Sometimes it’s good to get a different perspective on things, so we invited Erica to join us at the International Cannabis Symposium recently held in Cape Town. She has written two great pieces for us on the different panels.  You can watch the videos HERE, but these articles are the core of what was said in these panels.  Thank you to Erica for the fresh perspective.  This is the second piece:

Panel 1 –

The ambivalence of privacy, legal reform and representation in the Cannabis sector

The enforcement of Cannabis use sits in a legal grey zone. When arrest remains the primary enforcement tool, there is little incentive to develop approaches that prioritise education, harm reduction and community safety.

The Cannabis for Private Purposes Act forces us to look at how privacy is understood in different sectors of society. Private use excludes most of the South African population as it hinges on discreet use in homes and residential units. Privacy is not a luxury for those living in crowded blocks of flats, sprawling informal settlements and areas of elevated population density.

How do we regulate the private use of Cannabis when the definition of privacy changes depending on where you live in South Africa?

The operational complexity of law enforcement in the Cannabis sector presents an additional challenge, as the concept of private purposes is ill-defined within the law. Police officers are expected to interpret and enforce legislation that leaves important concepts, such as “private purposes”, open to interpretation. Success of law enforcement centres on the metrics of arrests, creating incentives that can favour enforcement over education or discretion 

Trauma is not policed

The use, cultivation and trade of Cannabis is acknowledged and accepted. However, the psychological effects associated with policing are ill-considered. Before the establishment of the Act, up to 1000 arrests a day were the norm, with less than 10% of arrests reported to Fields of Green for ALL. 

With the introduction of the Private Purposes Act, the statistical drop in drug arrests related directly to a decrease in arrests for Cannabis possession. 

Private use can exist outside of a home space. Cannabis in a pocket or a bag, if under the proposed 750g, still constitutes private use. 

However, there are still ongoing arrests reported. Policemen are not going to ask the question if they find someone in possession of Cannabis, regardless of the amount. The automatic assumption is that the person is either dealing or selling, leading to an arrest. Even if the arrest is overturned, the psychological trauma is enough of a deterrent to exercise the right to private use. Time spent in a holding cell or in a jail has a far more destructive effect than the success of the arrest. There is a strong need for reform, to address the structural efforts of policing Cannabis, the mental health consequence for users and the need for further education on what constitutes private use. 

Community engagement requires added intervention for communities of users to know their rights, and more importantly, their responsibilities. Adult use of Cannabis must also fall within educated and regulated boundaries, to avoid potential harm to users.

Complex reform requires considered creativity

Police officials are mandated to undertake arrests to meet their KPIs. This bureaucratic approach leaves limited space for structured processes around arrests. The need to reshape performance metrics to reconfigure what success is requires a shift away from success as active in arrests and a move towards performance and the creation of safer environments. 

Drug arrests for other substances, for example, tik (crystal meth) are lumped in with Cannabis arrests, because tik users may also be using Cannabis. This creates additional concerns as the incentive to stop and search extends to Cannabis users, who are permitted to have Cannabis on their person, but could very well be found in the presence of tik users or other drug users.

The added complication of reform is challenged by the presence of rogue SAPS officers, who are not always held to account or disciplined for non-adherence to directives around Cannabis policing. Bribery is also a constant headache, as it is often cheaper to bribe a police officer, than it is for them to process the arrest. Those willing to bribe will receive preferential treatment from a police officer who is more than happy to confiscate the stash and walk away with bribe money. This creates a cyclical problem. 

The cultural expectations of increased arrests necessitate a shift of internal logic. An overflowing prison is not positive or aspirational for any justice department. Reform also considers the waste of resources invested in Cannabis arrests. Yes, the prisons and remand centres are stacked to the brim, but to what effect? Considering fines and summons as an alternative can be explored to replace arrests. The entire criminal justice system needs to be reimagined, to end the enforcement of trauma and total drain of time and money relating to continual arrests.

Where is considered action when you need it?

Despite the documented evidence that Cannabis can create economic, agricultural and social opportunities, the ambivalence around privacy, reform and policing means a continued delay around the introduction and consolidation of legislation for commercial Cannabis production. 

The foot-dragging on reform requires considered action from government. However, the siloed departmental approach means that the departments of justice, agriculture and trade will not come together any time soon to ensure concrete change for Cannabis use and production.

Better regulation begins with better information.

Can government and the Cannabis sector eventually create legislative clarity?

South Africa has largely answered the question of whether Cannabis has a place in society. It does.

Cannabis is already being cultivated, prescribed, sold, exported and consumed. Businesses have emerged, consumers have adapted and entrepreneurs have demonstrated remarkable resilience despite legislative uncertainty.

The real challenge now is no longer legalisation—it is governance. South Africa needs a regulatory framework that is coherent across departments, practical for law enforcement, protective of consumers and inclusive of the communities that have shaped the country’s Cannabis heritage for generations.

Until that happens, the country will continue to operate in a legal grey zone. The market has already moved ahead. It’s time for the law to catch up.