comments3

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.