Employers lambast cannabis law over ‘hidden motives’, want Bill postponed

The Malta Employers’ Association came out strong in its opposition against the legalisation of recreational cannabis in Malta, which could allow the dispensation of up to 50g of cannabis a month to individuals as well as permission to grow four plants at home.

The MEA issued its position on Sunday, two days after the Nationalist Party announced it would not support the Bill moved by the Labour administration, claiming legalisation would enable drug use.

“The Bill falls short of addressing numerous issues connected to consumption of cannabis. It provides no assurances to employers about the effect that the consumption of the drug may have at the workplace. Saying that this is the case even in the absence of legislation is no excuse to ignore the issue,” director-general Joe Farrugia said.

Farrugia said the Bill should be postponed until after a general election. “The MEA will insist on having the option of zero-tolerance policies at the workplace in the Bill, and the right to conduct random dope testing in the interest of their employees and their clients, and also to protect themselves from any liability.”

Farrugia said employers were worried about the normalisation of cannabis consumption. “Like the White Paper issued some months ago, the Cannabis Reform Bill is fraught with omissions, inconsistencies and hidden motives.”

Farrugia said the law should be aiming at consensus on decriminalisation, without promoting consumption.

Farrugia also said that eight out of the ten social partners at the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD), had called for a postponement of the debate until after the elections.

“All social partners agreed that cannabis should be decriminalised, that persons carrying minimal amounts for personal consumption should not be liable to criminal proceedings, and that there should be no obstruction to the use of cannabis for medical reasons.”

But the MEA accused the government of forging ahead with the Bill “before the elections at all costs for reasons which may be unstated but which are known to all.”

“Why does the Bill conspicuously omit references to the consumption of cannabis and the workplace, given the wealth of research linking consumption of cannabis and work-related accidents? Why is it being proposed to carry more than 14 joints (7g) for personal consumption, when in many other countries, e.g. Netherlands, this limit is much less? Why is the Bill allowing persons to carry up to 28g (more than 50 joints) without criminal conviction? Exactly who is this Bill protecting, the peddlers or the victims of drug abuse?” the MEA asked.

The MEA also posed other questions in a statement attackig the bill, which it accused of having lax safeguards that could lead to a similar approach on harder drugs in future, lacking research or a socio-impact assessment, lacking consultation with the insurance industry or the Occupational Health and Safety Authority over work-related accidents.