GREAT BAY--Member of Parliament Ludmila de Weever has strongly questioned government’s prioritization of cannabis regulation, warning that St. Maarten is not sufficiently prepared for the possible public health, mental health, regulatory and financial consequences while more immediate problems facing residents remain unresolved.
Speaking during the 2026 budget debate, De Weever said she was particularly concerned to see cannabis regulation listed prominently among the Ministry of TEATT legislative and policy priorities, ahead of several initiatives that have been discussed for years. It should be noted here however, that the list from which she read as presented by the Minister of TEATT on Thursday was not descending in order of priority or importance, rather overall legislative priorities.
Nevertheless, DeWeever questioned whether government is devoting disproportionate attention to cannabis while residents continue struggling with the cost of living, deteriorating roads, garbage collection, sewage, healthcare, special-needs services and other everyday concerns.
“If we think that we’re going to make a gazillion amount of money from cannabis legislation, y’all need to rethink what your priority is,” De Weever said.
The MP said her opposition is not based simply on cannabis itself, but on whether St. Maarten has the institutions, safeguards and capacity necessary to regulate the sector responsibly.
De Weever Questions Role of Foreign Entity
One of De Weever’s strongest concerns involves the proposed regulatory structure and the role of an outside entity in the development of the cannabis industry.
She said she is uncomfortable with what she understands to be a system in which significant regulatory authority could effectively be passed to a foreign entity registered in St. Maarten.
“I feel like some of the authority of government is being passed on to a foreign entity,” De Weever said, questioning why government would surrender part of its own regulatory responsibility over licensing, cultivation and the operation of the industry.
She called for greater transparency surrounding the arrangements already made, saying she has not seen the agreements governing the relationship.
De Weever described the process as being “shrouded in mystery” from her perspective and said she cannot support arrangements she has not been able to review and understand.
“I can’t trust anything that I can’t read,” she said.
What Happens if Cannabis Legislation Does Not Proceed?
De Weever specifically asked the Minister of TEATT to explain what financial or contractual consequences St. Maarten would face if the proposed cannabis legislation ultimately does not move forward.
She questioned whether government is already tied to contractual commitments and, if so, whether compensation would have to be paid to the company involved if the initiative is stopped.
“If this cannabis legislation does not go through, what do we owe the company?” De Weever asked.
She said Parliament should know whether government has created any financial liability before being asked to move further with the initiative.
De Weever also linked this concern to what she considers St. Maarten’s poor history of completing major projects, questioning what would happen if cannabis regulation follows the same path of delays, studies and incomplete implementation seen with other government initiatives.
Mental Health System Must Be Ready First
De Weever repeatedly returned to the possible impact of cannabis legalization or regulation on mental health.
She said St. Maarten is already experiencing visible mental health challenges and questioned whether government has demonstrated that the country’s healthcare and social support systems can handle additional problems that could arise.
The MP referred specifically to organizations dealing with mental health and substance abuse, including Turning Point, and questioned how cannabis regulation can be treated as a priority when existing institutions face financial and operational challenges.
“How is it possible that you can tell me when they’re at risk of closing down for not getting money, how can you tell me that the priority...of cannabis legislation is a good idea?” De Weever asked.
She said her position should not be viewed as an attempt to make cannabis a divisive issue, but as a question about whether government has realistically assessed the country’s capacity.
De Weever told Parliament that she has previously met with lawyers involved in cannabis legislation in Massachusetts as well as doctors at Harvard and said those discussions reinforced her concerns about unintended consequences, particularly involving potency and concentration levels.
According to De Weever, the lesson she took from those discussions was that even jurisdictions with significantly greater resources encountered problems they were not fully prepared for.
She therefore asked the Ministry of VSA to demonstrate what resources St. Maarten has available to address possible health and mental health consequences if cannabis regulation proceeds.
“Show me that you have the resources to handle it,” she said.
Medical Professionals Should Be Part of the Discussion
De Weever also questioned whether medical professionals have been sufficiently involved in the development of the cannabis framework.
She said considerable effort has gone into committees, studies and stakeholder discussions, but expressed concern that medical professionals were excluded from parts of that process.
For De Weever, healthcare professionals should have a significant role in discussions about cannabis policy because of its potential consequences for mental health, substance use and the wider healthcare system.
She said this is particularly important when St. Maarten is already dealing with shortages in healthcare capacity and significant concerns about the ability of existing institutions to meet current needs.
MP Questions Whether Cannabis Is Being Viewed as a Revenue Solution
De Weever also questioned whether expectations surrounding cannabis revenue are influencing government’s priorities.
She said government has repeatedly discussed the need for new revenue-generating measures while existing proposals have moved slowly.
Against that background, she said the amount of attention being placed on cannabis leaves her with the impression that government may be viewing the industry as a potential answer to wider budget problems.
“I believe that government is looking at cannabis legislation to be the save-all of the budget shortfalls because we’re going to make millions,” De Weever said.
She challenged that assumption and said she expects to see any projected cannabis revenue reflected transparently in government’s 2027 budget if revenue generation is one of the primary reasons for pursuing the policy.
“If it’s not in there, then I don’t know what we were wasting our time with,” she said.
De Weever Questions Viability of Local Cultivation
The MP also questioned the long-term practicality of producing cannabis locally on an island exposed to hurricanes.
De Weever said St. Maarten remains vulnerable to major storms and still carries visible damage from previous hurricanes.
She questioned how large-scale cannabis cultivation would be protected from severe weather and what would happen to the regulatory model if local production were disrupted.
Her concern is that a failed or damaged local crop could eventually lead to greater dependence on cannabis imports.
De Weever said that would raise another series of questions involving importation, financial transactions and correspondent banking, particularly because cannabis remains illegal under federal law in the United States.
She questioned how St. Maarten’s financial institutions would navigate those relationships if cannabis-related transactions became part of the local economy.
‘We’re Not Ready for It’
Throughout her contribution, De Weever returned to a broader argument about government priorities.
She said she cannot understand why cannabis regulation should receive substantial attention while the country is still struggling to complete a new hospital, adequately address mental health, support special-needs children and deliver basic services residents encounter every day.
“We’re not ready for it,” De Weever said.
She argued that government should first demonstrate that the necessary healthcare, regulatory, financial and institutional safeguards are in place before proceeding.
De Weever said St. Maarten has limited government capacity and cannot continuously add new responsibilities while ministries already report serious staffing shortages and difficulties completing existing priorities.
Her message to government was that cannabis regulation should not become another major project pursued because of anticipated future benefits while residents continue waiting for solutions to problems affecting them today.
The MP said she intends to continue questioning the proposal and wants greater transparency on the agreements, regulatory authority, financial exposure, projected revenues and public-health preparations before St. Maarten proceeds further with cannabis legislation.
