Category Archives: Law

What could legal “Private Dagga” mean for daggafarians?

If the 11 judges dismiss the State’s appeal in the proceedings the judgment legalising the private cultivation, possession and use of dagga must be upheld and the Drug & Trafficking Act of 1992 must be amended.

The commercialization and industrialization of dagga will remain mostly illegal and inaccessible to the average person. None the less a ruling in favor of #PrivateDagga will be a victory in the #DaggaRevolution as you would now have the right to grow, possess and use dagga in your private capacity.

This victory would break down the stigma. It’s now OK to be #daggafari. We are no longer seen as criminals in the eyes of the law and even employer health policies must make accommodations because no longer could you be fired for merely testing #DaggaPositive.

The minister of police would have to issue an immediate mandate to all their departments notifying them that they may no longer affect the arrest of #daggafarians who grow, posses or use dagga in their private capacity.

Some of the technicalities must still be smoked out. Where will you be allowed to grow, use and posses dagga? The current assumption is that your privacy is only limited to your home however this is untrue. An example of this is when you are in public the contents of your pockets are also private without a search warrant, so is your vehicle. On privately owned property your #DaggaRights will also be protected, that is if the owner of the property does not mind the smell of dagga and leaves you standing with a lit joint on the pavement after calling the police. 😀

You would lawfully be allowed to grow, transport and use dagga in any private space without fear of persecution as long as you do not commercialise and monetise it.

Only when the Drug & Trafficking Act is changed would we be able to say with certainty how victorious we were on this day (07/11/2017).


Fields of Green for All shares equal equity, justice for sale & the Weedstock blunder.

#FairCop: “#StopTheCops: (Only when the) money is secure, (Shindlers) attorneys will let you use their name to say that you got to stop the cops and when you stop the cops it is going to be a publicity feast! – #DaggaCoupleCouncil – Robin Stransham-Ford

In this article we take an in-depth look at the Fields of Green for All ‘FairCop’ Meeting held in Cape Town on the 14th of January 2015 and how aspects of this meeting leads to the speculation of the planned failure to host one of the biggest dagga cultural events in the history of South Africa as a possible publicity stunt to gain support for one organization’s bid to raise funds for the Trial of The Plant.

Various affiliates in attendance of FOGFA #FairCop meeting in Cape Town.

FairCop meeting: Daggafarians’ justice for sale.
Robin Stransham-Ford leading the presentation in the presence of Myrtle, Jeremy David Acton, Tony Budden and others: “Here is the challenge, after Prince you can’t do it. It’s been decided the international court of human rights and I said we can. I went to see these folks (Dagga Couple) and said just not on your sovereign right to get stoned, I agreed it isn’t good enough you have a bright young lawyer who is now my second in command on the second tier of the challenge, as a university student he said on a comparative test how can you ban cannabis and allow alcohol and tobacco and he was a kid then they spotted his article, his brother needs cannabis 4 to 5 times a day because he is an epileptic and he manages one of the top firms in Johannesburg these are the people we need, this man here *pointing to Jeremy David Acton* the man of the Dagga Party, this man here *pointing to Tony Budden* who knows how to build bricks with it (dagga), these people *pointing to Myrtle of Dagga Couple* who have the individual sovereignty to challenge this and then work for it and they make it easy for everybody else to fall in line is as an exercise of sovereignty. Our ultimate aim, ‘Pinky’ (& the Brain) is to have 24 hour a day running referendum of all the big issues not the little local political issues, the issues that effect the world and at 24 hour a day running referendum called a lo(lotto), running lotto which just eats up my (money?), monetize it, digitize it, do the maths, join the dots, that won’t take long.

But I say if we can’t get this right we certainly can’t do anything about the government that we so rightly deserve in this country that we definitely got, so this challenge sets the mark for all of that but Mr Prince won’t come on board, why? Well he doesn’t trust lawyers, Why cause he went all the way to the International Court and, well he had the two top Council Tengrove and Chastelleson and they gave it away on the first day because they said the applicants can see that there are good grounds for the laws prohibiting cannabis. Now how do I drag them back from that and do this (#FairCop) again when everybody told me it can’t be done. I am going to show you. We have the challenge, now what we’ve said is there are 250 courts around the country, 4 bust a court that’s 1000 a day, what we said is a thousand people being prejudiced by these laws and we’ve gone to challenge it Constitutionally in the face of Prince that is a massive achievement, because that means one judge and it had to be this judge one judge had to say wait a minute the Constitutional court and the international court could be wrong on the issue of individual sovereignty, and is what they raised, so now we are going to bring the whole army to that battle this is how we are doing it we now say all the courts around the country, we are saying we have leave to challenge so stay the persecution and that’s for 25 grand, 5 grand goes to her *points to Myrtle*, 20 grand goes to the attorney and the attorney splits with me, I appear he (the dagga accused or attorney?) doesn’t go anywhere. Why can’t we get the lawyers, she know more about it than the lawyers do, why won’t they do it, and I know the four top lawyers in South Africa and they won’t do it because 25 grand plays 250 grand for the magistrate’s cut court trail alone and I’ve talked to them about it and they tell me well you can’t tell me how to run a practise this is crazy there is a law it has already been decided at the constitution, so they won’t hear cause it has already been decided at the Constitutional court. So that is not getting us far enough and then we put them together, Sharon & Myrtle and Sharon she is having a fit this is all very well to stay the prosecution but what about the kids, the ones I show you the ECG reports on who are having 70 seizures an hour they can’t do anything, the neurologist but with cannabis the child in 30 seconds whimpers and goes to sleep, what about those people who’s children may die. I say great that is exactly what I need. A child has a right to life. And an affidavit from his mother and she says *points to Myrtle* what about my guys, your guys haven’t been bust yet, what about my guys they have been bust, one guy shot himself and the other had died of an heart attack so violent was it now they charged with racketeering, and they had to go, twice from bail lost last time they got lucky because the judge said the magistrate said he’s not giving reason because he doesn’t want to come back from holidays that’s ok out on bail not because of the merits. So now what do we need? I can see the dilemma that her patients are in *pointing to Sharon* and *points to Myrtle* her clients are in, and I can see why there is antipathy between them.

So what do I come up with, I come up with Stop The Cops and that I say you can get started at a 100 and a maximum 500 and I haven’t done and Shindlers injustice but in anyway that is to start work. *someone interrupts asking if they can ask a quick question, Robin interrupts and says* Don’t ask questions! You can ask questions when I finished, I need what do I need here, I got these people they the brass bust is one of the biggest bust, Myrtle can fill you in on the details *Myrtle acknowledges* These kids are the most exposed that we have in the nation and cannabis is most effective there their medical case, their argument for property, privacy and right to life are all in one application, I’ve already made the Constitutional case against the laws. And the first thing I’ll say is Tengrove and Chastelleson and the International Court are all wrong because they took too narrow a view. And right across the country that’s gonna hit the lines, right across the world its going to be headlines. Because what do we say *taps on whiteboard*, all the attorneys tell me that they are not really interested in this business when I call them on trial but for the bail and the preliminaries let the cops take that because we can’t compete with them because they know what our fees are so they enrich themselves when they do the bust they steal everything they can they don’t account for anything they roll you over why don’t you shoot yourself fine let’s have another joint that’s what happening and that is a persecution. And what do we do there? We achieve such a, 99% of the resources against drugs are going against cannabis its the low hanging fruit, what does that tell you, it tells you corruption in one fell swoop were saying the Minister of Police must show cause why summons should not be issued in every case, second the Minister of Police must give instructions to the commissioner that all policemen that affect cannabis busts must give a strict account of the inventory which must be signed by the accused after summons is issued and then the Minister of Police must show cause why he should continue to allow the constabulary to occur liabilities at a thousand a day at anywhere from R10 000 to millions of Rands of damage caused to the people’s person, property, careers, privacy, right to dignity all of these things. Because what we are doing to do through them is we are going to lawyer every single one from now on that is your biggest selling point because its going out to the press that we are going to say not just join the queue, join the queue yes but join the queue to sue the government if they don’t do this. I need that out by the end of January (2015).

Because if he ever gets allowed to speak the president is going to talk about cannabis the medical innovation bill and I want him to say what I have ask for to say which is as much as I need to do or I go to Singh who goes to Mbeti I get the message across they want this as much as we do we want them to say a sensible thing so we come up with a plan and we give them the sensible thing to do and that is to say let the sovereigns grow just like they’ve done in America all over the ancient and indigenous lands industrially as far as horticulture we’ve got a pilot project, the Ndwedwe project it’s in Durban its going to grow horticulture cannabis and we are going turnout a platform a modal that we can roll out throughout the country and the world. That’s a far sighted state thing to do that earns votes and also gains employment, if I have done this *points to whiteboard* he’s got to do it, hasn’t he? Because he can’t enforce anything else anyway. Are you following me, anybody? I am just seeing nothing here am I getting any response at all. *someone says they are not following 100% on where Robin is on Stop The Cops, Myrtle replies and says she will go through it later in the meeting and Robin continues*

All I am saying is everything else, funny season is over the junketing forget that let’s get down to business this has got to be done now. And it’s got to be done now before the state of the nation address on the 12th and she needs to be able to tell the attorneys ok I have the money secure because only then will the attorneys let you use their name to say that you got to stop the cops and when to stop the cops it is going to be a publicity feast that makes it easy to fund this *points to the Constitutional challenge* that puts us on every medium that you can, look what the support that grows for you in the indigenous community on a thousand bust a day. I mean I am talking about exercise the most power that comes from the clarity, ok, not from any person or agenda. *tosses marker on table* I am the dying guy I am the rare resource, I am the man on point, I am on council. Between you *pointing at everyone* don’t think about anything else except getting money. And if I don’t Shuttleworth he is finished, Masepe he’s out, these people don’t respond their finished you can probably go to your friends and family and raise the R300 000. So let’s not have any influence mongering, influence peddling, politicking or anything like that. These girls together with Nonsie they got to get around to the rest of the continent and the planet and they’ve got to do it from pristine point of view not cutting side deals for themselves. Do you understand. Whatever you do, I mean if somebody runs a transport company or somebody does (something else) that it is all done at arms length.

What I would like to know is where is Dankowitz *someone answers he is right on board with us to which Robin exclaims* No! Where is he, I asked for him to be here. *Someone answers that he didn’t have the meeting on his schedule to which Robin asked* Why not? *person responds by saying they did explain to him but Robin interrupts* ok ill, because Dankoiwit is not that I need to see Dankowitz, Dankowitz needs to hear this. Because I specially asked for Dankowitz because Dankowitz he is, he’s friend you know Dutch Peet has already spoken to Sharon in my presence all bout profit funds for not this but for the challenge it should be so much easier to get him to buy into this *point to #FairCop on whiteboard* what I am saying is Dankowitz is in touch with him all’o the time. OK, sorry over to you *Robin steps down and Myrtle takes over presentation.*”

The following are excerpts from Myrtle’s presentation.

“It took us a year to setup (Fields of Green for All) non profit company and it’s your NPO, it’s not mine & Julian’s or mine and the directors it’s yours. If you see a role that you can play in it then please use it, use the registration of the NPO wherever you need to use it, nobody need to register a other one unless it is for another purpose, but this is the evidence provider for the trial of the plant, and the Constitutional challenge is the Apex of what we are aiming at”

“Where there is equal equity, the law must prevail.”- Quote from legal dictionary.

“Again thank goodness we are not on our own (in the battle for dagga rights), we have Dagga Couple partners, we have Field’s of Green for All affiliates, Alwyn from the South African National Cannabis Working Group, we have people like Below The Lion Headshop, Puff who sell the bongs, we have a whole list of people who take care of social activism, take care of the general public and make sure the general public don’t squabble amongst themselves too much about the issues at hand.”

“The Green Network (forum) is something that we setup on our Fields of Green for All website (hosted) on a secure German server, If there is any important issue we that we want to discuss and we want to keep it secure, it would be very difficult for them to watch us on there”

“#JoinTheQueue: it doesn’t matter if you have one joint or 5000 kgs of dried plant you can join the queue, you can put in a notice of motion with the high court that you intend to sue the government so they must stay your prosecution so that you can sue the government so you can join us and Jeremy and Garreth Prince and everybody else who’s got cases, so that your case doesn’t go to trial.” – Myrtle Clarke of the Dagga Couple

“There was a raid on (a million Rand Daggafarian-family dagga business consisting of) 8 different properties in the greater Gaugteng area, 11 people were arrested and all sent to jail, two of those people died. The one man didn’t get his heart medication from his girlfriend (in jail) and died of heart attack in hospital, the other man was granted bail, 6 of the 11 were granted bail, but he was the owner of one of the properties in Hartbeespoortdam where the nursery and 500kg of dried plant material were found, and he freaked out and shot himself. So that is really not acceptable and five of the family members spent 44 days in jail, while they were there the warders and the people in prison could not believe they were locked up for a cannabis charge for such a long time, and the reason they were in there for such a long time is because the police wants their money! They came out of jail the police now have 11 vehicles, they have 8 properties, they have all their cash and all their bank accounts and everything and it’s a travesty. So between Sharon’s amazing work with the children, ok on the one side and this awful experience of this family of the two people dying on the other our Join The Queue precedence in the middle we’ve got an amazing case, we can sing the praises of the case wherever but the one thing we don’t have is the money in order to bring this application, I would say it could be R300 000 and when you think that it cost this family R300 000 with their lawyer in order to get them out. *smirks* And we need R300 000 to stop the cops. *Myrtle concludes this part of the presentation.*” – Myrtle Clarke of the Dagga Couple

After Myrtle’s presentation a question and answer session was held

Screencap during Q&A

Robin responds to question about what #FairCop is: “What do we effectively do when we stop the cops: 1 we stop corruption because 99% of police doing drugs (or busts) are on cannabis, it’s no hanging fruit, we stop the theft, we stop the deaths, all that sort of thing, at the grassroots level what do we do, we cancel fear, we take it right out of the equation, what does that do at the level of debate, it means well people are saying ‘fuck me’, ‘fuck me’ *raises middle finger* we actually stop the cops.” – Robin Stransham-Ford

Top lawyer who representing the plaintiffs in the Constitutional challenge.

Myrtle elaborates on pitching to law firms and legal expenses: “We went to all the top (law) firms and gave presentations and they all closed the door and Shindlers opened the door for us and they have been there for us and they have probably done (at the rate that) they invoice probably done about R10 million worth of work for us. And if we can show them with R300 000 which is really not so much money, we can show them that R300 000 is a gesture of good will, we engage them on a different level after stop the cop, because it’s difficult to engage with attorneys and you are not paying them. You know. They… *hand gesture*, So if we do this gesture it’s going to mean so much for the Constitutional challenge in terms of Shindlers and they really an attorney who gets the cannabis thing, is a rare and beautiful thing and you really don’t get attorney’s who get this concept.” – Myrtle Clarke of the Dagga Couple

Commentary about attorneys and stoners by Robin: “And they (the attorneys) don’t get this if they are not stirring this that is the thing that surprised me, and stoners are nice chaps. They are cleverer, and somehow its doing good for this otherwise dull legal brains that took poor old Princes case on.” – Robin Stransham-Ford

Someone sitting at the table asked for funds to be used for placing a fundraising advertisement: “I would love to see a full page in the Argus written in really simple English saying ‘We need your money, do you smoke weed? Come and help us. This is our phone number.'”

Jeremy David Acton raises concerns about the dagga culture’s lack of identity and ask that the process be a people’s process: “Wherever the big case is heard we don’t only need the council and the people in the court room we need to fill the streets outside as well. Everyday must be a public event, it must make it difficult for the State to run the State in the area of the court when the hearings are taking place, its about building the culture. it not only the legal quest, we have to become people out in the society not just in the shadows smoking our weed. The Rastafarians are forward already. They have an identity then the average stoner doesn’t quite know how to express his weediness for the lack of the better word (Hint: Daggafarianism), all this adds up to its a peoples process and got to give it to the people.” – Jeremy David Acton

The monetization of the freedom of daggafarians

While the quest by Fields of Green for All is a noble act in the quest for Dagga Revolution the freedom of daggafarians must never be monopolized and monetized to raise profits and salaries for a single organization. No dagga organization or its goals, no matter how potentially significant it may be, can ever be more important than the people it represents and can never justify not releasing information to the public free of charge to enable any daggafarian to apply for a stay of prosecution considering it has taken FOGFA a decade to finally appear in the Constitutional hearing. While the process for a stay of prosecution has been available to the Dagga Couple and the Dagga Party for quite some time.

Therefore we feel the need to address the issue as we have pleaded for the responsible parties to release a step by step guide as it would benefit all people and create a public precedent that would challenge police persecution by creating a redundancy because of what the public knowledge of staying your persecution without the need for lawyers and legal expenses would mean in the public domain.

From the Fields of Green for All website store: “You can gain access to even more information and important resources by registering for small subscription fee, Donations are R150 per month or a discounted annual fee of R1380.”

Affiliation for sale: “We have a few sponsorship slots remaining for entrepreneurs who are interested…” Fields of Green for All – Clinical Cannabis Convention 2017 Sponsorship R 4,995. Out of stock. This sponsorship includes 2 tickets for the event, as well as featuring your company’s logo on all of our marketing and event material.”

The Fields of Green T-Shirt sells for only R 150, which is a bargain for any dagga related Tee but a whopping R 195 levy is charged for the basic info Pack that may cover a lot of topics but still only lines up a sale for your place in the queue!

This brings us back to the #FairCop campaign where in a fundraising campaign, Fields of Green for All representative, Joanne van Rooyen, said: “All the proceeds raised go towards our #FairCop court challenge, where we aim to stop the police from harassing and arresting all daggafarians.”

#StopTheCops never came to fruition and the fundraising campaign only ever was a fundraiser for Shindler’s “gesture of good will” as explained by Myrtle.

The Weedstock venue on the day.

Weedstock blunder: Ignorance or publicity stunt?
In 2016 the dagga culture of South Africa witnesses one of the biggest blunders in dagga event management. Many daggafarians pitched up to what can only be described as an empty promise.

The opinion of FOGFA’s legal council stated that the event organisers were not responsible for the cancellation because the police didn’t advise them about a legal requirement which would have also been a requirement of the Dagga Day celebrations of 2013. Then the possibility of confiscation of the equipment is used as a reason to cancel the event when they could have had an unplugged gathering of 10 or less persons per group in a lawful protest against the claim that it was the intention of police to sabotage the event.

Even if the Police played a roll in the event’s demise surely there are various options to consider. Postponing the event for one week until the missing signature could be received. Apply to the court for an emergency interim judgement to allow the event due to police negligence if this could have been proven however it would be impossible to prove because it’s not the job of police to educate event organisers about legal requirements. Although it would have been a nice gesture of the police to inform the event organisers in time to make the required arrangements to get the missing signature.

We have requested proof of the email from the police threatening to pounce on the illegal event should it continue but thus far could not be produced.

In light of reviewing the FOGFA meeting where the legal council’s main objectives are for revving up publicity to create a platform to base fundraising campaigns on we cannot help to suspect the possibility that the event’s “sabotage” could have been a dagga-falseflag operation premeditated by FOGFA.

An unthinkable scenario to imagine but unfortunately there are still too many unanswered questions. The convenience of giving up doesn’t quite fit the image of the Dagga Couple whom have gone to the edge of the Earth and jumped off into the pits of hell to fight for dagga rights who would eventually confront the devil in the Constitutional court.

The bottom line is that the event’s paperwork must have been in order for advertising and sale of tickets to have commenced because you cannot advertise an event that has not been finally approved otherwise you would be advertising and selling tickets to an illegal event.

The organization must release the communication that implicate the negligence and unconstitutional threats by the police and file a report of negligence and intentional sabotage of the event by the police.

We welcome the input of the implicated parties in the comment section below.

Analysing The Rationalisation of Cannabis Prohibition & The Persecution of Cannafarians

Analysing The Rationalisation of Dagga Prohibition & the Persecution of Daggafarians

The Rebuttal of Dagga Prohibition: Analysing The Rationalisation of Glyphosate Herbicide Arial Cannabis Spraying as justified by the South African Police’s Dagga Ops Environmental Impact Assessment

There is no justice in persecuting any person struggling with addiction. You don’t help any druggie by jailing them. Why then do we sympathise with doomed alcoholics but we condemn responsible cannafarians?

What rationalisation is used to justify the incarceration of the cannabis culture?
Prohibition’s rationale is that cannabis must be prohibited and eradicated;

  • to protect the public from harm,
  • to curb crime,
  • to eradicate crime syndicates & gangs,
  • to reduce early exposure to children,
  • to uphold the rights of citizens to life, freedom, dignity, respect & security.

Why shouldn’t cannabis be legalised & regulated?
There’s absolutely no reason why cannabis should not be legalised and there are about a billions reasons why it should be legalised & regulated around the world.

  • Create a whole new industry & eradicate unemployment
  • Health benefits
  • Alternative source of energy, eg bio diesel.
  • Alternative source of textiles & building material
  • Alternative source of plastic & paper
  • Nutritional value & dietary essential
  • Only known plant with a full & comprehensive cannabinoid profile that supplements the endo-cannabinoid system
  • Safer alternative to alcohol & tobacco
  • Regulate out of the hands of children, syndicates & gangs
  • Protect users by education & regulating the standard quality of the produce.


The Rebuttal of Dagga Prohibition: Analysing The Rationalisation of Glyphosate Herbicide Arial Cannabis Spraying as justified by the South African Police’s Dagga Ops Environmental Impact Assessment
The Dagga Ops EIAconsists of three documents, composed of an 11 page rationalisation for the eradication of cannabis by aerial spraying titled “A Perspective On The Aerial Spraying Of The Illicit Cannabis Crop IN THE TRANSKEI”, the registration of Kilo Max (Glyphosate) herbicide signed into commission on 25th May 2005 by the senior superintendent D. Naicker, commander of the head office of the narcotic & organised crime desk within the South African Police Service, and also affixed is the South African Central Drug Authority (CDA) Position Paper on Cannabis.

The most absurd rationalisation made by the South African Police Service is that they believe they are upholding the Constitution and the rights of citizens including daggafarians by upholding & forcefully enforcing dagga law.

“South Africa is committed to reduce the availability of drugs (control and law enforcement) and the demand for drugs (prevention, treatment and rehabilitation), thereby upholding the constitutional rights of its citizens to have their dignity respected and protected, the right to life and the right to freedom and security[ Sections 10 and 12(1) of Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act No 108 of 1996)].” – South African Police Service, Dagga Ops EIA
Part 1 – Page 3

This is seriously confusing, by forcefully barring the use and cultivation of dagga, and by jailing people who choose to use and cultivate dagga the Government & South African Police Service are upholding the dignity & rights of daggafarians? The right to life, to be free, to be respected & protected?

This notion is awfully contradicting because the Drug & Trafficking Act of 1992 is in breach of these very rights they claim to uphold. Hence why the Cape Town High Court has issued a judgement for this act to be amended.

There is no dignity in being labelled a criminal. There is no freedom when you are jailed for making a safer choice. You have no life if you cannot choose to use dagga for its medicinal properties?

As we continue to analyse the rational of the mandate its irrationality will come to light.


“In terms of the under-mentioned Article 14 of the United Nations 1988 Convention against Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psycotropic Substances, signatory countries are compelled to take steps to eradicate illicit crops, such as cannabis”
Part 1 – Page 3

Al-Bashir: South Africa as a signatory to the International Criminal Court had a legal & lawful obligation to arrest Al-Bashir upon the issue of an international warrant of arrest for charges of war crimes. This was ignored by the Government thus establishing that as an independent country South Africa can disregard international laws and legalise dagga.


Drug Control, which is the regulation of production, distribution, sale and use of specific controlled substances rests on two pillars, namely demand reduction and supply reduction.

Supply reduction refers to policies or programmes aiming to interdict the production and distribution of drugs. Drug law enforcement (including cannabis eradication) is one of the strategies for reducing the supply of illicit drugs.”

Part 1 – Page 3

Dagga prohibition does not work to reduce supply when dagga is freely available in almost every school in South Africa.


“Adding another drug to the same category as alcohol and tobacco would be a historical mistake,”
Part 1 – Page 3

Clever propagandists; alcohol & tobacco are only drugs when it aligns with their agenda.

Certainly we cannot throw cannabis into the same category as alcohol & tobacco, because according to the latest research cannabis is much safer than the two. We should never forget that alcohol, tobacco, sugar & even nutmeg are also drugs.

We must also remember that legalising dagga will not add another vice because even though dagga is illegal it is.


Glyphosate ‘has no residual effect in the soil and is therefore environmentally benign. It has a low order of toxicity in respect of humans and animals.’”
Part 1 – Page 1

The premise of the statement is that drift or contamination of glyphosate outside of the target or designated area is not possible. It is a logical fallacy. Just because something does not have a prolonged effect does not mean it is environmentally benign. The toxicity of glyphosate is also downplayed, the World Health Organisation have admitted that glyphosate does cause cancer.


“Glyphosate ‘is freely available to the public under the brand name TOUCHDOWN PLUS’”
Part 1 – Page 1

This statement is to affirm that because the product is freely available to the public it must be safe. Unfortunately many unsafe products are freely available to the public.


The equipment with regard to aerial spraying had been developed to a very high degree of sophistication to ensure that chemicals are applied to the target area.”

Part 1 – Page 1

Just because the technology is sophisticated does not mitigate human error or other environmental factors like sudden & unpredictable changes in during spray operations.


The toxicology of herbicide used by the SA Police Service was reviewed by an independent, qualified toxicologist. The development of the eradication programme was done under the personal supervision of the toxicologist.
Part 1 – Page 1

The dagga eradication programme was developed under the guidance of a single “expert”. Who is he/she? What are his/her qualifications? It is highly irregular that such drastic measures are overseen by only one expert. (Since writing of the article the expert has been identified as Dr Gerhard Verdoorn)


Only pilots and members, trained and certified to handle crop spraying chemicals, are utilized during spraying operations.”
Part 1 – Page 1

Pilot certification & experience does not make glyphosate less harmful.


“Cannabis is cultivated in South Africa in mainly arable, relatively water rich areas, especially mountainous terrain covered with indigenous flora. Spraying must therefore be executed under the most stringent conditions, as to not damage these highly sensitive eco-systems. All spraying is controlled and executed in accordance with scientific principles and acceptable toxicological practices.”
Part 1 – Page 1

Just because the eradication programme was developed in accordance to scientific principles and acceptable toxicology practises does not mean in practise it does not have any negative impact on the environment, the food crops, livestock and the people in the immediate vicinity.

There are no guarantees that the dagga ops pilots follow scientific principles and acceptable toxicological practices every time they go out on an operation.


“The calibration of equipment is frequently checked and spraying is only done under the most favourable conditions. Weather conditions, such as barometric pressure, temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, dew point and inversion conditions are continuously considered to minimize the risk of spray drift, as well as to ensure that the chemicals are effected to targets.”
Part 1 – Page 1

Calibrated equipment cannot compensate for human error, the unpredictable nature of wind nor can it make glyphosate less harmful.
Here the document admits that spray drift / contamination occurs during normal operation and at best they can only minimise the risk, they cannot avoid risk.


“Aerial spraying of illicit narcotic crops (including cannabis) with Glyphosate is recommended by an Expert Group of the United Nations. The Expert Group expresses them very clearly on specific issues such as damage to the environment, chemicals and application technology (areal application). In this regard they:
• Clearly state that significant damage is caused to the environment, including forest eco-systems, resulting from inter-alia cannabis production and that these impacts are totally unacceptable. It was stated and emphasized that with regard to adverse environmental impacts, illicit narcotic plant production and processing had a very much greater impact on the environment and potentially on human health, than the control methods applied in any eradication programme.”

Part 1 – Page 1

Any agricultural malpractices may cause damage to the environment this is true; however this does not apply to every outdoor cannabis crop. This would need to be investigated individually. This statement would have you believe that cannabis is not indigenous to Earth and is an invasive weed that must be eradicated to extinction.

To insinuate that spraying cannabis crops with glyphosate is less harmful than growing cannabis is an insult to intelligence of an average man.


“Recognize the development of highly affective, environmentally safe herbicides. They reaffirm earlier conclusions that when used responsibly and with caution that these herbicides have low negative environmental impacts. The toxicology of compounds (including Glyphosate) had been considered by them.”
Part 1 – Page 2

The premise here is based on perfect weather conditions and perfect execution, neither of which translates in practise. Thus a low negative environmental impact is highly unlikely in the real world.


“Application technology e.g. precision of application reducing any potential environmental impacts, such as aerial spraying by helicopters, is fully recognised in eradication programmes. It was stated that specifically against cannabis, very effective control can be achieved with certain aerial spray equipment, with no evidence of herbicide effects outside the target area.”
Part 1 – Page 2

Circumstantial and baseless claim with no references.  Evidence does exist to show effects of glyphosate outside of target areas.


“South Africa is a signatory to the different United Nations conventions on drug control and therefore adheres to their resolutions and recommendations regarding eradication of illicit plants such as cannabis.”
Part 1 – Page 2

Yet the South African government may disregard the orders of the International Criminal Court? Reference: Al-Bashir

Again a reference is made to the eradication of cannabis as if it is not indigenous to Earth.

How can we call for the conversation of plants on one hand while on the other we are trying to eradicate a beneficial plant into extinction?
Why are these methods not used in combating other produce of illicit trade? Why aren’t we eradicating every last abalone? Why don’t we kill all rhinos & elephant just to curb the illicit trade of rhino horn & ivory?

What makes the cannabis plant special? Why is cannabis not allowed to grow wild in nature?


“The South African Narcotics Bureau (SANAB) was established in 1974 in order to deal with the prevention, combat and investigation of drug-related crime, and the gathering and dissemination of drug-related intelligence. Cannabis eradication forms an integral part of its activities. SANAB is currently mandated to maintain a cannabis eradication programme. According to the definitions of this Act, performing any act in connection with "cultivation", means to "deal in".”
Part 1 – Page 2

SANAB was disbanded 11 years ago in 2004, there is no justifiable reason to continue the mandated use of glyphosate in the eradication of dagga.


Despite general believe, the use or possession of cannabis will not be legalized in South Africa in the near future.”

Part 1 – Page 2

This statement is ignorant because it does not consider new scientific discoveries regarding cannabis nor does it account for cannabis legalisation around the world.


“South Africa is unable to legalise the use of certain illicit drugs due to its ratification of the 1961 Convention on Narcotic Drugs, amended by the 1972 Protocol, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 Convention mentioned below. Parties to the 1961 convention are under obligation not to permit the possession of drugs for personal non-medical consumption.”
Part 1 – Page 2

Referring to how South Africa ignored the International Criminal Court regarding Al-Bashir:
We are an independent country and we cannot be prescribed by foreigners on issues that affect South Africans. We may consider their guidance but we do not have to follow it.

Furthermore Colorado, a US state, as well as Uruguay have legalised recreational cannabis in defiance of the 1961 Convention.


“Cannabis is by far the most widely and most frequently abused drug listed in the international drug control treaties.”
Part 1 – Page 2

This is incorrect. Worldwide, alcohol is the most widely & most frequently abused drug.


“In its latest report, the UN International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) invited all governments and other relevant bodies to take note of and discuss the new liberal policies in a number of countries and pointed out that the World Health Organization should be involved in the evaluation of not only the potential medical utility of cannabis, but also the extent to which cannabis poses dangers to human life. If the results of scientific research objectively show that cannabis is medically useful, it will remain a scheduled substance, one that deserves strict control.”
Part 1 – Page 2

They don’t yet fully understand the “potential medical utility” or “dangers to human life” but have decided cannabis will remain a scheduled substance & deserves strict control, unlike alcohol which you can abuse to death. A bit premature don’t you think?


“The Central Drug Authority also considers the issue of decriminalization one that needs to be researched thoroughly before deciding the way forward. In the recent case of Prince versus The Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope before the Constitutional Court, the question of legalising the use of cannabis by Rastafarians came under scrutiny. The Constitutional Court did not judge in favour of the appellant, but reserved its judgement.”
Part 1 – Page 4

The research has been done. Colorado & Uruguay have successfully legalised and regulated recreational dagga.
Thus far we have only covered the first 4 pages of the Dagga Ops EIA and it is clear that this mandate is out-dated and does not consider the latest world scientific research of dagga and glyphosate.

It is our view that Dagga Ops is in violation of the Constitution of South Africa in respect to the well-being of the ecology of South Africa.
The mandate’s rationale is out-dated and we call upon the Minister of the South African Police Service to repurpose the helicopters used for Dagga Ops to fight real crime like domestic violence, rape and murder or to aid in finding missing children or even the early detection of forest fire to prevent a repeat of the devastation caused by the Knysna fires.

Dagga is a harmless plant that deserves to grow in the wild, public park or in the gardens.

iAfricanna Inc, hoax or a daggafarian’s hope?

A company referring to itself as a cannabis incubator have compiled a dagga-grow permit kit and is inviting everyone to apply to grow legal dagga.

In a e-mail leaked to the Dagga Magazine from a source close to iAfricanna, a new incorporation established by the Salute Empowerment Forum, Zubenathi PTY ltd, Mazangani Solutions, Agricultural Research Centre, CSIR and House of Hemp, compiled a dagga-growing permit application kit and has invited anyone with fenced land and the will to grow dagga to attend a free workshop on how to apply for a permit to grow cannabis or hemp in 2017.

Permit Readiness Invite by iAfricanna

Hoax or hope?

The cultivation of dagga for commercial purposes is still highly illegal in South Africa, although the law may soon change upon the outcome of the Cape Town High Court judgement to change the Drug & Trafficking Act of 1992 to accommodate the personal cultivation, possession and use of dagga it will have no impact on the commercialisation of legal dagga.

While the promise of a dagga revolution is noble, and a goal every daggafarian must strive towards, there is currently no way to legally grow dagga.

We did not get correspondence from House of Hemp in time for publication on the legitimacy of the e-mail sent by Daluxolo Kunene.

Hoax or hope for daggafarians? You decide. Share your thoughts on our Facebook page or in the comment section below.

iAfricanna Dagga Grow Permit Application Kit

CliffCentral – Laws of Life: Dagga

After an invitation by the Presidency for people to send suggestions for the State of the Nation Address, the request for dagga to be legalised made up the majority of the recommendations. Julian Stobbs and Myrtle Clark (The Dagga Couple) join the show, discussing how they are challenging the constitutionality of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act insofar as it relates to the use, possession and dealing of marijuana in SA.

Listen on

The Drug Policy Sham – 56 Myths, Lies and Misconceptions Behind The Drug Apartheid

Drug law and policy has its roots in fear, ignorance, racism and self interest. Sadly, this has changed little over the years. It continues to be shaped more by punitive populism and moral crusades, rather than scientific evidence, reason and rationality.

To expose and encourage a critical debate I’ve tried to uncover some of the main myths, lies and misconceptions that underpin and shape and inform drug policy development. Unless we acknowledge our philosophical position and identify the principles that inform our thinking, we risk replicating further misguided drug policies.

Although punchy and accessible in style, each point below is carefully considered and can be academically supported – but that’s for another day!

1. “There is a clear pharmacological definition for drugs.” There isn’t – what we classify as illegal ‘drugs’ is a 1950s & 60s social and cultural construct with no coherent pharmacological rationale. We fail to recognise alcohol, tobacco or caffeine as drugs – and maybe sugar should also be classified as a drug.


2. “People who use drugs are drug misusers.” Untrue – the vast majority generally use drugs recreationally and sensibly, but unfortunately we conflate use with problematic use. 


3. “Drug users are dirty, immoral and dangerous losers.” An unjustified and hostile stereotype – illicit drug users are a diverse group of people from every walk of life. The drug business is dirty, immoral and dangerous – that’s because it’s illegal, extremely lucrative and subject to fierce law enforcement.


4. “People take drugs because they have problems.” Untrue – most people take drugs because they enjoy the effect, just like alcohol, tobacco and caffeine.


5. “Regular drug use inevitably leads to addiction.” Untrue – only a small proportion of people who use drugs develop addiction – just like alcohol.


6. “Taking drugs damages people.” All substances (legal and illegal) can damage people, and the most damaging drug of all is a legal one – alcohol. However, prohibition makes illicit drugs more dangerous and damaging. In addition, acquiring a criminal record for drugs can be more harmful to life than the drug. 


7. “Drug use fuels crime.” The presence of a drug and the commission of a crime does not equate to a causal connection. The relationship is ‘associated’ rather than ‘causal’. However, there is evidence that prohibition and tough law enforcement fuel violent crime.


8. “Legal drugs are safer and less harmful.” This is a particularly misleading statement, because alcohol and tobacco are far more damaging than mostillegal drugs. However, prohibition makes it difficult to know the strength, ingredients or quality of illegal drugs, which in itself creates an entirely avoidable risk.


9. “Law enforcement measures affect levels of drug use.” Studies show that in advanced western democracies neither tough, nor liberal law enforcement approaches have much impact upon levels of drug use.


10. “Addiction is an equal opportunity employer.” Drug use is an equal opportunity employer,  but chronic addiction isn’t. While anyone can be affected, chronic problematic drug use tends to disproportionately affect those with disadvantaged and damaged lives that had significant difficulties before PDU and these people lack the resources, opportunities and support to recover.


11. “Addiction is a brain disease”. Untrue, yes the brain will be affected but loss of control of drugs (similar to internet addiction, gambling, over-eating) has much more to do with social, psychological and behavioural fact than neurological defects. If addiction was a brain disease MRIs would be used as diagnostic evidence of addiction.


12. “The government can protect society by banning new drugs”.Banning drugs masquerades as positive action to deal with the ‘problem’ when actually banning drugs has little impact on use and makes production, distribution and consumption more dangerous.


13. “Once listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act, drugs become controlled.” Technically correct – but once a drug is listed as a controlled drug, it is forced underground and thus becomes completely outside government/social control. So ironically a controlled drug, is by nature, an uncontrolled drug.


14. “Cannabis is a gateway drug that leads to addiction to ‘hard’ drugs.” Untrue, most young adults have used cannabis and most have not progressed onto using other drugs, nor have they become ‘addicts’. The last three Presidents of the USA all successfully used cannabis without any gateway affect.


15. “People who use caffeine, tobacco and/or alcohol are not drug users”. Untrue – they certainly are drug users and many are ‘addicts’. These three substances are all drugs, and ironically unlike some illegal drugs – in high dosages caffeine, tobacco and alcohol are toxic and result in death.


16. “If we lock up dealers we can reduce the drug related violence.” The opposite is true, disrupting the supply distribution and removing dealers creates more violence by fuelling market uncertainty, presenting new business opportunities and creating ‘business’ conflict.


17. “Drug use isn’t a crime issue it’s a health issue.” This may sound like a step in the right direction, but taking a substance isn’t inherently a health issue, anymore than enjoying a coffee or glass of wine is a ‘health issue’. Even problematic drug use isn’t best described as a health issue, it’s more accurately a social, psychological, health and/or legal issue.


18. “There are ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ drugs.” There is no scientific evidence underpinning the misleading categorisation of hard and soft drugs. While some drugs can generally pose greater problems than other drugs to some people, – these generalisations are misleading because the impact of a drug varies from person to person depending upon the set (the person) and the setting (the environment) – it’s not just the substance.


19. “Drugs are illegal because they are dangerous, and the proof they are dangerous is that they are illegal!” This circular Double-Speak offers no evidence and is used to defend prohibition, but the substances we have called ‘drugs’ are not inherently more dangerous than other substances such as alcohol, sugar, tobacco, fat, caffeine and peanuts. However, prohibition increases the risk, danger and uncertainty considerably.


20. “Drug testing will tell you if a person is on drugs.” The result is unreliable due to human error, machine error, deliberate and accidental false positives and false negatives. Someone eating a poppy seed bagel could test positive for opiates. Someone who tests positive for cannabis may not have used the drug that day, however, because of the metabolites of the drug the positive result may be detecting cannabis used days, weeks or even months ago.  Drug presence does not indicate drug impairment or intoxication.


21. “Like everything else on the market drugs must be proven safe before they can ever be legalised.” Not true. The safety for other products does not have to be established before approval (for example mobile phones or GM foods). Substances that are damaging or even lethal to some such as tobacco, alcohol, peanuts are legal and promoted, whereas a drug such as cannabis that has medicinal benefits and has never killed anyone is considered dangerous and remains illegal.


22. “People who use drugs are not criminals they need help.” An apparently benign and supportive statement, however, while taking a drug should not be a law enforcement concern, neither should we problematize or pathologize drug use as a health issue. There is no reason why we should assume a person using drugs needs help.


23. “Recovery is about becoming drug free.” Recovery is about people who have been dependent on drugs regaining control of their life, but becoming drug free isn’t always necessary to achieve that. Some people sort their life out and continue to use in a non-problematic way, and some take clean legal prescribed substitutes such as methadone or heroin and successfully lead productive and stable lives. 


24. “Harm reduction is about reducing the spread of diseases.” Harm reduction is not just about health – it’s also about reducing social, cultural and psychological harms. Harm reduction is an evidenced-based approach that should sit alongside human rights to underpin all drug policy. It’s pragmatic, humane and non judgemental, it engages people where they are at with a view to reducing risk and harm.


25. “Harm reduction doesn’t support abstinence.” Harm reduction isn’t about getting people off drugs – it’s about working with people to reduce risks. However, in some cases abstinence might be a good way to reduce risks – so harm reduction incorporates abstinence – but only if the person is ready, able, interested and wanting to become abstinent.


26. “Illegal drugs have little or no use in medicine.” Although this sentiment is enshrined in the much out-dated 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotics this statement couldn’t be further from the truth. Opiates are essential in severe pain management  cannabis and MDMA, have medicinal benefits in the treatment of a growing number of conditions (e.g. MS, PTSD, Epilepsy). Illegality has made medical trials and acceptance extremely difficult.


27. “People who use drugs need treatment not prison.” Another apparently positive statement however, people who use drugs don’t need treatment or prison anymore than someone who has a double espresso each morning, or the person who enjoys a glass of whisky before bedtime needs treatment or prison. Under the umbrella of ‘it’s better than prison’ all sorts of questionable practices can appear palatable.


28. “To prevent stigma we need to understand addiction as a disease.”Yes we want to prevent stigma but addiction is not a disease. The most effective way to prevent stigma is to end the drug apartheid and challenge the hypocritical and flawed social construction of ‘drugs’. 


29. “Drug laws affect everyone the same.” This is not true. The chances of being stopped, searched, arrested and prosecuted for drug possession depends greatly on the colour of your skin, your social class, age, location and your social background. 


30. “If we try hard enough we can eradicate drugs.” A fallacy. Forty years of extremely tough prohibition involving masses of time and money for police, armed forces and customs has had no impact upon supply, price or use. They can’t even keep drugs out of high security prisons.


31. “Heroin is a dangerous drug that damages your body.” Any street drug could be very damaging because illegality means the user hasn’t got a clue what’s in it. But clean pharmaceutical heroin (unlike alcohol) doesn’t cause any permanent damage to the body.


32. “Crack cocaine in pregnancy leads to permanently damaged ‘crack’ babies.” There is no consistent evidence to support this claim. Longitudinal studies, indicate severe and enduring poverty appears to be the most significant factor that thwarts child progress and development, not parental crack cocaine use during pregnancy. So instead of emotively and inaccurately, focusing upon ‘crack babies’, it would be more appropriate to direct attention towards the plight of ‘poverty babies’. 


33. “Drug testing will help identify people who have a drug problem.”  Besides its unreliability – at best drug testing only indicates drug presence, it provides no indication of the pattern, time, place, reason or context of drug use. A positive result indicates drug use not problematic use.


34. “Law enforcement targets the most dangerous drugs.” Untrue, arrests and drug seizures for cannabis outnumber all the other drugs arrests combined. The war between drugs is largely a war on the relatively benign cannabis while the significantly more dangerous drug alcohol is enjoyed and promoted amongst law enforcement officials.


35. “People caught with cannabis don’t end up in prison.” Untrue, many certainly do.


36. “Drug law enforcement targets people who use drugs.” Levels of drug use across the white and black population are similar. However it depends upon the colour of your skin and your social status as to whether you will be targeted. If you are poor and have a minority ethnic heritage you are much more likely to be targeted – stopped, searched, arrested, prosecuted and subsequently sentenced – for drug defined crime. 


37. “Heroin during pregnancy will cause permanent harm to the unborn child.” Street heroin is a problem because you don’t know what’s in it. But clean pharmaceutical heroin causes no known permanent damage to a baby. Once recovered from withdrawal symptoms babies will have no permanent harm. However, alcohol taken during pregnancy can cause Foetal Alcohol Syndrome – a permanent condition.


38. “A drug free world is desirable.” Drugs have been used since records began for pain relief, treating sickness, for relaxation and social reasons. Alcohol, caffeine, tobacco are drugs and arguably cocoa, sugar and fat too. A world without drugs is unthinkable, undesirable and untenable.


39. “Illegal drugs kill people.” This is misleading because the majority of drug deaths are consequences of prohibition and a draconian drug policy that makes taking drugs uncertain and more dangerous and getting help risky. A lot of deaths could have otherwise been avoided. 


40. “Drug policy is based upon the best available evidence.” For decades research reports, reviews, inquiries, expert groups have provided mountain loads of evidence – but drug policy has repeatedly ignored the best available evidence and instead continued to uphold the principles of prohibition enshrined in the 1961 UN Single Convention. Drug policy is rooted in ideological beliefs and an attempt to seize the moral high ground, rather than science and evidence.


41. “It’s a war on drugs.”  Untrue drugs have never been more accommodated, integrated or promoted. There is no war on alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, sugar, fat or BigPharma drugs.  It is a war on particular drugs that have been outlawed for political, social and economic reasons (not pharmacological or scientific reasons). It’s a ‘War Between Drugs’ enforced by an uncompromisingly tough Drug Apartheid.


42. “Regulation is the way forward.” Ideally, but it depends upon whatregulation looks like. Not if that regulation (as illustrated in the New Zealand Psychoactive Substance Act 2013) means: you are now prohibited and punished for possession of substances not approved by the state (s.71 $500 fine); supply carries a 2 year prison sentence (s.70); all new psychoactive substances not listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act are automatically prohibited and the only way of acquiring ‘approved’ substances is through BigPharma or BigBusiness.


43. “Every day drug free is a another day of being clean.”  This is misleading, is anyone ever (and should they be?) drug free because we take caffeine, sugar, cocoa, aspirin, alcohol?  More importantly this statement wrongly insinuates taking a drug is wrong and dirty and without them we become ‘clean’.


44. “Alcohol occupies so much police time – imagine how bad it’d be if we legalise cannabis.”  There is no comparison these are two  different substances that impact behaviour very differently. It is rare for anyone on cannabis to be argumentative, aggressive and violent, unfortunately the same cannot be said for alcohol. It’s like saying we’ve seen the damaged caused by  boxing imagine how bad it’d be if we legalised tennis.


45. “Legalising drugs is dangerous because more people will use drugs.”  In countries where drugs have been legalised or decriminalised there has not been any overall increase in drug use. However, it is dangerous and problematic drug use that should concern us not drug use per se. People who are currently using unknown (purity, toxicity, ingredients, strength) street drugs and risking a criminal record will be in a much safer position.


46. “Cannabis use by drivers is leading to more deaths on the road.” Unfounded. There is evidence that cannabis is increasingly found in blood samples but this presence of cannabis in the blood stream could arise from use of cannabis days, weeks even months ago. Drug presence doesn’t mean impairment.


47. “Every drug death is further evidence of the dangers of drugs.”  Most drug deaths are a by-product of draconian drug policy that could be avoided by a combination of decriminalisation, legalisation, naloxone distribution, safer drug use education, heroin assisted treatments, drug testing kits, drug consumption rooms and less intolerance and stigma.


48. “The underground criminal business in drugs is enormous so we need tougher law enforcement.” Unfortunately, it is prohibition that has created these conditions in the first instance, more enforcement can only be expected to further increase the power and wealth of the criminal cartels and increase violence. However, regulation and decriminalisation would make a real positive difference significantly reducing the underground illegal drug business.


49. “Better that someone goes to Drug Court than prison.” Anything can appear palatable and justified if presented as an alternative to prison. For the overwhelming majority of non-problematic drug users, coercive treatment is pointless, expensive, and unethical. For the small minority of problematic users, better that people who need help can access that help in the community, following a thorough assessment, and a best-fit treatment plan that has access to a full range of services, rather than having to access an enforced abstinence 12 step programmes through the criminal justice system.


50. “The world would be a better place without drugs.” Drugs are vital in medicine and pain relief, they are also important for relaxing, sleeping, socialising, providing energy, thinking laterally, creatively and artistically. Legal drugs alcohol, caffeine and tobacco are used for these purposes every day, although other (currently illegal) drugs might be safer and better suited.


51. “People grow out of taking drugs.”  While there is evidence that people grow out of criminal activity, the use of prohibited drugs involves criminal risks, so if there is a shift away from illegal drugs at a later age it’s not necessarily the case that people are ‘growing out of drugs’, but perhaps, over time, they learn to avoid the associated criminal associations. There is no evidence people grow out of using the drugs alcohol, tobacco and caffeine.


52. “If strong evidence is provided drug laws will change  Strong reliable evidence is crucial to develop effective drug laws, but most advanced capitalist countries show little sign of being influenced by science and evidence. Instead they seem committed to an ideologically driven position to maintain the privilege of legal drugs by demonising all illicit drugs regardless of the harms caused.


53. “Society needs to learn to accept drug use  With the massive range of alcohol, tobacco and caffeine products combined with the ever increasing range of BigPharma drugs there is no doubt society already fully accepts, embraces and engages in drug use – on a daily basis! So this statement is misleading and feeds into the faulty thinking that fails to acknowledge legal substances as drug use. Society needs to learn to understand we are operating within a drug apartheid.


54. “There is no cure for addiction  Addiction is essentially a social and psychological condition, rooted in patterns of thinking, behaviour and lifestyle that’s got out of control. It’s not an incurable disease from which people never recover and are forced to live in ‘recovery’. The vast majority of people who become dependent successfully regain control, most of them without professional help. The large numbers who have quit smoking are a good example.


55. “The only place for taking drugs is in medicine  It is a position you could hold for yourself, but it’s an extreme position that would mean no tea, coffee, chocolate, alcohol, fizzy drinks, sweets or cakes, most breakfast cereals etc (avoiding the drugs; alcohol, caffeine and sugar).  It’s akin to saying the only acceptable reason for consuming food is to keep us healthy. Pleasure, relaxing, getting more energy,  feeling sleepy or enhancing our senses are not unreasonable motivations for taking food or substances.


56. “Drugs like cannabis are illegal  As a result of the 1961 UN Single Convention signature countries have made possession and cultivation of certain substances listed in the Convention a criminal offence. However, the substances themselves are not illegal, which raises the question that if plants like cannabis, coca and the opium poppy are not illegal on what basis can or should the police and armed forces search the countryside to dig up or destroy uncultivated plants.



By Julian Buchanan

Respectfully Decline Unlawful Searches – Do Not Refuse

Update: “After refusing a random body search on the train, by SAP, I was taken under guard to the Cape Town Station SAP office, and forcibly searched without a warrant. They got nothing, and let me go. I got their names to lay a complaint. I live in a constitutional democracy, not a police state. No warrant, no search. – Jeremy Acton, Dagga Party.”

Breaking News: Jeremy David Acton, leader of the Dagga Party of South Africa has been taken into custody, at Caledon Square in Cape Town, until a warrant can be presented to authorise a search on his person.

Jeremy was taken into custody after he refused to be searched by a mob of cops on the train. They have now taken him to Caledon Square. Where they will search him. We are unsure if a warrant is being issued or will they continue with a search without a warrant.

See this video maybe it can help you in a similar situation.

Respectfully decline unlawful searches and You can go v2.0

Peace officers upholding the law.

For those that do not understand and think that this is promoting lawlessness, consider that all crimes are still punishable under common law. Should you harm anyone with your recklessness you are fully liable and no amount of money can buy you out of it, as it can with statutes and acts. Without good excuse, the punishment under common law trail by jury for harming someone on the road is severe, and a very effective deterrent that cultivates responsible driving (and living). It is a big statement, but in my opinion there is no need for licenses etc. at all. A person with money is hypothetically (probably provably) much less likely to adhere to a speed limit for example, because on a psychological level he knows he can afford the ticket. How can a rich guy legally be less liable proportionately than a poor guy? This is the end-result of consenting to statutes and acts. It cultivates irresponsible behavior and disregard for others.

P.S. A “police man” wears two hats. One is as a police official, enforcing statutes and acts through your consent. The other is a Peace officer, who took an oath to uphold the common law and keep the peace. A peace officer may arrest people.

Arrest: Arrest, when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension of a person or the deprivation of a person’s liberty. The question whether the person is under arrest or not depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether the person has been deprived of personal liberty of movement

Constitutional Attorney: Liberty is our inherent possession. Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA)

Above is re: California County Passes Historical Law Declaring Right to Self-Governance. As of November 4th, 2014, over 650 police (peace) officers, sheriffs and public officials have put their signature to the CSPOA constitution.

Anti Drug Alliance SA responds to Employee Dagga Rights – The Truth

We ask those who use cannabis to be realistic and understand that the general public are very misinformed and dubious about cannabis.


Employee Dagga Rights – The Truth

This article is reference to an article written on the Dagga Magazine website (


The Anti Drug Alliance of South Africa has often been quoted in the mainstream media as being advocates for the legalisation of cannabis in South Africa. With this being said, we believe that the proposed Medical Innovation Bill is a fantastic way to begin the process.

We believe that cannabis has huge potential medicinally, and commend the people that are advocating the legalisation of the plant.

There is literally millions of pages of facts surrounding the benefits of cannabis use – some scientifically proven and studied, others unstudied and unproven (as yet). However, as the Anti Drug Alliance of South Africa, we believe that we are obligated to ensure that the public are made aware of the real facts, and the real benefits. This is a fight that will always call morality and religious and cultural beliefs into question, and so, in order to make sure that the public gets the raw truth, we have to stick to the science.

In South Africa, as we have mentioned, legalisation (for medicinal use) is being debated. This is a big step for our traditionally conservative country, and there are many that are adding their voices to the call.

We ask those who use cannabis to be realistic and understand that the general public are very misinformed and dubious about cannabis.

We have to speak with one voice and stick to the facts.

A recent article on the Dagga magazine website, (

), makes certain claims regarding the use of dagga. We would like to say that although we commend and agree with the spirit of the article, we would like to correct the writer as he has made some incorrect statements which may lead to confusion and ultimately incorrect beliefs which contradict South African Law.

The article states that (verbatim) “Modern drug tests can only determine whether you are a user of dagga.”, and “Currently there is no dagga test that can determine if a user is under the influence of dagga.”

The writer is correct regarding the first statement. Most drug tests today indicate the presence of THC or cannabis metabolites in the person’s blood stream, urine or saliva.

The second statement is true as well, however, we say this on the side of caution. Cannabis is metabolised through our system at different rates. Whereas one person may ingest cannabis (at irregular intervals) and have completely metabolised it within 5 or 6 days, another could take 10 or 12 days.

Regular users can (after ceasing use) look at positive test results from 6 weeks up to 6 months, depending on the person’s weight, gender, how long they used for, how much they used and a wide variety of other factors.

The writer states:“Do not consent to drug testing unless your employment contract specifically covers drug testing or your company has a comprehensive Occupational Health policy in place.”

Most corporate companies have Substance Abuse Policies in place which speak about drug and alcohol use and abuse. Many forward-thinking companies have even included other forms of addiction such as gambling, pornography and even OTC and prescription medication abuse.

We agree that you should ensure that before being tested, that your company has a policy in place which can enforce testing.

As a whole we have no real gripes with the article in question, as the writer has researched well and explained user’s rights very well. The conclusion of the article has several bullet points which we would like to discuss.

We will note these bullet points and highlight those which are incorrect.

  1. While dagga is illegal don’t smoke at work.
  2. Don’t keep dagga on you, in your vehicle or at work .
  3. Get legal representation.
  4. Inform your representative of the scientific facts surrounding dagga. It is highly likely that he/she doesn’t know much except for propaganja.
  5. Remember: Tobacco, alcohol and coffee are also drugs.
  6. You are not a drug addict for testing positive for dagga use.
  7. You are not a criminal for testing positive for dagga use.
  8. You are not proven intoxicated or under the influence for testing positive for dagga use.
  9. You have not broken any laws by testing positive for dagga use.
  10. You are not guilty of misconduct for testing positive for dagga use. Especially so if you only smoke dagga on your own time and in the privacy of your own home.
  11. Misconduct, in regard to testing positive for dagga, can only be proven where the company is also implicated. Eg. You are found to be in possession of dagga while driving a company car or you smoke dagga in public while wearing company uniform.

Point 1. We agree.

Point 2. We agree.

Point 3. We agree.

Point 4. We agree.

Point 5. We agree.

Point 6. We agree, although, like any drug – legal ones included – we would like to state that addiction can happen to anyone at any time. Abusing any substance is easy, and if your work or personal life is affected in any way whatsoever because of your use (or abuse) of a substance, we urge you to seek help.

Point 7. We DISAGREE. Act 140 of 1992 clearly speaks about this. In Chapter II (Illegal Acts), section 4 states (verbatim):

“4. Use and possession of drugs.—No person shall use or have in his possession—

(a) any dependence-producing substance; or
(b) any dangerous dependence-producing substance or any undesirable dependence-producing substance,”

We would like to highlight the following sentence: “…No person shall USE or have in his possession…

According to South African law, use of the substance is a criminal offence as well.

So, if we interpret the law correctly, if the substance is in your system, it means that your are legally in possession of it AND have used it as well, which is a criminal offence.

This means that technically, should you test positive for a drug in your system, your employer is actually compelled by law to report this to the Police, otherwise they may be complicit in a criminal offence.

Point 8. We agree.

Point 9. We DISAGREE. We have clearly shown above that by having dagga in your system, you are breaking the law.

Point 10. We neither agree nor disagree. This is difficult, however, many corporate companies’ substance abuse policies state that a positive result for alcohol or drugs is seen as misconduct, and can be an offence which incurs instant dismissal.

Point 11. We neither agree nor disagree. We cannot argue that dagga is (currently) illegal. We have shown that dagga use and possession is illegal, and by using it, you are by law then in possession of it in your system. Hence, as stated in the paragraph above, many corporate companies’ substance abuse policies state that a positive result for alcohol or drugs is seen as misconduct, and can be an offence which incurs instant dismissal.

Conclusion by The Anti Drug Alliance of South Africa

We would like to commend the writer of the article published at for a well written article, however, as activists in the legalisation of cannabis in South Africa, we would like state that we must at all times ensure that we know the law and our rights.

By giving incorrect information, we give credence to our opponents who state we ourselves use propaganda to disseminate information.

We ask all of our friends and colleagues in the cannabis legalisation arena to make sure we stick to the facts only, and also to make sure that we do not interpret the law to suit our agenda. Remember, we are already in the spotlight for our beliefs, and if we become radical and make incorrect assumptions and statements, it strengthens our opponents.

Remember, even if we disagree with a law, it does not give us the right to break it, however, we have the constitutional right to challenge it.

By giving incorrect information, we simply flush our credibility down the toilet and allow those who oppose use to highlight this and destroy our chances at changing the law for the better.

This document was prepared by Quintin van Kerken, Chief Executive Officer or the Anti Drug Alliance of South Africa.

Please feel free to contact the writer at

or call on 081 577 7715.

Employee ‘Dagga Rights’ – What You Need To Know

Currently there is no dagga test that can determine if a user is under the influence of dagga.

Modern drug tests for dagga can only determine whether you are a user of dagga. There is no reliable scientific way to prove intoxication or determine that you are under the influence of dagga while performing your duties as employee.

Do not consent to drug testing unless your employment contract specifically covers drug testing or your company has a comprehensive Occupational Health policy in place.

If you are a daggafarian, do not despair, all is not lost.

marijuana in the workplace

As a daggafarian, the most likely scenario you will find yourself in is a disciplinary hearing. They will have to determine if you are addicted or is it a case of misconduct. If they find you are “addicted”, they will have to offer rehabilitation support and if your rehabilitation is a success your case will be dismissed and you will remain employed if however they find you are not an addict the hearing will continue on the basis of misconduct, especially so when dagga is found on you.

Make sure that you seek legal representation for when the matter is brought before the CCMA arbitrator.

Your best counter argument

You must argue that the drug test does not prove intoxication. The test implicating you does not prove you where under the influence of dagga while you where performing your duties as employee.

Scientific Fact

There is no known scientific method for testing dagga intoxication in a similar manner to alcohol.

THC metabolites, which most tests look for, remain in the body long after you have smoked dagga.

You may have smoked your last bong on Saturday night and depending on how frequently you toke, you could still test positive months later.


  • While dagga is illegal don’t smoke at work.
  • Don’t keep dagga on you, in your vehicle or at work .
  • Get legal representation.
  • Inform your representative of the scientific facts surrounding dagga. It is highly likely that he/she doesn’t know much except for propaganja.
  • Remember: Tobacco, alcohol and coffee are also drugs.
  • You are not a drug addict for testing positive for dagga use.
  • You are not a criminal for testing positive for dagga use.
  • You are not proven intoxicated or under the influence for testing positive for dagga use.
  • You have not broken any laws by testing positive for dagga use.
  • You are not guilty of misconduct for testing positive for dagga use. Especially so if you only smoke dagga on your own time and in the privacy of your own home.
  • Misconduct, in regard to testing positive for dagga, can only be proven where the company is also implicated. Eg. You are found to be in possession of dagga while driving a company car or you smoke dagga in public while wearing company uniform.

The arbitrator’s decision is final and money talks. Please see sources more information.


What you need to know about drug testing in the workplace

The South African Occupational Health and Safety Act No. 85 of 1993 is the national legislation that protects employers, employees, and all business stakeholders from injury and death, and also covers various aspects of occupational health to ensure that the workforce and those who supplement and rely on it are protected at work. Every business in every industry can benefit from observing the law in this regard, especially where those businesses are affected by the overt and subtle dangers of drugs.

Employees and the OHS Act

Employees who use and abuse drugs during working hours or who arrive at work under the influence of drugs are putting themselves and their colleagues in danger. The OHS Act states emphatically that employees will take reasonable care for their own as well as their colleagues’ health and safety – as well as the health and safety of any other people who are affected by his actions or omissions. Someone under the influence of drugs can cause huge problems in this regard, especially by the irresponsible nature of drug abuse. Their absenteeism, errors on the job, as well as possible accidents not only cost time and money in terms of equipment and productivity, but can also endanger the lives of others.

Employer responsibilities

As an employer, your duties include preventing employees from coming to and staying at work if you can clearly deduce that they are under the influence of drugs (or alcohol). As part of this prevention plan, you should include a policy on drug and alcohol testing, which every employee should be made aware of when they sign their employment contract. You have the right to conduct random or motivated drug and alcohol tests to not only protect your business, but your employees too. However, it’s important that you don’t infringe on employee rights in the process, which include:

1. Employee consent

Before you perform drug and alcohol tests, you need to gain consent from your employees. This can be gained if you have a full, contractual Occupational Health and Safety Policy in place, which is set out in the employment contract. The employee’s signature on their employment contract subsumes their consent for drug testing.

2. No undue discrimination

It’s important that you don’t single out specific employees for drug testing in a discriminatory way, but that random testing is indeed random. If drug testing is justified by the nature of an employee’s job (i.e.: heavy machinery operation that risks their and others’ lives), then gain their consent prior to testing.

3. Follow due procedure

If you need to search an employee for drug possession, it’s important to follow due procedure: respect the employee’s right to privacy; only perform same-sex searches (men search men, women search women); and have an unbiased witness present. If an employee refuses a drug test when you have adequate grounds to believe they are/were under the influence while engaged in their employment duties, they may face disciplinary action. However, be 100% sure that you are following due procedure according to the OHS Act


Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article should not be taken as legal advice. We recommend that you seek legal council from a CCMA representative or an attorney dealing in labour law. 

Source [1]
Source [2]
Source [3]
Source [4]
Source [5]

The Day The Constitution Died

The Constitution of South Africa dies every time someone is arrested and prosecuted for dagga.

Many South Africans, who value the prohibitionist approach to drugs, might be bewildered by such a statement but the reality is that the Constitution of South Africa fails to protect several rights that are violated by the Drug & Trafficking Act No. 140 of 1992 and by those upholding old laws that stem from segregation and racism.

Dagga laws are justified in accordance to the limitation of rights contained in the Bill of Rights in Chapter 2 of the South African Constitution.

“The rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to the limitations contained or referred to in section 36, or elsewhere in the Bill.

Limitation of rights
The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including-

A. the nature of the right;

B. the importance of the purpose of the limitation;

C. the nature and extent of the limitation;

D. the relation between the limitation and its purpose;

E. and less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.

Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights. “

Let us review dagga law using the guidelines for the limitation of rights as contained in the Bill of Rights.

The opening statement makes it very clear that any limitation of rights must be based on human dignity, equality, freedom, must be justifiable in an open democratic society and all relevant information must be considered as well as the following:

A. the nature of the right; The Drug & Trafficking Act No. 140 of 1992 and the enforcement of the act limits most rights on the bill of rights by criminalising the possession of dagga. From human dignity to privacy and everything in between. Most importantly the right to privacy and freedom. State experts argue that the main goal of dagga law is to protect South Africa citizens from the potential harms from dagga.

B. the importance of the purpose of the limitation; How important is it to limit society’s exposure to dagga. How important is it to uphold unjust dagga laws and for what purpose?

The state may argue that, in relation to dagga, the limitation of rights are justified to protect society from the potential harms and abuse of dagga.

In light of this methodology: Why is alcohol and sugar legal? Even James Wilmot from the Democratic Alliance recently stated in an interview on SABC Newsroom with Eben Jansen that dagga is not nearly as harmful as they previously thought.

Conclusion – It is very easy to justify the purpose of the limitation of rights, in relation to dagga, if you disregard scientific fact in favour of propaganda.

C. the nature and extent of the limitation; The limitation is far reaching and the impact to society is debilitating, by criminalising the possession of dagga and severely punishing otherwise law-abiding citizens.

D. the relation between the limitation and its purpose; The goal sought by the limitation of rights, in regards to dagga, is to protect children and society from dagga.

However under the enforcement of the Drug & Trafficking Act dagga is unregulated and is sold in schools.

E. and less restrictive means to achieve the purpose. First of all you need to understand that the limitation of rights, giving power to the Drug & Trafficking Act, does not achieve the purpose that was intended with the Act’s enactment.

Contrary to what you might expect and depending on the perspective the issue of “dagga rights” are viewed from one can determine that the answer is not less restriction but rather more regulation to control dagga in a similar manner as alcohol.

Win-win; Regulation would give freedom and dagga rights to daggafarians while also offering more protection to minors in regard to early exposure to dagga as is the case with it being a common item in schools.

SA Human Rights Commission’s final comment on dagga rights
Recently the South African Human Rights Commission has closed a case lodged on behalf of all cannabis using citizens in South Africa.

The complaint sought the immediate protection from prosecution under unjust dagga laws for all daggafarians.

Although the Commision agreed with many aspects contained in the complaint, the Commission simply stated that they can do nothing because:

“The Commission does not have the power to invalidate a law”

This is alarming. Think about it for a moment.

What if the Immorality Act No. 5 of 1927 was still in effect today?

Would the limitation of rights and the fact that the act is law justify the enforcement and rights violations of this unjust law?

There is no difference between the injustice of a law that criminalises people for having an interracial relationship and a law that criminalises people for making a safer choice by choosing dagga.