Cape Town –
The Centre for Child Law notes media reports that perpetuate that it advocates for youngsters to be allowed “to smoke weed.” The Centre strongly rejects these media reports and is disappointed by their misrepresentative nature.
The Centre no longer argues that youngsters should be allowed to smoke weed. The Centre argues that if youngsters are discovered to be the use of cannabis, then they must no longer be dealt with by the crook justice system.
The kids must, as an alternative, receive the guidance of mother and father, groups, the Department of Social Development, and/or different licensed social welfare offerings which will make certain that the children acquire the rehabilitative programs needed, having taken their man or woman wishes into consideration. This method aims to avoid youngsters being exposed to the brutalizing impact of the criminal justice system, which doesn’t have the vital mechanisms to deal with cannabis dependency properly.
The Centre for Child Law was invited through the High Court to be a ‘pal of the court ’, to make submissions concerning the remedy of children charged with allegedly contravening section 4(1)(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act one hundred forty of 1992. The information that gave an upward push to the problem is:
A variety of kids had, we presume, been arrested and taken before the Child Justice Court, Krugersdorp, following every one of them testing positive for cannabis in the course of a drug check.
In each count, the kid became diverted, and in each count, the kid, for motives unknown, didn’t comply with the terms of the diversion order.
The youngsters were, as a result, ordered to undergo obligatory house at the Mogale Leseding Child and Youth Care Centre owned and operated by way of BOSASA for an unspecified duration.
The trouble that arose changed into whether a criminal justice reaction to the use and/or possession of cannabis turned into the maximum appropriate manner to address youngsters affected by cannabis-related drug dependency, specifically considering the Constitutional Court judgment in Prince.
The Centre believes that an appropriate response could be to address the child under the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 or the Prevention of and Treatment for Substance Abuse Act 70 of 2008.
It firmly believes that emphasis should as an alternative be placed on treating youngsters for drug dependency in preference to criminalizing, incarcerating, and punishing them, especially when adults in the same role are handled otherwise.
It is, therefore, wrong to suggest that the Centre for Child Law is advocating for the location suggested with the aid of the media. The Centre for Child Law calls for more careful reporting of court docket cases, especially cases involving children.
