Looks like they said they did a bunch of stuff but actually nothing happened
Mercelina confirms Native Nations presented to Council of Ministers, but inter-ministerial workgroup submitted no update; PM says he opposes rushing commercialization—not medicinal cannabis~
PHILIPSBURG:— Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina’s clarification answers to Parliament have exposed serious gaps in the government’s cannabis-policy process, including the absence of official reports, meeting records and recommendations from an inter-ministerial workgroup established more than two years ago.
At the same time, a draft national ordinance regulating the cultivation, importation, production, processing, distribution, sale and consumption of cannabis and cannabis products has already undergone a legislative and technical review.
However, the draft has not been submitted to the Council of Ministers or the Council of Advice.
Mercelina told Parliament that he is aware of the ministerial regulation establishing the inter-ministerial cannabis workgroup. The regulation was signed on February 28, 2024, and published in the Afkondigingsblad as 2024, No. 11.
The workgroup originated from the 2020-2024 Governing Programme and a Council of Ministers decision dated August 4, 2022.
However, the Prime Minister made an important distinction: knowing that the workgroup legally exists is not the same as knowing what it has actually accomplished.
Mercelina said no official quarterly reports, meeting minutes, meeting dates or other records from the workgroup have been provided to him.
That admission raises a fundamental question: How could such a consequential national policy process continue for more than two years without the Prime Minister having access to the workgroup’s official record?
Native Nations presented to Cabinet; government workgroup did not
The Prime Minister confirmed that Native Nations presented to the Council of Ministers.
The government’s own inter-ministerial workgroup, however, did not present or provide a status update to the Council of Ministers.
That contrast requires an explanation.
Why was an outside entity able to present to the country’s highest executive body while the government workgroup legally responsible for inter-ministerial research and coordination had apparently not submitted its findings?
What exactly did Native Nations present?
Which ministers attended?
Were recommendations made concerning legislation, licensing, regulation or commercialization?
Was the presentation recorded in Council of Ministers’ minutes?
And what decisions, if any, followed that presentation?
The Prime Minister said he requested a comprehensive status update addressing whether quarterly reports were prepared, what feedback was provided by the participating ministers, what recommendations reached the Council of Ministers, what research was completed and what work remains outstanding.
The requested information also covers public health, the impact on young people, the legal framework, law enforcement, economic and financial implications, supervision, product safety and cooperation with the French side.
These are not minor administrative details. They are the foundation upon which any responsible cannabis policy must be built.
Draft cannabis law has already undergone legal review
Mercelina also confirmed that a draft national ordinance has already been prepared to regulate virtually every stage of a possible cannabis industry.
The draft addresses:
- Cultivation;
- Importation;
- Production;
- Processing;
- Distribution;
- Sale;
- Consumption; and
- Cannabis products.
According to the Prime Minister, the draft was submitted to the Department of Legal Affairs and Legislation for a legislative and technical review. After that review was concluded, it was returned to the Ministry of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication.
It has not completed the formal legislative process and has not been submitted to the Council of Ministers or the Council of Advice.
That sequence creates another major concern.
How was legislation drafted and legally reviewed while the Prime Minister still does not know what research the inter-ministerial workgroup completed?
Was the draft based on the workgroup’s research, Native Nations’ work, another policy document or a combination of sources?
If the studies on public health, youth protection, mental-health capacity, enforcement, product safety and cooperation with French St. Martin remain incomplete, what evidence was used to shape the draft ordinance?
A government should first establish a coherent policy, assess its ability to implement that policy and then draft the legislation required to carry it out. Legislation should not race ahead of the evidence and institutional capacity needed to make it work.
PM: “I am against rushing”
Mercelina stopped short of declaring himself simply for or against cannabis legislation.
He told Parliament that the real issue is determining what type of cannabis policy is responsible and appropriate for Sint Maarten and whether the country is prepared to implement, supervise and enforce it.
“My position is therefore that legislation should not move ahead of that policy decision or the country’s readiness,” the Prime Minister said.
He identified public health, youth protection, treatment capacity, mental health and addiction services, product safety, supervision, enforcement and a sound legal framework as matters that must be addressed first.
Mercelina said he opposes rushing the process or treating commercialization as an automatic outcome.
That is an important clarification.
The Prime Minister did not declare that cannabis must remain completely prohibited. He said the government must first determine what policy is appropriate and whether Sint Maarten has the institutional capacity to manage it.
Commercialization, decriminalization, medicinal cannabis and personal use are separate policy questions. They should not be placed into one political basket.
Medicinal cannabis cannot be ignored
Any serious national discussion must also recognize the medicinal value of cannabis and cannabinoid-based treatments for some patients.
Certain cannabis-derived or cannabinoid medicines may be used under medical supervision to manage specific conditions or treatment-related symptoms, including some forms of pain and nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy.
That does not mean cannabis cures cancer. It does not mean every cannabis product is medically beneficial, safe or appropriate. It means cannabis cannot be discussed only as a recreational product, criminal substance or commercial opportunity.
The human reality has already reached Parliament. A politician has openly disclosed during parliamentary proceedings that medicinal cannabis was used while undergoing cancer treatment.
That public declaration matters.
It demonstrates that medicinal cannabis is not an abstract foreign debate. It has formed part of the lived experience of someone serving at the highest level of public office in Sint Maarten.
Rather than ignoring such testimony, government should determine whether patients who may benefit from medicinal cannabis have access to a safe and properly supervised system.
Who may prescribe or recommend it?
Which medical conditions would qualify?
Which products would be approved?
Who would test those products?
How would dosage, potency, and contaminants be controlled?
Would patients be forced to purchase medicinal cannabis through the same illegal market that government says it wants to bring under control?
A responsible medicinal framework could protect patients without automatically opening the door to unrestricted commercialization.
Youth protection and edibles demand immediate action
Recognizing medicinal value does not eliminate the dangers associated with uncontrolled cannabis products.
SMN News has received troubling reports concerning cannabis-infused candies and cakes allegedly circulating among school-age youngsters, including allegations involving children of primary-school age.
Those allegations require investigation and should not be treated as established fact without information from schools, police, public health officials and other competent authorities.
However, the broader danger cannot be dismissed.
Cannabis-infused sweets can resemble ordinary candy. Products obtained through an illegal market have no guaranteed potency, regulated packaging, ingredient disclosure, age restriction or quality control.
Government should not wait for the final legalization decision before addressing that threat.
ECYS, VSA, Justice, TEATT and KPSM should already be collecting data, investigating reports, educating parents and students, and testing confiscated products to determine their THC concentrations and whether they contain synthetic or dangerous substances.
Two years later, where are the records?
The inter-ministerial workgroup was formally established in February 2024, based on a Council of Ministers decision taken in August 2022.
It is now August 2026.
The Prime Minister says he has not received the workgroup’s official quarterly reports, meeting minutes, meeting dates or other records.
Either those records exist and were not transmitted to the Prime Minister, or required work and reporting may not have been completed.
Both possibilities are serious.
Which minister was responsible for monitoring the workgroup?
Who chaired it?
Who were its members?
How often did it meet?
How much public money has been spent?
What work was assigned to Native Nations?
What did Native Nations deliver?
Who authorized preparation of the draft legislation?
And why did the Council of Ministers receive a presentation from Native Nations but apparently no formal presentation from its own inter-ministerial workgroup?
Parliament must demand the complete file
Before any cannabis legislation proceeds, Parliament should demand the complete administrative and policy record.
That record should include:
- The February 28, 2024 ministerial regulation;
- The August 4, 2022 Council of Ministers decision;
- The workgroup’s membership and appointment documents;
- All meeting dates and minutes;
- Every quarterly report;
- Research commissioned or completed;
- Correspondence between the participating ministries;
- Native Nations’ contract, scope of work and deliverables;
- The presentation made to the Council of Ministers;
- All recommendations submitted to ministers;
- The draft national ordinance;
- The legislative and technical review; and
- A clear account of all money spent.
Cannabis policy is too consequential to be driven by incomplete records, competing ministerial positions, or unexplained outside influence.
Medicinal patients deserve clarity. Parents deserve protection for their children. Police and prosecutors need enforceable rules. Healthcare professionals require proper clinical guidelines. Businesses need to know whether commercialization is truly contemplated, and the public deserves to know who has been directing this process.
The Prime Minister is correct that Sint Maarten should not rush cannabis legislation simply so that a government can claim it completed the process.
But caution cannot become another excuse for secrecy, administrative confusion or indefinite delay.
Before the country moves forward, government must first explain what happened during the past two years, what Native Nations delivered, why the workgroup did not report to the Council of Ministers, and how a draft cannabis law reached legal review while essential research remains unaccounted for.
Until those answers are provided, Parliament should not be asked to trust the process merely because government says the process exists.
