Two words on the cannabis referendum

I have read about the rejection by the Consulta regarding the referendum on cannabis, and about everyone's hatred of the Consulta. But I'm sorry, the Council is clearly right. And it makes me think that the text of the referendum was written on purpose to be rejected.

Let's see in detail. What did the text of the referendum say?

This was the text:

The text was rejected because, according to Amato, it would also have liberalized drugs such as opiates (eg Heroin) and other dangerous drugs (crack, and others). Furthermore, on some issues (Production of Heroin and Cocaine) there are international treaties of assistance to producing and law enforcement countries, which would no longer exist.

It's true?

The answer is: yes, it is true. We immediately note that there is no mention of "cannabinoids" or "soft drugs" in the text of the referendum, so we expect that in the text to be modified there are references that serve to limit the matter to marijuana or at least to "soft drugs".

But is not so':

Article 73 of the Presidential Decree in question, DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC October 9, 1990, n. 309, article 73 lacks this reference:

Tables I and III, in turn, include

Table I:

• Opium and opiate derivatives (morphine, heroin, methadone, etc.)
• Coca leaves and derivatives
• Amphetamine and amphetamine derivatives (ecstasy and designer drugs)
• Hallucinogens (lysergic acid diethylamide – LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, phencyclidine, ketamine etc.)

Table II:

Cannabis

Table III:

• Barbiturates

Table IV:

• Benzodiazepines

So, as you can see, the first of the three paragraphs of the referendum

limited to the following parts:
article 73 (Illicit production and trafficking of narcotic or psychotropic substances), paragraph 1, limited to the phrase “ coltiva ”;

refers to article ONE of the law, which speaks ONLY of Tables I and III. Tables I and III concern (also) Cocaine and Heroin. BUT NOT THE CANNABIS

Amato, therefore, is right. He is asking for the freedom to cultivate, among other things, Poppy and Cocaine.

Let's go to the second section of the referendum:

article 73 (Illicit production and trafficking of narcotic or psychotropic substances), paragraph 4, limited to the words " imprisonment from two to 6 years and ";

Here we are finally talking about Tables II and IV, so we are also liberalizing Benzodiazepines, which include some of the so-called "rape" drugs.

Again, Amato is right: they are trying to liberalize a table of substances far more dangerous than cannabis.

The third part of the question is even more disturbing:

Article 75 (Conduct integrating administrative offenses), limited to the words " a) suspension of the driving license, the certificate of professional qualification for driving motor vehicles and the certificate of fitness to drive mopeds or prohibition to obtain them for a period of up to three years;" ? "

The article says:

And as you see, once again the article is about ALL drug categories. I and III for heavy penalties, II and IV for the milder ones.

In practice, they would have eliminated administrative penalties for driving licenses, for ALL drugs.

You can read the law here: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1990/10/31/090G0363/sg

IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THEY WOULD BE REFUSED. THEY ARE WRITTEN TO BE REFUSED.

It would have been enough to remove from the law any reference to the substances in Table II, and the cannabinoids would have been liberalized.

Instead the referendum targeted sanctions, WITHOUT specifying which drugs.

But it is not an oversight: those who make referendums know very well how to do them. The problem is that in the list of drugs there is also Table II, the cannabinoids. If the references to cannabinoids are eliminated, they are no longer the subject of the law itself.

Instead he wrote a clearly malformed refedendum.

Don't tell me it would have been a mistake. It is one of those situations where a referendum is written IN A WAY TO be rejected.

The promoting committees have a guilty conscience and are the ONLY culprits of this. The Consulta could not do anything else: you cannot enter into support treaties with the countries that produce heroin and cocaine, promising to fight their sale, and then say that you now allow it.

And after all, the referendum was passed off as "legalization of cannabis", not "legalization of EVERY hard or soft drug", which you would get instead.

So it is better that they stop growing up, and that the promoters of the referendum explain WHY they wrote a text that would DEFINITELY be rejected, with the first paragraph of the question that does not even concern Cannabis, since it modifies an article that affects Tables I and III.

The Consulta has nothing to do with it, and you don't want to legalize rape drugs either.

Which, paper in hand, the referendum did.