A Conversation with ItsHemp’s Srijen Sharma Elucidates India’s Cannabis Conundrum
Anna, serving as Dharte’s Finland-based correspondent, engages in an informative discussion with ItsHemp’s Srijen Sharma on the peculiarities of Indian cannabis legislation. This conversation unveils the subtle intricacies of a law that seemingly criminalizes only parts of a plant deeply rooted in the nation’s cultural ethos.
In 1985, India introduced a significant piece of legislation, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which had a distinctive stance on cannabis. Sharma clarifies, “So in India, the NDPS act criminalized the use of two parts of cannabis only. So according to India, the entire plant was never ever ever illegal.”
The discussion highlights the Indian government’s nuanced approach, taking into account the plant’s historical and cultural importance. Sharma reflects, “Okay, so they said, ‘You say that the drug is the misuse, right? But we have a lot of religious use and a lot of industrial use of the plant that already exists in this country, and we can’t just bypass that.'”
Sharma further elaborates on the legal specifics, “So according to what you’re saying, what we’ll do is we’ll make the bud of the plant illegal—the flower—and the resin that comes out of it. So the flower is called ganja, and the resin is called charas. So those are the two parts that were illegal.”
Exploring the ramifications of this law, the conversation reveals the consequences of the selective prohibition. “And then they very smartly said that the leaves, the stalk, the stem, the roots, everything else, and even the seeds are legal in the country, and it’s always been legal in India,” declares Sharma, indicating a comprehensive yet selective legality.
Sharma touches on the decentralized nature of cannabis governance, which adds another layer to the legal landscape. “The next step that they did was that they said, ‘Federally, on a country-wide level, we can’t give you the permission to grow cannabis, but we give every individual state the right to figure out how they want to use cannabis for cultivation, for sale, for medical use, and for industrial use.’ So very sneakily, we federally illegalized the part of the plant that caused people to get high but left out everything else.”
Through the lens of this dialogue, it becomes apparent that India’s laws were designed not only to stem misuse but to also retain its utilitarian and culturally significant aspects. The conversation with Sharma provides a granular view into how India continues to balance traditional integrity with the control of narcotics, illustrating a unique legal delineation within the global dialogue on cannabis.
