Dear Editor,
I would like to refer to a letter in SN August 25th by Janell Cameron, Public Relations Officer, Ministry of Agriculture. The PR officer spoke of the minister saying that regions 6 and 10 would be used for “the initial cultivation of hemp-the keyword being initial.” In retrospect, the rantings of the minister have no relevance to the written language of the Hemp Bill. The law is written language, the Hemp Bill speaks for itself. Nowhere in Clause 23 where the minister took the power upon himself to designate locations where hemp could be planted is the keyword “initial” that the PR alluded to. In justification, the PR found it convenient to mention the reasons why Regions 6 and 10 were arrogated by the minister – closure of sugar estates and call center respectively.
No comment, justification or implication were offered by the PR to allay the fears of small farmers that they would be kept out, induced by – “there are large conglomerates waiting for approval of the bill to commence production” – Anil’s words at the parliamentary debate for the passing of the bill. The fact that Anil is the legal mind behind the Hemp Bill essay’s a mindset that hemp enthusiasts ought to logically decipher in context. No tests or trials were done on hemp cultivation in Guyana but the MoA Public Relations officer took it upon herself to convey that – “these regions (6 and 10) possess the ideal soil composition necessary for the successful cultivation of hemp.” This is dishonesty or misinformation at best from the PR.
As it is (the Hemp Bill), the PR’s statement, “Anyone can apply for a hemp license”, should have mentioned “in regions 6 and 10”. It would be impractical and illegal for the Hemp Authority to issue a hemp license to a farmer from Region 1 in the absence of Region 1 being legally designated as a hemp growing area by the minister under Clause 23 of the Hemp Bill. The MoA PR offered nothing of substance to allay the concerns of prospective hemp farmers.
Sincerely,
Rudolph Singh
