Not too long ago, the Luxembourg government made global headlines by announcing free public transport and the legalisation of recreational cannabis in the Grand Duchy.
Though the first announcement was successfully implemented within the span of less than two years, efforts on that second front have been much more half-hearted. First the issue was postponed, then the pandemic entered the stage and legalisation was put on halt, and now, it seems as though the government is reversing course altogether.
No state-controlled market, no distributing shops, and no legal way of purchasing recreational cannabis. Instead, reduced fines for possession of minor amounts and the right to cultivate up to four plants at home for personal use. While some have hailed this move as a full legalisation, many opposition leaders lament a lack of decisiveness on behalf of the government.
Further reading - Stephen Lowe: Green. Party!
To be clear, I do not intend to question or debate the issue of legalisation or whether it is the right thing to do. Rather, I want to discuss the government's communication and course of action in this matter. After all, our elected officials were the ones to bring up legalisation in the first place, promise to move heaven and earth, and even go as far as to retain the matter in their coalition agreement.
Home growing
Let me first address the aspect of home growing, which government officials now appear to be using as a way of showing their supposed support for the legalisation of cannabis.
I believe it is fair to think of it this way: imagine you really like drinking wine, but it is illegal to buy it in Luxembourg or import it from across the border. The only thing you are allowed to do is make your own wine at home. So, if you want to enjoy it on a regular basis, you must see to it that you grow and harvest your own grapes, crush them, press them, initiate a controlled fermentation process, follow up with a clarification procedure, and then age and bottle your wine.
Remember, in that scenario it is of no help to you that you know a couple of great winemakers near the Moselle, because they are not allowed to make enough for sharing. You must complete the process of trial and error yourself and hope that with enough dedication, you eventually produce some quality wine as made by a true professional.
Time, resources, expertise, energy, space, determination. Wine enthusiasts would need all of these things in a Grand Duchy prohibiting the large-scale production and distribution of wines. Fortunately, this is not the case.
I suppose it is easy to see where I am going with this analogy. Successfully cultivating cannabis plants at home is a challenging and costly endeavour, which should rather be compared to the skillful process of wine making than to having a pot of mint standing on your kitchen window, which grows almost exponentially and from which you can just sporadically pick and use leaves.
Strangely enough, if you really turn out to be a successful home grower, four plants will provide you with a rather staggering amount of consumable cannabis, which again makes me wonder who came up with this course of action and how this magical number was decided. For the most part, it only reinforces the image that the cannabis dossier is being treated by people who lack either familiarity with the issue or dedication to produce a well-thought-out plan.
More questions than answers
I find it rather peculiar that after this year's endless news cycles and debates around safety and drug-related crime in the Gare district (a worthy contender for the country's number one issue, only outdone by the housing crisis and the pandemic it seems), the conclusion is to stick to the status quo and cancel the one bold change that would have significantly changed the way in which this country deals with cannabis. But, as I already underlined, I am not advocating for legalisation as a silver bullet that can solve drug crime or any other societal problem.
While there are many bizarre aspects to this story, by far the most astonishing statement I heard from officials was something along the lines of "having encountered unforeseen legal challenges". Sounds to me like somebody had to do a book report without doing their reading.
If the legalisation of cannabis was only to be used as a campaign slogan to win over young voters, then why retain the promise in the coalition agreement? If nobody has checked if the move is legally feasible, then why announce a full-on legalisation at the start of the legislative period? If people are not allowed to sell their home-grown cannabis, then why allow up to four plants per household? In short, if it cannot be done, then do not promise to do it.
At this point, it would be great to know in which direction the government is heading with its legalisation plans and why messages around this dossier have been this contradictory. Should it turn out to be true that nobody's heart is really in it, then I think it might be a good moment for some honesty and announce that continued repression is this government's preferred course of action.
For the time being, it will certainly be interesting to look across the German border and see how their new government will handle the legalisation of cannabis. Rumour has it that the expected three-party coalition is in favour of the move, but somehow I feel like I already heard something similar from a democratic/socialist/green government coalition not too long ago.
