The decriminalisation of possession of illegal drugs for personal use was not in the Labour Party’s electoral programme either

Published: April 23, 2014 at 11:04am

Can you interpret this as an electoral pledge to decriminalise the possession of illegal drugs for personal use? Because I can’t.

It’s on page 147 of Il-Bazwi Guy’s (soon to be EU Commissioner) electoral programme for the Labour Party:

Inzidu l-impenn taghna kontra d-droga u favur il-vittmi ta’ dan il-vizzju. Ghal dan il-ghan, intejbu l-istrutturi tal-pajjiz favur aktar prevenzjoni, aktar edukazzjoni, u aktar gharfien kif ukoll billi nassiguraw li anke l-istrutturi legali jkunu jirriflettu dan.




20 Comments Comment

  1. Calculator says:

    Has anything in Labour’s programme really been adhered to?

    Heck, I think decriminalising drugs just goes flat out against the pledge to “intejbu l-istrutturi tal-pajjiz favur aktar prevenzjoni”.

    • Min Jaf says:

      Once something is decriminalized, that act is no longer a crime, ergo there is no longer anything to prevent. Q.E.D. Problem solved; yet another PL electoral promise honoured.

  2. Lestrade says:

    Scraping the bottom of the barrel for votes for the EP election?

  3. francesca says:

    They are the bottom of the barrel. It doesn’t get lower than the Labour Party.

    • Last Post says:

      Daphne is right, it’s there — of course in Labourspeak. “… (N)assiguraw li anke l-istrutturi legali jkunu jirriflettu dan.” By now we’ve learned (or should have) to decipher Labourspeak.

      Remember Mintoff in the 1971 electoral manifesto describing Europe being made up of the the part belonging to Abel and the other to Cain? What that meant is there for all to see in terms of the disastrous foreign policy wielded by a Labour government between 1971 and ’87.

      Again, remember Labour (this time under Sant) promising to remove VAT? Look at how that promise was handled not so long ago with all the economic mayhem and social confusion it caused.

      Only the foolish can’t see through the deceit behind the high-sounding idea(l)s and promises proffered by the Maltese Labour party. They proved time and again that they’re not fit to govern. A bunch of amateur nincompoops.

  4. Dire Straits says:

    I believe we have a minister monitoring the implementation of the electoral programme. What is the point, really?

    What fun! We are now more liberal and Europeans in our approach, thanks to the event that occurred on 1st of May 2004.

  5. WhoamI? says:

    Well, we know that the Labour Party is a scam outfit, run by a con artist who’s got one of those to-do lists:

    Kaccaturi u nassaba: tick
    Pufti u lizbjani: tick
    Drogati: tick
    L-immankati: tick
    Is-separati: tick
    L-ghazzien: tick
    Ic-cuc: tick
    Min wasal biex imut: tick

    And so on.

    I don’t mean to offend anyone with the words I have chosen. I am just emulating the typical Labour way of thinking.

    • Kevin says:

      Tick is spelt wrongly. In Lejber spijk it’s “tikk” like “klikk” or “clique.”

    • Chris Ripard says:

      You left out “kriminali”, whoami – the first group to benefit from LP’s largesse – amnesty within days.

    • ken il malti says:

      But there is nothing there to alleviate the problem of the short- men -with -a -chip- on -their shoulder problem that is plaguing the law courts and the whole of Malta and Gozo in general.

      http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140422/local/hamrun-shooter-charged-with-attempted-murder.516003

    • zz says:

      Actually I wouldn’t use that word for the 3rd item in your list, Drogati, the reason being that whoever is “fighting” for the decriminalisation of marijuana has no idea what it means to be ‘drogat’; has no idea what it means to be a parent, lover or relative of a ‘drogat’.

      The majority of those insisting on the decriminalisation of certain drugs are what one would call posers. Many who smoke marijuana do it because they think it’s cool and by doing it they are breaking the law (how exciting!).

      Many do it because their friends do it. And many don’t smoke, have never smoked, but insist on decriminalisation only because it’s cool to be anti-institutional.

      I doubt any ‘drogat’ or his or her family would shout ‘hooray’ to the decriminalisation of drug possession for personal use.

  6. Natalie says:

    Next step: taking marijuana off the scheduled list.

  7. ken il malti says:

    That would be sweet !

    And about time too.

  8. kev says:

    Yes it can be interpreted to mean drug decriminalisation for personal use – in a rather convoluted way, of course.

    What it says is that they will continue to ‘fight drugs’ but with a shift towards victim-oriented and educational means (not carceral), and that criminal law should reflect this shift.

  9. Logical says:

    If soft drugs are decriminalised they would then be as illegal as a driving offence.

    What is the problem with allowing adults to make their own personal choices?

    [Daphne – This is a tired old question, Logical. The problem is that some choices lead to adults becoming a burden on others, i.e. the state/taxpayer. In a truly liberal society, it is every man for himself, with no welfare state. You sink, rise or survive by your own hand and nobody is obliged to help you stay alive or in healthcare or pay your pension.

    In the true meaning of liberalism, eople are free to make their own choices, but then everyone else is free to decide whether they can be arsed to pay to help others when the results of those others’ poor choices come through.

    European society strikes a balance between the liberal and the welfare state. Your choice to drive without wearing a seat-belt ends where the taxpayer’s obligation to pay for your hospital care, or your pension if you end up permanently disabled and unable to work, begins.

    Drug addicts, like alcoholics and heavy smokers, end up a financial and care burden on society – hence the heavy tax on cigarettes and alcohol, imposed because you cannot ban what has already been legal and part of life for a long, long time.

    It would be madness to make the same mistake with drugs that are currently illegal that was made with tobacco cigarettes. With cigarettes, the legislators can be partly excused because there was no knowledge of the great harm they do. With drugs that are now illegal, there is no such excuse. We know what great harm they do.]

  10. Gaetano Pace says:

    Skuza wahda biss issalva wicc il-Labour.

    Biex taghmel dak li weghedu Joe u l-Guy fil-programm elettorali trid hafna u hafna flus bhal ma trid ghal skejjel godda.

    Imma jekk ibiddlu l-ligi, skond il-politika l-gdida li kien ghallimhom Mintoff fis-70ijiet, johorgu b`orhos u ghas-sekli li gejjin jibqghu maghrufin li huma qammelin.

    Dik kienet il-benna ta xmara tal-gherf li xorbu minnha Joe u l-Guy u li minnha qed jisqu lilna.

  11. Maltri says:

    Forsi ghal dan it-tip ta’ droga kienu qed jghidu il-PL meta qalu li ser iwassluha sal-bieb tad-dar b’xejn.

    U fuq pagna 147 kienu qed jirreferu ghall-medicina tal-Gvern.

  12. janni says:

    Il-Labour dejjem kienu l-prostituta tal-politka Maltija.

    Sabiex jakkwistaw dak il-vot, dejjem lesti li jitqahbu ghalih.

    Qatt ma kienu jiterresshom il-ben essere ta’ dan il-pajjiz, imma kif se jiffangaw u jabbuzaw mil-poter, u jsawtu lill-proxxmu taghhom.

    Shame on you, Partit Laburista.

  13. Lorry says:

    The Labour Party said it was inclined to back the government’s proposed amendments, but made it clear it opposed actual drug decriminalisation.

    “We want the law to remain a deterrent for drug abusers,” a spokesman said.

    Both parties therefore have very similar positions, buttressed by Catholic relief agency Caritas, which is also against decriminalisation. Rather than a change in policy, Caritas head Mgr Victor Grech told The Sunday Times what the Government needed was a change in attitude.

    http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20121104/local/Drug-decriminalisation-opposed-parties-favour-new-arrest-scheme.443859

    [Daphne – A distinction has to be made between removing marijuana from the schedule of illegal drugs and the decriminalisation of marijuana possession for personal use.]

  14. Anthony Mallia says:

    What does CARITAS have to say about this?

    Has it lost its voice?

Leave a Comment