ConCourt Hearings Attract Other Parties.

By |Published On: October 31st, 2017|

On Tuesday 7 November the Western Cape High Court judgement handed down in March this year will be put to the test in the Constitutional Court in Johannesburg.
Interest is mounting as we have received notice that Doctors for Life have been admitted as Amicus Curiae despite the fact that none of the parties have seen their application. Hot on the heels of our adversaries from The Trial of the Plant came leaders from the Khoi Khoi, Griqua and /Auni nations. The leaders have applied to intervene in the matter.
It is our hope that their application is successful but we could not help seeing the contrast between the doctors and the traditional leaders as something quite significant. The Dagga plant brings people together like few other things in SA but, at the same time, it becomes a very polarised debate the minute moral judgement enters the fray. DFL certainly make their stance on traditional medicine very clear on their website.

It is going to be a momentous day, please join us outside the court and be part of this historic event. The CC has only ever heard one dagga application ever – and that plaintiff is still a plaintiff in this case. Weed won’t be legalised on Tuesday 7th November, but you can thank Acton, Prince et al. for getting us all one important step closer.
The CC will recess for Christmas and we anticipate a ruling by the end of March 2018.

It is unlikely this will effect Trial Of The Plant 2, our unresolved criminal charges and those of the JTQ Stays. However, we imagine the North Gauteng High Court will be watching these proceedings closely when allocating us a new date in court, perhaps in the second half of next year.
See you outside somewhere. Wear green (whether you’re coming to court or not!)

Thank you to our FGA Affiliates who help to make our ongoing content creation possible!

Thank you to our FGA Affiliates who help to make our ongoing content creation possible!


About the Author: Myrtle Clarke

Share This Post


  1. Dieter Aab November 8, 2017 at 11:57 am - Reply

    Well said! Laws have never stopped humans from using substances for whatever personal aims they wish to achieve thereby. In my lifetime (b1954) I have seen cannabis use growing exponentially and internationally despite draconian laws against it.What has concurrently occurred though is that as the so-called war on drugs spiralled higher, so the risks taken by those providing the substances escalate and so too, do prices. This does not however deter the market, rather it makes the business more lucrative and attractive for the criminal elements.Now cannabis growers are guarding their fields with firearms and people are dying from gunshot wounds for farming!

    Besides legalization, we need to learn how to use and not abuse substances, which entails research and education.

  2. Libertarian Stoner November 6, 2017 at 5:08 pm - Reply

    It will ultimately have to be decided where freedom of choice ends. Is it the place of the State to decide what’s best for us, or should we make our own decisions, even if other people think that those are bad decisions?

    The 18th amendment to the US constitution and the Volstead act placed the US government in the position of deciding for all Americans that consumption of alcoholic beverages was an attempt by well-meaning people of the same ilk as Doctors for Life to impose their values on everyone else. We all know how that went. It led to the illegal production of alcohol products, some of which contained methanol or other dangerous substances. It led to the rise of organised crime in America.

    Prohibition of Cannabis, Opium, Heroin, Cocaine, Ecstacy(MDMA) and others is the same. It leads to illegal production of varying quality and strength which causes unnecessary deaths. It puts the production and distribution of popular mind-altering substances into the hands of organised (and disorganised) criminals. It does little to nothing to discourage people from doing whatever they want. Those who wish to will continue to procure and use chemicals and plants that they enjoy.

    It is not, and never will be the place of people like Doctors for Life to decide (based on their own moral judgements) what is best for everyone else. Nor is it the correct role for the State to make such decisions either. It is the place of the State to ensure that products that are sold in their territory meet basic standards of quality, purity and labelling and even to tax the sale of such products in order to fund substance-abuse treatment of those people who need it.

  3. Bushy Van Eck November 1, 2017 at 4:49 pm - Reply

    Doctors for Life.
    Who sponsored these doctors to enable them to object to the legalization of dagga?
    Was these concerns ever raised during the trial?
    I believe that it should be an important objection for the simple reason THAT IF FINANCED by pharmaceutical companies, even if only partially which I doubt, it becomes a case of protecting the pharmaceutical companies financial interests more than the concerns for the safety of the people.
    In such case my opinion is that they should not be allowed to be impartial advisers to a court of law and I would suggest you guys object to it.
    After all political parties have to declare who their sponsors are and for this very same reason so should the parties involved in this case.

    • Myrtle Clarke November 2, 2017 at 6:57 am - Reply

      Hi Bushy, Yes, we get you point and it is a concern. However, when it comes to The Trial of the Plant we have to allow both the state and DFL to ventilate all the evidence that they can come up with. Then it is all in the public record and there will be no surprises when it comes to standing up for the scientific evidence in parliament. If something was not covered in court then the government will have a gap to place unjustified restrictions within the new regulations. We are as frustrated as you! Also, none of the parties saw DFL’s application before it was approved by the con court so we have not had the opportunity to object. The legal team are working on this but this is a democracy and we are not scared about what they will say on Tuesday.

Leave A Comment