Dear Editor, It was reported in the Cook Islands News on 9-12-23, a jury of nine women and two men found an Aitutaki man guilty of supplying cannabis following a two-day trial on Rarotonga.

They returned a majority verdict of nine to two.

Justice Christine Grice instructed the jury not once but twice not to be prejudiced by beliefs and to put it aside.

Prejudiced? Is it prejudiced to believe our Drugs Act is outdated and cruel?

Is it prejudiced to believe marijuana is one of the greatest recreational and therapeutic options of the century?

Is it prejudiced to think marijuana is a medicinal and recreational plant with relatively negligible dangers and is banned with strict laws against its use when the favourable majority of voters in the Cook Islands are looking forward to its legalisation, while highly dangerous drugs like nicotine and alcohol are socially accepted?

The jury was tasked with deciding the fate of an individual charged with violating the Drugs Act.

Given the favourable polling for cannabis nationwide, jurors can exercise their right to judge not simply based on the letter of the law, but also their understanding to symbolically challenge prohibitionist policies that can put cannabis users, suppliers and cultivators that are non-violent in prison. It’s called jury nullification.

Jury nullification is not against the law. When a jury’s conscience takes over and tells it someone does not deserve criminal punishment for their actions regardless of the law, the jury can choose to acquit.

Jury nullification is simply the ability of a juror to vote however they want, justified on moral or ethical grounds.

No lawyer can argue jury nullification nor bring it to the jury that they have that power, but I can.

No one should be in jail for marijuana.

Steve Boggs.