I was recently reminded by a friend that Sri Lanka actually does have legal access
medical Marijuana (Ganja). The practitioners of traditional
Ayurvedic medicine are allowed to carry 1kg (figure unconfirmed) amount of Ganja to be used for medicinal purposes. Unfortunately, the government doesn't extend the same courtesty to medical doctors in the western tradition.
I am told the veda mahathays (ayurvedic doctors) have access to the best quality stuff, which they often sell for other um, recreational purposes. Don't ask me why, but I belive him.
A dilemma I often face is whether advocating for decriminilization or legalization of Marijuana in a place like Sri Lanka is actually worth it. Obviously, there is very little case to ban the substance in the first place. Not only because Ganja has medicinal properties, but the
risk of addicition is comparatively low, there's also no evidence that it's
any more harmful than tobacco. Most arguments for prohibition is based on some notion that this is 'risky'. Well yes it is, so is tobacco, alcohol or for that matter, living in Colombo. Should most motorsports, or professions which includ risk -- policing, security guards, army personnel -- also be banned? I think not. What we have is a social stigma against using stuff like Marijuana. There is almost no objective case.
But now that it's illegal, does it make sense to advocate for legalization? From a purely consequentionalist standpoint, I think the answer leans on being 'No'. I haven't been to a party in Colombo with late-teens or twentysomethings which didn't someone lighting up Ganja. Even if you are caught, you can pay the market-price for the bribe in most occasions (unless you really F up) Same goes for most other victimless crimes like prostitution and indeed other most other drgus. If you want the service, you can get it. When enforcement is weak like we have in Sri Lanka, does really it make sense to fire up the debate and actually make this an issue? from a user-perspective, I think the answer is No.
However, critical to the overall consequentionalist argument for the status quo is whether keeping marijuana illegal has other consequenses, like providing revenue and upkeep for criminal gangs. Economics of prohibition is simple. If you bann something that's in high demand, it simply goes underground. Think prostitution, think
kassipu (illicit liquier), think almost anything that has wide appeal, and is banned. These things don't dissapear, they just fall into the black-market operated by goons and criminals. People familiar with the Indian scene might remember the case of
Scarlett Keeling, the 15-year-old British girl who was raped and murdered in Goa by a few drug dealers. Soon after the incident, I remember
Jug Suraiya's article in TOI which hinted that perhaps Scarlett would have survived, had drugs in Goa was legal. In the article (
I reccomend a read) he presented the following statistics:
UN has estimated the international drug trade at $400 billion a year, a sum larger than the US defence budget and which constitutes 8 per cent of all global trade (textiles account for 7.5 per cent and automobiles for 5.3 per cent). [link]
Most of this trade is not Marijuana, it's probably other drugs. The critical question is how much exactly does Marijuna contributes to crime. This is difficult to answer, since marijuana dealers don't exactly report their accounts to the Inland Revenue Department. But for what it's worth, legalizing may be a good way of cutting down revenue potential for criminals (
including perhaps the LTTE) and getting entepruenrs in to the business of ganja.
If we require a debate at all on this issue, it's this one we should be having. But what are the chances of that happening?
