Drug laws that don’t work: why the 100m rule means ecstasy users cannot avoid jail

Former MP Franco Debono has suggested that a lacuna in the Drug Dependency Act, designed not to inflict punitive jail terms on cannabis users, was having serious effects on similar misdemeanours where clubbers are found carrying ecstasy pills.

The reaction comes in the wake of a three-month jail term for 25-year-old Jean-Marc Dalli, son of the European Commissioner Helena Dalli, eight years since he was apprehended outside a Paola party with two others in the process of acquiring six ecstasy pills.

Debono, a criminal defence lawyer, pointed out that Article 13 of the Drug Dependency Act was precluding cases in which people are caught buying drugs outside places of entertainment, to be referred to the drug dependency court.

That’s because the law does not apply to offences where the prohibited drug is found within 100m from a school or youth club perimeter, or “such other place where young people habitually meet.”

Debono, who has already published a host of judicial reforms later taken up by the Bonello Commission in 2013, said Article 13 could be punitive for particular cases of recreational drug-taking.

“It is arguable that you can smoke a cannabis joint at home, without ever being within 100m of any such place where young people congregate. But if you take an ecstasy pill you are likely taking it inside a club. So that alone already punishes ecstasy users from being unable to be referred to the drug dependency court. And that ties magistrates in ordinary courts to lay down a mandatory jail term,” Debono said.

The jail term for Dalli prompted calls by other politicians – like equality secretary Rosianne Cutajar and Nationalist MEP Roberta Metsola – to address the issue of lengthy court decisions. But Debono said the magistrate’s decision should be respected in this case, and said drug laws should be reformed to grant the judiciary more discretion on sentencing.

“10 years ago, Malta’s drugs laws were more severe and people being judged today for a crime committee ten years ago are in a more favourable position with the introduction of a drug court, where they can avoid a jail term.

“In my professional experience I can say that Article 13 remains problematic, because those apprehended within 100m of a place where youths gather cannot benefit from the drug court dispositions. This should change because it ties the hands of the judiciary that would otherwise not wish to condemn these users to a jail sentence.”

Debono said the the automatic exclusions of Article 13 was giving rise to unjust situations. “It is counterproductive to the general purpose of the law, which is reform rather than retribution. It should be discretionary not absolute.”