GREAT BAY--Member of Parliament Dimar Labega pushed back Monday against the impression created during the 2026 Budget debate that St. Maarten is approaching cannabis policy without structure, information or ongoing Government involvement, pointing to an interministerial workgroup that has been active on the issue for approximately two years.
Labega said his concern was not with Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina raising questions about public health, youth protection, regulation and enforcement. He said those are legitimate issues that should form part of the discussion, but cautioned against presenting the situation as though Government and stakeholders have been operating without direction or information.
According to Labega, an interministerial workgroup involving representatives from the Ministries of Justice, Public Health, Social Development and Labor, VSA, and Education has been working on the issue since around May 2024. He questioned whether the workgroup has been providing updates to the Council of Ministers and whether its findings and recommendations have been properly considered at the highest level of Government.
Labega also questioned whether Native Nation SXM and the workgroup have presented their findings, activities and available information to Government in a manner that allows ministers to provide feedback and make informed decisions.
His intervention came after Mercelina raised a series of concerns about St. Maarten's preparedness for cannabis reform, including mental-health risks, treatment capacity, youth protection, licensing, product controls, enforcement, international obligations and coordination with the French side.
Labega said those concerns should be examined, but suggested that some of the public narrative around the cannabis discussion has become more sensational than fact-driven.
"If I listen to you, Prime Minister, it is like everybody is totally lost as to what is going on and there is an extreme sensationalism out there," Labega told Parliament, while stressing that his understanding is that information has in fact been shared and work has been taking place.
The MP specifically commended Native Nation SXM for its community outreach and engagement with stakeholders, saying that such involvement is important in an area where Government is often criticized for making decisions without sufficient consultation, information or data.
Labega said the work already done should now be brought more visibly into the public and policy discussion so that Parliament and the wider community can properly distinguish between established facts, legitimate concerns and claims that may be overstating the situation.
He said he is particularly interested in hearing more directly from the interministerial workgroup about what it has accomplished over the past two years, what information it has gathered, what recommendations have been made and how frequently those findings have been presented to the Council of Ministers.
Labega also said he looks forward to seeing the workgroup expand its activities, particularly in the areas of public education, stakeholder engagement and the presentation of reliable information that can help address misconceptions surrounding cannabis reform.
The MP said that if Government intends to make major policy decisions on cannabis, those decisions should be guided by the work already completed, available data and continued consultation rather than by fear or overly dramatic narratives.
Labega stressed that acknowledging concerns about cannabis does not require dismissing the work that has already taken place. Instead, he said, Government should bring all of the information together, identify the gaps that still exist and determine what additional research, safeguards and institutional capacity are required before moving forward.
For Labega, the next stage should therefore involve greater visibility from the interministerial workgroup and a fuller accounting of the information already available.
He said Parliament should be hearing not only about what St. Maarten may be lacking, but also about what has already been done, what has been learned and what practical steps are now required to move the discussion forward based on facts.
