Why did the Court reject the Cannabis Referendum?
The Constitutional Court declared not admissible the Cannabis Referendum drawing a heavy “X” on the term “democracy.” But what are the motivations of this decision?
"This is not a defeat for us and for the hundreds of thousands of citizens who signed up for legal cannabis. Today's is a defeat for the institutions that I am no longer able to understand an important part of this country! It is the failure of a Court that is unable to guarantee Italians a constitutional right" wrote Meglio Legale on social media as soon as the sentence was received.
Now the question is, "What are the reasons which pushed the Constitutional Court to move in this direction". Let's try to clarify.
Referring to the words recited in the press conference by the President of the Consulta Giuliano Amato: "The referendum was not on cannabis, but on narcotic substances. Reference was made to substances that include poppy, coca, the so-called hard drugs. And this was enough to make us violate international obligations." But is it really like that?
Migliore Legale accused of irresponsibility: let's clarify
The Meglio Legale campaign, as soon as the Court expressed its opinion on the matter, was the victim of numerous accusations that portrayed it as accomplice to the defeat. In particular the questions, or rather charges, which were addressed to him are:
- The question could have been written differently?
- It might not have been mentioned paragraph 1 of art 73?
- They also wanted to legalize the hard drugs beyond cannabis?
No. The short answer to all accusations is a resounding no. But let's look at the reasons widely discussed by the campaign itself on social media.
Could the question have been written differently?
"No, technically the question he couldn't be written differently" - explains Antonella Soldo, coordinator of Meglio Legale. Why? The reasons for this statement lead irremediably to the second accusation made. Let's find out.
Could paragraph 1 of article 73 not have been cited?
No. "It seems inconceivable to me that the judges of the Constitutional Court with their assistants they didn't read well the question - he explains Franco Corleone in Press Conference - il paragraph 4 of art 73 it binds inevitably in paragraph 1."
Starting from what the paragraph 4 of art. 73: "If any of the facts provided for by paragraphs 1,2,3 concerns narcotic or psychotropic substances in tables II and IV (soft drugs, including cannabis), imprisonment from two to six years and a fine from 5,164 to 77,468 are applied".
"Consequently - he concludes - the reference to tables II and IV must be read in paragraph 4 because recall them conducted described in paragraph 1, which includes cultivation."
And again: "If what President Giuliano Amato said was true, that is, that paragraph 1 does not deal with cannabis, we should say that the charges of thirty years of prohibitionist persecution, of trials, of convictions, of tens of thousands of people imprisoned for possession or small-scale dealing of hemp have been a abuse, one violence, an act against the law."
Did they want to legalize hard drugs too?
"Absolutely not - explains Meglio Legale - the word 'cultivation', which the question aimed to delete from the 17 behaviors of paragraph 1, refers exclusively to cannabis, as the latter is the only plant consumable as a narcotic"
And he continues "The opium poppy and the coca plant can be cultivated, but to be consumed as narcotics it is necessary: 'production, manufacturing, extraction and transformation', all conduct that would have remained punished from paragraph 1 of art 73"
"The choice to eliminate just the term 'cultivate' demonstrates our intention to decriminalize only the cultivation of cannabis, leaving the subsequent phases necessary to consume other substances such as opium and coca punishable. This - he concludes - would not have led to any violation of international obligations"
"Now we will take a few days to understand how to best relaunch the battle for legal cannabis and we make you a promise: we won't stop this time either."
