Section 11a of the Opium Act came into force on 1 March this year. This section prohibits the performance of acts to prepare or facilitate illegal hemp cultivation.

This usually involves acts that are not criminal in themselves, such as selling specially enriched potting soil, installing insulation and irrigation systems or renting out a shed, for example.

The new section of the law is causing alarm because landlords, electricians and owners of grow shops are by no means always aware when they are criminally facilitating a hemp farm by renting out space or supplying their goods and services.

The criminalisation only covers the deliberate facilitation of hemp cultivation. These are therefore situations where it cannot be otherwise than that the goods or services supplied are intended for illegal cannabis cultivation and, moreover, that the supplier was aware of this in advance.

Thus, the law does not create a duty of investigation for potential suppliers of cannabis growers, but vigilance is expected of them. If the mere offer, designation of items and/or their manual or instructions for use indicate that it is intended for illegal hemp cultivation, criminal intent is proven in principle. If, on the other hand, the act is of a more mundane nature, such as selling a usual quantity of potting soil, then the criminal intent of the seller will be more difficult to prove.

It is doubtful that the new legislation will actually reduce illegal hemp cultivation. To continue meeting demand, facilitators are likely to package and name their goods and services in such a way that they might as well be used for everyday purposes. Above all, the new legislation will put additional burdens on the investigative apparatus, which already has a hard enough time undermining the export of nederwiet. Moreover, in practice, illegal preparatory acts will be difficult to prove in court.

So the new criminal offences do not seem to me to be an asset to society. It only makes the oft-lauded tolerance policy more inconsistent. It would have been more logical to license a select number of growers to grow hemp and sell it to licensed coffee shops. Enforcement would then be a lot easier and there would be a consistent tolerance policy.

Mr D.M. Penn