The Star MONDAY JULY 16 2012 13INSIDE

CRIME will always make headlinesin SA. The issue of criminals andthe impact they have on the psy-che of our nation is always at the

forefront. The way that law enforcement deals

with crime and the issues of justice thenfollow suit. But what if it became big newsin SA that thousands of people were beingbranded criminals for no good reason?

There is a law on our statute books thatdoes this every day. The Drugs and DrugsTrafficking Act of 1992 states that it is ille-gal to use, possess or trade in the cannabisplant because it is a “dangerous, depend-ence-producing substance”.

The law in SA places cannabis in thesame category as heroin. This non-lethalplant is known locally as dagga and mil-lions of South Africans use it every day forvarious reasons – and are breaking the lawby doing so.

Because its use is so common, policeand courts are kept very busy enforcingthe law, at huge expense to you. However,there is no reliable, empirical evidence toprove that this plant is highly dangerous orphysically addictive.

The history of why the cannabis plantis illegal makes for very interesting, andoffensive, reading. First banned for use byIndian indentured labourers in Natal in1878, the laws became more draconianover the years, being fuelled by bothapartheid here at home and the failed waron drugs internationally.

The common denominator for every lawever passed that bans the cannabis plant isthe lack of scientific, objective evidence to

support such legislation. The misguidedmoral campaigns against this plant haveseeped into the very fabric of our society.

At the centre of all this controversy isa humble, yet amazingly versatile plant(with psychoactive properties). If youingest this plant you will probably get high.But high is such an extreme word. Happy,relieved, hungry, okay.

When it comes to feeling good by ingest-ing a substance, lawmakers have a toughtime deciding how to control what the pub-lic can and cannot do.

There are many laws surrounding howyou are allowed to alter your mood. Thoseregarding cannabis have been made on thebasis of anecdotal evidence, religious fer-vour, racial bias and cultural prejudice.

The only way in which to regulate thepublic’s use of mood-altering substances isto be consistent and fair.

Branding you or a loved one a criminalfor using a substance that which, at worst,might not agree with you, but will defi-nitely not kill you, is not just.

Dagga is categorically safer than all itslegal counterparts (alcohol and tobacco,caffeine and sugar). Most people who donot use cannabis have no idea that its useis a personal preference that does notcause harm to others.

Dagga is not physically addictive. Dagga

does not cause schizophrenia, but maybring latent psychological issues to the sur-face. Dagga is not the so-called gatewaydrug. Smoking pure dagga does not causelung cancer.

Unlike the lawmakers, those who wishto see this plant relegalised know all of theabove through personal experience thatcan be solidly backed up by scientific evi-dence.

The media has dubbed us “The DaggaCouple” and we are on the way to settingthe record straight by challenging the lawsprohibiting the use of and trade in daggain SA. It is our aim to see to it that the con-tinuing conflict between scientific evi-dence and political ideology can be recon-ciled in a judicious manner.

We have been branded criminals, yetour crime has no victim, not even our-selves. We are deemed guilty (althoughnever convicted) and it is up to us to provethat we are innocent.

We have the right to decide what to putinside our bodies. This is a human rightsissue. The same goes for the millions ofother South Africans who choose to use thedagga plant, for whatever reason. It is ourright and the law regarding dagga isunsubstantiated .

When you mention the word dagga inSA, people snigger, or they find the subject

uncomfortable or taboo. Meanwhile, manylives are being ruined by laws that make nosense. People who do not use this planthave no idea of how much taxpayers’money goes into policing and convictingdagga traders and users, as this policy isenforced with blind faith. Prohibitionmeasures like arrest and incarceration areforms of societal violence.

Our story began two years ago when wewere charged with the possession ofdagga. The police stormed into our houseat 2am looking for a lab.

They terrified and intimidated us. Theyalso stunned us with their sheer ignorance.We are two ordinary, hard-working, tax-paying citizens who choose to enrich ourlives with the use of the cannabis plant.Our encounter with the police left us indig-nant and led us to seek justice in the high-est court of the land, the ConstitutionalCourt.

To make submissions of the highestintegrity, we have constructed a campaignto involve the public every step of the way.

We wish to educate those who have beenswept up in the tide of propaganda byopening up channels of communication onall levels of society.

This campaign covers all aspects of theuse of the cannabis plant – recreational,medicinal and industrial. From the free-

dom to relax with a joint at the end of theday to treating a very wide spectrum ofchronic diseases, to building your houseand fuelling your car with a truly renew-able resource.

To cover all the bases in our campaignis one thing – but the essence of what weare doing still comes down to this: ourhuman right to ingest this plant withoutany interference from the law.

This is the background to our legalstrategy and the point from which we aredoing our research. We will be calling themost eminent expert witnesses, some fromthe global cannabis legalisation network.We are aware of what we are up against, asSA still echoes with the cries of similarinjustices. Our case was struck off the rolein the magistrate’s court pending the out-come of a hearing in the North GautengHigh Court. Judge Bertelsman is of theopinion that our founding affidavit is asound argument. We have served summonson seven government departments toanswer to our charge of unlawful legisla-tion. In its reply, the government simplyasked us to prove everything we say. Andthis is what we intend to do.

The state’s reply also states that thistype of case did not succeed in the past,naming the Prince case of 2000.

We have had that judgment dissected by

Constitutional Court experts and the bot-tom line is that Gareth Prince was apply-ing to be deemed an exception to the lawand not claiming that the law itself wasunjust. He was, at most, representing asmall sector of society on religiousgrounds. The Bench deemed that it wasalmost impossible to make such an excep-tion and still enforce the law.

We do not intend to ask the highestcourt in the land to change its laws withoutoffering feasible solutions for the future.

Our desired outcomes are as importantas the evidence we will use to state ourcase. Through extensive research and con-sultation, both locally and internationally,we will demonstrate to the court that it ispossible to relegalise this plant, in all itsforms, without causing any disruption insociety whatsoever. We will free up thepolice service and the courts of thousandsof dagga cases each week and restore this,the most researched plant in history, to itsrightful place as a natural, safe and eco-nomically useful part of society – some-thing it is, even under the jackboot of pro-hibition.

We have a strong presence online andare expanding our team of representativesacross the country to reach those peoplenot on the internet. Through our network,dagga arrests across the country are beingchallenged as people begin to know theirrights. We encourage people to overcometheir fear and join us in telling the truthabout dagga. Public participation is vitaland we welcome all input into this jointeffort. ● Read more at www.daggacouple.co.za

Draconian laws and sheer ignorance will make criminals out of millions of ordinary, tax-paying South Africans, write Myrtle Clarke and Julian Stobbs

Dagga is a human rights issue

THIS great time of running and jump-ing, of kicking and hitting balls wasnever going to be predictable.

Some thought London’s hosting of theOlympic Games would bring out the kindof emotional, flag-waving patriotism notusually associated with the UK. Others, a touch rashly, convinced themselves thata combination of excitement and publicsupport would lift the performances ofthose representing Britain, that theywould start winning things.

Instead, something altogether morestartling has happened. The Brits havebecome more easygoing about sport, moreunderstanding of the limitations of thosewho play it. British athletes, in turn, havebecome more graceful in defeat.

The UK, at almost the last minute, hasbeen given its Olympic image. London 2012will not be about efficiency or teamwork ordiversity. It will be the Ordinary Olympicsin which effort and character have a placeon the podium, where losers can feel like winners.

It is a more surprising developmentthan many will assume. Britain’s interna-tional image may be that of the good sport,playing up and playing the game, but inreality it tends to be lousy at losing.

In recent decades, the nation’s footballhas followed a grimly predictable cycle:unrealistic hope, followed by disarray andsetbacks, and agonising disappointment inmajor tournaments, while the press andpublic taunted and mocked manager andplayers.

At the Euro 2012, the mood was entirelydifferent. Pundits were cheerfully pes-simistic about England’s chances. Themanager, while not being the appointee thepress had hoped for, was supported all thesame. Pre-emptive excuses were trotted outand when, as predicted, the team wenthome early, the consensus was that it hadacquitted itself well.

There had been no disciplinary prob-lems. Even the fans had behaved.

The process was repeated this weekendat Wimbledon. Defeat for Andy Murray,

Brits have been told over and over again,was really a sort of victory – for sports-manship, for decency, for the valiant, ifunsuccessful, efforts of a brilliant player.

It is strikingly new, this cheerfulembracing of the sporting spirit – or, to putit a touch less positively, of failure. Heroicdefeats now knock victories out of theheadlines. England’s cricketers are cur-rently thrashing Australia, the top-rankedone-day team in the world, in a series ofone-day internationals. Once, this achieve-ment would have been greeted with joyful,fist-pumping headlines. Now it is acknowl-edged on an inside page.

Perhaps one should welcome the dawn-ing of a new age of British sportsmanship.Not only is it more civilised, but it is alsoless tiring than the switchback ride ofhope and despair.

It could even be seen as a reflection of amore mature national mood. Britain hasseen Murdoch, and no longer trusts politi-cal winners, preferring solid, honourablerunners-up.

The problem is that those who wintoday are likely to win more in the future.In his new book, The Winner Effect, theneuroscientist Ian Robertson has shownhow the release of testosterone and theneurotransmitter dopamine after victory,in spectators as much as competitors,causes them to be more aggressive, compet-itive, powerful and confident. It booststheir appetite for the next success.

It has been easy to see the loser effect inaction while watching Britain’s sportingheroes recently. For much of the first halfof the decisive match between Englandand Italy, the game was evenly balancedbefore, suddenly, the confidence of the Eng-lish players evaporated and they becamelike losers-in-waiting.

A similar moment occurred, within thecrowd and then the player, at the end of thesecond set of the Wimbledon men’s final.Winning is not shameful. Taking part isfine, and ending up with a silver or bronzemedal even better. It is the gold, though,that really matters. – The Independent

DETERMINED: Julian Stobbs and Myrtle Clarke, also known as the dagga couple, at their home, The Jazzfarm. PICTURE: IHSAAN HAFFEJEE

The British are proving winners at losingTerence Blacker charts the UK’s resigned sporting mood ahead of the London Olympics

NO WINNING SPIRIT: A member of Britain’s synchronised swimming Olympic team sits at thepool during a pre-Olympics training camp at the National Pool in Msida, Malta on Tuesday.The writer says the Brits have become far too easygoing about sport. PICTURE: REUTERS