Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 15 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-02-24 04:36:07 +02:00 | Roberto | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach | |
2026-02-24 04:33:09 +02:00 | Richard | Not fully | All of the above | Socio-Economic Discrimination | Once again the ANC Government is out to impose their ideals on South Africans despite the need of some people needing cannabis for medical reasons. It's high time that the ANC Government started to put their own house in order and concentrated on more important things such as repairing our foreign relations, the economy, crime, corruption and blatant inefficiencies within their ranks. I do partially agree with the act but there are many reasons why South Africans should be allowed to act responsibly and do what is right for each individual. |
2026-02-24 04:31:26 +02:00 | Kai | No I do not | Regulatory Overreach | I fully support the sales of Marijuana. | |
2026-02-24 04:15:17 +02:00 | Braam | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach | I’m not a user, nor have I ever used cannabis. The private use should not be regulated at all. If it is under a certain amount it should be allowed, full stop. |
2026-02-24 04:10:35 +02:00 | Thato | Yes I do | Socio-Economic Discrimination | I still don't understand why the sale of cannabis is not allowed, not everyone who is using cannabis can grow it successfully. This is an unfair economic disadvantage, people just have a lot of anger towards cannabis for no reason. Sale of alcohol is allowed yet many people are dying due to alcohol either through fighting or accidents but not everyone a single death case is known as a result of cannabis. This is unfair | |
2026-02-24 04:08:02 +02:00 | Schoeman | No I do not | Regulatory Overreach | Arbitrary Limits: Critics argue that the 5-plant and 750g limits are entirely arbitrary and lack scientific or agricultural backing. A blanket 5-plant limit fails to account for the massive difference between a small indoor plant and a large outdoor plant, or the fact that an annual outdoor harvest can easily yield more than 750g, instantly turning a legal home-grower into a criminal. Regulatory Overreach: Opponents argue that the regulations are legally flawed because they contradict and go further than the Act passed by Parliament. By removing rights or adding restrictions that Parliament did not approve, critics argue the regulations are unconstitutional. | |
2026-02-24 04:07:00 +02:00 | Thabang | Not fully | Regulatory Overreach | Cannabis is one of the best growing industry in the country which needs to be regulated properly in line with tobacco laws. The reality is cannabis has been used by the indignant people long ago for various reasons including health reasons. Although it contributes to the free market economy and that is where the government should play its role in putting formal taxes on it. It doesn’t harm anyone by the way | |
2026-02-24 04:06:10 +02:00 | Khumbudzo | Yes I do | Transportation Rules & Privacy | ||
2026-02-24 04:06:07 +02:00 | Khumbudzo | Yes I do | Transportation Rules & Privacy | ||
2026-02-24 04:05:59 +02:00 | Khumbudzo | Yes I do | Transportation Rules & Privacy | ||
2026-02-24 04:04:55 +02:00 | Khumbudzo | Yes I do | Transportation Rules & Privacy | ||
2026-02-24 04:04:53 +02:00 | Khumbudzo | Yes I do | Transportation Rules & Privacy | ||
2026-02-24 04:04:52 +02:00 | Khumbudzo | Yes I do | Transportation Rules & Privacy | ||
2026-02-24 04:04:10 +02:00 | Hennie | No I do not | Other | It is a deadly drug, like all smoking, must be banned | |
2026-02-24 04:04:08 +02:00 | Hennie | No I do not | Other | It is a deadly drug, like all smoking, must be banned |
Those who support the draft regulations as they stand argue the following:
-
- Legal Certainty and Protection: For years, the lack of defined limits meant that arrests were left to the subjective discretion of individual police officers. Supporters argue that setting firm limits (750g and 5 plants) provides absolute legal certainty, protecting citizens from arbitrary arrest as long as they stay within the thresholds.
- A Vital Step Toward Promulgation: Without these regulations, the Cannabis for Private Purposes Act remains largely theoretical. Supporters point out that finalising these rules is the mandatory final step required to remove THC from the strict narcotics schedule under the Drugs Act.
- International Benchmarking: The Department of Justice notes that the limits were developed by considering what reasonably constitutes private use, looking at the yields of cannabis plants, and aligning with international benchmarks for public safety.
- A Clear Path for Expungement: The regulations finally create a formal, timeline-driven administrative process to expunge the criminal records of thousands of South Africans who were historically marginalized and prosecuted for minor cannabis offences.
Civil society groups, advocates, and opponents of the draft regulations raise several serious concerns:
-
- Arbitrary Limits: Critics argue that the 5-plant and 750g limits are entirely arbitrary and lack scientific or agricultural backing. A blanket 5-plant limit fails to account for the massive difference between a small indoor plant and a large outdoor plant, or the fact that an annual outdoor harvest can easily yield more than 750g, instantly turning a legal home-grower into a criminal.
- Regulatory Overreach: Opponents argue that the regulations are legally flawed because they contradict and go further than the Act passed by Parliament. By removing rights or adding restrictions that Parliament did not approve, critics argue the regulations are unconstitutional.
- Privacy Violations & “Police Drivers”: The transport rules—which force drivers and passengers to declare their cannabis to each other and grant drivers the power to inspect a passenger’s belongings—are viewed as a massive infringement on adult privacy. Critics argue it forces ordinary citizens to act like police officers.
- Vague Wording Invites Abuse: The regulations use vague terms regarding how cannabis must be “concealed” or prohibiting anyone from “revealing” it. Opponents fear this ambiguous language will be used as a loophole for law enforcement to continue harassing citizens and executing unwarranted vehicle searches.
- Disproportionate Impact on the Poor: The strict requirement to conceal cannabis in a vehicle’s boot or enclosed compartment disproportionately harms poorer citizens or rural residents who rely on public transport, communal living spaces, or who do not own vehicles with lockable boots.