
For most motorists, in a country where enforcement is visibly lacking, this might seem as a tall order.
The report recognised that more research is needed, particularly in the light of the variety of new cannabis products that make it to the market. As the range grows, “it will be important to study how they are used, how they are metabolised and how they affect driving”.
A similar study was also conducted locally by the National Centre for Freedom from Addictions (‘Exploring Drug Driving Legislation in Malta in the Context of the European Landscape’, 2016). This comprehensive and well-written report had considered most of the issues that the EMCDDA report does. It acknowledged the following points (quoted from the report).
While the Bill prohibits the consumption of cannabis in a public place, it is totally silent about the prohibition of driving after personal use- Adrian Galea
In Malta, enforcement of both drunk- and drug-driving legislation still has a long way to go.
The Traffic Regulation Ordinance states that a police officer ‘may’ request that tests on urine, blood or breath be taken in order to prove an individual is or has been impaired while driving.
The use of the word ‘may’ means that enforcement of the law remains at the police officer’s discretion.
The ordinance does not indicate instances when testing is mandatory or the nature of an accident that would be more likely to initiate the drug testing process.
And, finally, there is also no mention of the ability for traffic police to implement random roadside drug screening.
The MIA has for long expressed its concerns about the lack of enforcement of traffic laws and regulations, both in general and in particular where drug- and drink-driving is concerned. It has publicly spoken about the urgent need to update the existing laws and to train and equip police officers better.
The MIA thus feels that, through the first reading of the Bill, we may have put the cart before the horse. The approach adopted by other countries that chose to legalise cannabis use was to first ensure that a robust and functional enforcement system was in place and that the rules and regulations in force could be effectively applied.
Legalising the personal use of cannabis before ensuring that our enforcement system is able to seriously tackle the drink- and drug-driving problem is thus very worrying as it is likely to lead to loss of life and serious injuries incurred in accidents involving drivers under the influence of drugs.
The MIA had appointed legal experts to study how the existing laws can be improved to help ensure their better enforcement and more effectively deter driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Draft legislation was presented to the authorities some time ago and it is therefore very regrettable that such measures, which would certainly help improve the safety of our roads, have been met with such lethargy and indifference.
It is also inconceivable to us how there has been no effort at all to procure roadside drug-testing equipment, the current lack of which is preventing police officers from effectively enforcing the existing law. Police officers’ hands are tied as road safety is not given the priority that it deserves.
One of the conclusions of the EMCDDA is that “there is a concern that decriminalisation and legalisation of cannabis might increase the prevalence of cannabis use and, by extension, its use among drivers”.
So, while the Bill clearly prohibits the consumption of cannabis in a public place, it is totally silent about the prohibition of driving, or operating machinery, after such personal use. This should indeed be a matter of great concern not just to insurers but to all law-abiding citizens.