[imagesource:alaisterrussell]

The highest court in the land has smoken spoken, and it’s good news for those who think that the criminalisation of a plant is absurd.

Yup – earlier this morning, the Constitutional Court has ruled that the personal use of dagga is not a criminal offence.

Not a criminal offence – boom.

That picture above is a member of the Rastafarian community smoking the ‘erb outside the ConCourt this morning.

Here’s News24:

“The right to privacy is not confined to a home or private dwelling. It will not be a criminal offence for an adult person to use or be in possession of cannabis in private space,” deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo said on Tuesday.

“The judgment does not specify how many grams of cannabis can a person use or have in private.”

The ruling follows a Western Cape High Court judgment that the possession, cultivation and use of dagga for private use was allowed.

To spell things out, here’s Times LIVE:

The Constitutional Court has found that the ban on the private use and cultivation of dagga at a private home is unconstitutional.

The unanimous judgment decriminalises adults smoking dagga at home and growing enough marijuana for personal consumption.

But the highest court in the land said clearly marijuana was not allowed to be smoked publicly. Dealing is still illegal.

The Constitutional Court was confirming the 2017 Western Cape High court by Judge Dennis Davies that found a ban on use of dagga at home was against the constitutional right to privacy.

The court accepted medical studies that showed alcohol caused more harm than dagga and that there was little data to show that criminalising dagga reduced harmful use.

Parliament has two years to amend laws on the use of dagga at home.

In the meantime‚ the court specified it has allowed “interim relief” that allows people to smoke dagga at home and grow enough for personal use at home.

Superb.

But remember, not allowed to be smoked publicly and dealing is still illegal.

Now to figure out how much constitutes “personal use”. Zondo said the court did not specify the amount of cannabis because “it would have breached the doctrine of the separation of powers”.

I’m sure there will be some legal eagles spelling things out nice and clearly as this day drags on. For now, though, let’s just engage in some workplace fist-bumping.

[sources:news24&timeslive]