Interview Martín Barriuso 2016 Part 2/3

Transcription of the interview with Martin Barriuso 2016 Part 2/3

Which were the charges? Can you tell us what exactly were you accused of?

Well, we are accused by the prosecutors of drug trafficking, a crime against public health.

We were also accused of membership of a criminal organisation.

That’s crazy! Seems like they’ve gone a bit too far…

It sounds crazy, but it was nothing but a trick, a cheap trick, the point is, what is the juridical background of all this issue?
Cannabis trafficking is punishable by a prison sentence of 4 years and a half in the worst possible case which means that the trials are held in criminal courts and the appeals are decided by the corresponding Provincial Court.

We already had two cases dismissed by the courts of Vizcaya and Álava and in both cases we got our marijuana back. Other clubs had their cases dismissed too, I don’t know, in Barcelona, Mallorca, Madrid, in lots of places, in Huelva…

The list of criminal courts and Provincial Courts dismissing cases like these was growing everyday so our prosecutors invented that “criminal group” thing so they could add 1,5 years to the 4,5 sentence that we were already facing.

It’s 6 years, and if you have a +5 year sentence, then your case goes from the criminal court to the Provincial Court.

And if your case is dismissed, then any appeal goes to the Supreme Court, which was the prosecutor’s goal since it is clear to me that the Supreme Court was waiting for us with the table prepared and the knives sharp.

This was a plan developed by the National Drug Plan, the prosecutor – who depends directly on the government – and some of the judges of the Supreme Court – who have been assigned by PP.

They say we are not a specific group of people, but an undetermined group. While the Provincial Court says that we have control measures to avoid distribution to third parties, the Superme Court says there isn’t any control.

While the Provincial Court says that we decided everything in public assemblies, the Supreme Court says that only few of us took the decisions and made it available to an undetermined group of people, then, at the end, what I guess that happened is all the facts have been altered according to the interests of the Supreme Court.

Sure, they have turned a control measure into a source of harm at the stroke of a pen, right?

Well, the risk and harm issue seems a joke, what the Supreme Court says is: while it is true that you’ve never supplied anyone outside your association with marijuana, there is a chance that a member of the association has given this cannabis to a non- ember - which on the other hand has never been proved - but it could have happened, and since it could have happened we are then alleged to be perpetrators for giving a chance to something that never happened to happen, is like condemning a supermarket clerk who asks some kids for their ID card to sell them alcohol because there is a chance that some of the adults that bought alcohol sells it to a kid, and you say “hey, sorry, if some of them have sold it to kids, go sentence him, but not me…I can’t be punished, I’m following the law. Well, in our case, since crimes against public health are what we call crimes of abstract danger…

Nice definition

It works like this…then at the end it is not about what you’ve done, but about what others could have done, that is the point, and then as a final joke they recognise that there was no financial gain, but they also say that it doesn’t matter, because the danger is in supplying cannabis, cannabis is poison, and the fact that society is using it is dangerous, then perhaps we should raise the price and limit its distribution, because if you give it for free, even if you are taking no economic profit you are encouraging distribution of drugs, so what they basically say is: “you were not getting rich with it? It doesn’t matter! You’ll get exactly the same fine and you’ll get the same exact sentence” and what they finally say is “well, these people were hiding, masking their true interests and not paying due attention to the law.”

We have been in the Basque Parliament, the Spanish Parliament, the European Parlament, I’ve been in the Portuguese Parliament 
I’ve been invited by the President of Uruguay, we have contacted the Ombudsman, we have done all this publicly, we have payed our taxes as I already told you, we have been in the media and they say we were hiding! That we did nothing to know the law! Then it is clear to us that this has been a 100% political decision, with no legal justification, it makes no sense, and their aim is, one one hand, close the cannabis clubs, we have a sentence that, while not sending us to jail, leaves a menace for the rest of our lives, so we can’t move a single paper, you know? An then we get an exaggerated fine, so we have fear but not money…

And you are directly wiped off the map.

They are trying to wipe us off the map, but if they believe that we are quitting the political battle for this thing they’re completely wrong.

It is a movement aimed at frightening the cannabis community and stopping its growth, and also at blocking any regional parliament regulating cannabis, since if the Supreme Court states that certain activity is a crime, then the Basque, the Catalan or any other parliament is not able to legislate, I mean, the Basque Parliament can’t present a law on organ trafficking.

I understand what you mean.

It’s not possible, I mean, if the Law says that organs must be donated and never sold, there can’t be a region that allows to sell them…

Just to mention an example…then, what happens? That Navarra’s law on associations is wasted.

Automatically?

Of course, the Supreme Court is interpreting the Criminal Code, and the Criminal Code is an organic law, we are all required to follow it, so when the organic law is interpreted towards a certain direction you can not regulate it anymore.

Sure, the roof goes down and everything above it… 

Everything above it is illegal, so Navarra’s law is useless, the law on addictions of the Basque Country is useless, even if the Parliament says that it is going to be endorsed as it is, right?

Even if they cancel this law they’ll keep on acting, what was being debated in the Parliament of Catalunya is useless, the debates that were arising in Asturias, Baleares, Andalucía…this is a political movement from the radical sector of the PP so cannabis is never regulated in Spain, so it is now over to the politicians, the Spanish Parliament and the government, if we ever have one…

What we need is to keep on talking about this issue.

The therapeutical use of cannabis is a reality.

The possibility of cooperation between everyone involved in the world of medicinal cannabis from a scientifical, therapeutical and practical point of view…

Standarising criteria is another important subject.

It has been proved that I always ask kids for their ID, that I never sell to people under legal age, Ok, but then, the guy at the hardware store, you, who are working in a hardware store, you are going to jail, because someone could kill a person with the same knife that you sold him, “but no one has been killed here”, yes but it could’ve happened, so you’re charged with murder, directly, and you say “hey, I’m just working in a hardware store, I sell knives,
I’m not responsible for what people do with them”.

And I’m a peaceful guy, leave me alone!

Well, we sentence you for murder, because it could be possible that one person killed another, and you say “are you crazy or what”?

This time, when we were at the Constitutional Court, 4 police officers were identifying us in less than 2 minutes, but at least we could put our poster, we could make our performance, we could show our banner in front of the Court and we’ll keep on fighting for the presence and regulation of cannabis.

Is kind of a last minute solution, you must use anything at hand.

These are the laws on drugs that we have, it’s completely nonsense, it doesn’t matter the point of view, I mean, in a constitutional state this makes no…

That’s what you say, that’s prohibitionism, is trying to avoid what could happen in the worst possible case, and do not let anyone advance from there.

But you’re not avoiding anything, if they’d be avoiding the black market with this shitty prohibition that we have, at least they could chalk up this success for them, I mean…”we have achieved things, you know? We have put up a show, we have violated several human rights on the way, but we have achieved our goal, isn’t it?” But not even that!

At the end, those for which you are fighting are other objectives, right?

Well, theirs are social control objectives…the objective is “I have the power”…the objective is “only those subjects of my choice will be discussed here”.

And I really believe that most of these people have prehistoric point of view with regard to cannabis, its effects, and today’s society.

Yes, yes, it’s completely repressive and not believing that people can make correct decisions, right?

It’s something typical of invasive authoritarian regimes, what I say is not only right for me, but must be also right for everybody else,
I mean, everyone should act as I say, even in the area of privacy, health, intimacy, everyone should do what I say.