By Isaac Massaquoi
Somebody in the audience at the last SIERRAEYE Debate on the question of whether or not to legalize marijuana in Sierra Leone asked what looked like an innocuous question to me. But that question caused him some embarrassment at the end of the debate. He asked one of the most well-known faces on the Legalize It side whether he wouldn’t mind being called a “marijuana smoke” on the streets of Freetown. I suspect that because that particular question was put among two others for the same debater, the reply was somewhat swallowed up in the answer to the two others. But there was somebody in the audience who didn’t like that question and decided to do something about it.
Let’s face it – the stigma attached to marijuana smoking down the years in this country is no more. Even hopeless drunkards wouldn’t want their friends to ignore their names and shout out the word “drunkard” when they saw them on the streets, let alone a professional marijuana-smoking lawyer like the one on stage that evening opting to be called “Diamba Smoker” because they want to make a point that the world doesn’t end where people smoke marijuana. That would be unnecessarily too crass.
This was my first SIERRAEYE Debate and I wasn’t disappointed in terms of how it went overall. This is a debate in which no winners are declared but frankly from my reckoning those on the Legalise It side sounded more convincing in their arguments than their opponents. And they looked more organized too. They advocated for the legalization for medical, recreational and even spiritual reasons. Even those in the audience were tolerant of the medicinal component of their package given the power of the debater who handled that aspect. On the recreational side many were not so convinced about the country’s capacity to deal with addiction and the general logistics required to administer the recreational use of marijuana. It’s like fighting Ebola without treatment centres to isolate the infected, protective gears for medical staff, community mobilization and so-called dignified burials.
Those for recreational marijuana also talked about bringing control measures in place to keep it away from children. But they gave no details and because the devil, they say, is in those detail the nation must wait to read the fine prints of those details before the conversation resumes. They certainly did nothing to convince a fiery middle-aged woman just behind me who in her contribution said teenage marijuana smokers had turned the peace and quiet of her neighbourhood upside down.
What I didn’t like about the argument of the Legalize It group was their constant reference to the tax dollars that would come rolling in from marijuana legalisation. I am all for medical marijuana but the idea that countries must go for anything because of money completely turns me off.
Those who opposed the legalization of marijuana for any purposes had not consciously mobilized support for their position in the way I believe their opponents had, and they were not as organized in their presentation to move the needle beyond what we were told about marijuana when we were growing up in 1970s Freetown.
Science has moved on, attitudes to marijuana have evolved from country to country so any argument to keep that 40year old mentality regarding marijuana in place must keep pace with science and the attitudes of a 21st century society.
Having this open debate is testament to how far we’ve travelled from a country too scared to confront critical issues to one which is beginning to say that no topic will be off limits before long, and this debate series like a few other efforts, marks the first signs of that.
THE AUDIENCE
The program was well attended. It seemed like the audience was selected to reflect all the shades of opinion on the debate floor and that probably explained the constant applause after every punch landed by either side of the debate like any boxing match. Neutrals like me were constantly being distracted as the event went on because some of the debaters captured the mood and played along. It may have served their purpose in front of TV cameras but frankly it just didn’t work for me. The occasional applause to acknowledge a great point is not bad but turning the event into a kind of campaign rally should be discouraged.
The other point is that the majority of the invited guests arrived about 20 minutes into the debate despite the event starting about half an hour late. And the struggle to find seats for them was another point of distraction. I know that evening westbound rush-hour traffic can be impossible in Freetown but accepting to be invited to such an event confirms one’s determination and ability to attend and on time. And the way the seats are organized at Lagoonda makes it impossible for a late comer to quietly find a seat without moving out of the way those already seated. I believe that the organizers should insist on the program starting on time and also arranging the place in such a way that late comers cannot call attention to their ridiculous behaviour.
TECHNICAL OUTPUT
On the technical side, I think the stage layout was fine. So was the sound, when it finally came under control. Great! But why did the technicians wait until we were all seated before they started testing microphones and camera positions. I understand rehearsals were done so why did the technical people spend at least 10 minutes testing the microphones all over again? Also there should ideally be three roving microphones to save the time it takes to move a microphone across the room to capture contributions from the audience.
SECURITY
Lagoonda is located in a safe environment – just the right place for that largely middle class group to discuss serious matters that may end up informing national policies. So I didn’t go there thinking that anybody could be attacked as a reaction to contribution they might have made on the floor.
Towards the end of the debate I came out of the hall to join a friend who had left about 10 minutes before me to answer to a call. We were soon joined by two other friends who arrived so late for the debate that they decided they shouldn’t embarrass themselves by trying to get in. Just at that point a fair-skinned lady with a Brenda Fassie-style haircut walked out of the building heading towards the parking area. When she saw my friend who had spoken stridently against any form of marijuana legalization she immediately blasted him calling him all types of names: “dirty hypocrite”, “criminal”, “ignorant”, etc. We were so shocked that it took a few minutes before we could process her attack. We responded by telling her she had all the opportunity to have made her case inside the hall and that in any case she was very wrong to go to a debate expecting or demanding to hear only her own views. Her language became even more violent and coarse as she drove off in her pathetic Honda CRV car that was begging for a visit to the car wash.
We left Lagoonda thinking if she was strong enough she would have physically attacked my friend. That episode was as serious as it was shameful. Maybe next time the organizers should be a little more careful who they invite to such a program or announce before the start of every debate, like the way safety instructions are given out in an aircraft before take-off, that nobody should pick a quarrel with others over the views they express on the debate floor or in the vicinity of Lagoonda. Otherwise the day we touch another round of the emotive abortion or gay and lesbian debate, for example, something even more serious might just happen outside.
So this is done. SIERRAEYE are probably planning for the next topic. But where are we now with this marijuana question? SIERRAEYE’s role in this is to facilitate a debate which they have done. I believe that at this point those for medical and recreational marijuana should go their separate ways otherwise the recreational people would distort the message of those on the medical side. The medical side might even try to get parliamentary debate on the issue.
The recreational side, championed by a small but increasingly vocal Rasta movement, should reconsider comparing their use of marijuana to the bread and communion wine shared in churches. That may be the case in their doctrine but at this stage when they are trying to win over moderates, that is certainly not going to do it for them.
We heard at the debate that there was no law against marijuana use in Sierra Leone. As I write this piece, I am listening to a report on one of our local stations about people being prosecuted in court for loitering and unlawful possession of marijuana. So where are we now?
© 2019 Politico Online
