分类： politics

In a significant move to strengthen public health protections across Trinidad and Tobago, Attorney General John Jeremie has announced that vaping will be included in a broad new legislative package that tightens age limits for alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, and gambling.

Jeremie made this announcement yesterday during the introduction of the Miscellaneous Provisions (Alcohol, Cannabis, Dangerous Drugs, Gambling and Tobacco) Bill, 2026 before the country’s Parliament. He confirmed that targeted amendments will be added to formally integrate vaping regulations into the bill, alongside new requirements for age verification when purchasing tobacco and alcohol, accessing cannabis, and entering gambling facilities.

One of the bill’s most notable provisions is an amendment to the existing Registration of Clubs Act, which would bar individuals under the age of 25 from becoming club members, with the sole exception of athletic-focused clubs. Under the new rules, anyone under 25 would also be prohibited from gambling on club premises.

Jeremie emphasized that all of the bill’s combined provisions work in tandem to advance a cohesive public policy agenda: protecting minors and young adults from preventable health harms, reinforcing existing public health safeguards, and ensuring that legal penalties match the severity of violations of these new rules. He noted that the government views the proposed measures as both necessary and proportionate, aligned with legitimate public health goals that meet the jurisprudential standards set by the nation’s highest court.

To build a robust case for the new restrictions, Jeremie presented a wide range of both international public health data and local demographic statistics to Parliament. He began by outlining the context for alcohol regulation, noting that 2025 United Nations Population Fund estimates place Trinidad and Tobago’s total population at 1.5 million, with roughly 285,000 people — 19% of the total population — falling between the ages of 10 and 24. This age demographic, Jeremie argued, is currently facing a growing convergence of public health threats, including chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and rising rates of mental health struggles.

“We cannot, on this side, sit idly by while nearly one-fifth of our nation’s human capital is compromised,” Jeremie told lawmakers.

He referenced the World Health Organisation’s June 2024 Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health and Treatment of Substance Use Disorders, which found that 22% of 15 to 19-year-olds globally consumed alcohol in 2019. That same year, alcohol consumption was linked to 2.6 million deaths worldwide — accounting for 4.7% of all global fatalities that year. The WHO report also estimated that 400 million people aged 15 and older live with alcohol-use disorders, and 209 million struggle with alcohol dependence. Of the alcohol-linked deaths, 724,000 were caused by injuries including road traffic crashes, self-harm, and interpersonal violence, with 13% of all alcohol-attributable deaths occurring among adults aged 20 to 39 — the highest share of any age group.

Jeremie stressed that the harms of excessive alcohol consumption extend far beyond the people who consume it. Approximately 298,000 people die annually in alcohol-related road crashes, and more than half of those deaths — 156,000 — are caused by the impaired driving of another person. He also cited Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) data showing that NCDs accounted for 82.7% of all deaths in Trinidad and Tobago in 2019. While Jeremie clarified that alcohol is not the sole cause of the country’s NCD burden, he noted that both the WHO and PAHO have confirmed causal links between alcohol consumption and the development of NCDs. PAHO’s 2024 STEPS Survey, which polled 4,052 adults aged 18 to 69, found that national alcohol consumption has risen from 40.6% of the population in 2011 to 51.5% in 2024. Among 18 to 44-year-olds, 28.4% have three or more separate risk factors for developing NCDs.

Turning to tobacco regulation, Jeremie argued that the evidence supporting stronger age-based restrictions is incontrovertible. Citing research from the American Cancer Society, he explained that nicotine addiction is uniquely dangerous for younger people because their brains are still developing, leaving them far more susceptible to long-term dependence. Research confirms that current smokers are three times more likely to die from cancer than people who have never smoked, and people who start smoking as minors face a dramatically elevated risk of cancer death compared to those who start later in life — even though starting at age 21 or older does not eliminate all health risks.

Jeremie pointed to the United Kingdom’s recent groundbreaking tobacco policy as a model for this kind of preventive regulation. In late April, the UK enacted legislation banning the sale of all tobacco products, herbal smoking products, and cigarette papers to anyone born on or after January 1, 2009, across all four of its constituent nations. “In effect, what they have done is to legislate for the creation of a smoke-free generation. It ensures that in a very short period of time, the UK is going to be smoke-free,” Jeremie noted.

For cannabis, Jeremie argued that a similarly careful, targeted approach is needed given its unique impacts on developing brains. He recalled that the Caribbean Community (Caricom) established a Regional Commission on Marijuana in 2014 to study the social, economic, health, and legal impacts of cannabis use and explore potential regulatory reforms. The commission found that the average age of first cannabis use across the Caribbean is approximately 13 years old, a time when the adolescent brain is undergoing critical developmental changes that make it uniquely vulnerable to the drug’s effects. Caricom heads of government have formally concluded that cannabis use before the age of 24 is not recommended, due to proven negative impacts on memory, learning, and attention, as well as an increased risk of early-onset psychosis.

Finally, Jeremie addressed gambling, which he categorized as a distinct form of harm because unlike alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis, it does not involve consuming a substance, but harmful gambling habits can still leave severe, long-lasting social scars. Citing a December 2024 WHO fact sheet, he explained that problem gambling can lead to crippling financial stress, relationship breakdown, family violence, mental illness, and even suicide. The WHO has also warned that the harms of problem gambling can persist across an individual’s entire lifetime and even be passed down to future generations.

A controversial proposal to impose maximum $50,000 fines on children over the age of 10 found in prohibited circumstances involving alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and dangerous drugs has sparked fierce pushback from opposition lawmakers in Trinidad and Tobago’s Parliament, with critics arguing that vulnerable minors in these situations should be categorized as victims of harm rather than criminal offenders.

The debate over the measure unfolded during parliamentary discussions on the Miscellaneous Provisions (Alcohol, Cannabis, Dangerous Drugs, Gambling and Tobacco) Bill, 2026, when Hans Des Vignes, opposition Member of Parliament for Diego Martin West, laid out a series of pointed concerns about the planned amendment to Section 38 of the nation’s Children Act. Under the revised language, children aged 10 and older found in the specified prohibited circumstances would be formally charged with a criminal offense, and could receive the $50,000 fine if convicted through a summary proceeding.

Des Vignes raised a fundamental practical question: how could a child between 10 and 14 years old ever be expected to pay a fine of that magnitude. “A ten-year-old does not have $50,000,” he emphasized to the chamber. He argued that the proposed framework incorrectly frames at-risk children as criminals, when their situations actually point to unmet protection needs that the state should address, rather than punishment. He challenged the ethical and legal foundation of the policy, asking, “does this violate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the legal principle of due process and basic decency for us as a society to criminalise a child, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14. $50,000?”

Additional criticism targeted a provision in the proposed Section 38 C2 that would allow authorities to issue the fine without requiring a parent or legal guardian to be present during the process, a rule that Des Vignes argued further undermines minor’s legal protections.

Notably, the opposition MP expressed clear support for one core component of the government’s bill: stiffer penalties for adult offenders who involve children in the drug and alcohol trade. The legislation outlines significant increases to penalties for adults who expose minors to dangerous drugs: under Section 35, the maximum penalty will jump from 27 months imprisonment to a combined $3 million fine and 15 years prison time, while penalties rise to $5 million and 30 years imprisonment in cases where the child suffers harm. The bill also increases penalties for adults who supply drugs to minors, or recruit children to sell, purchase or transport controlled substances.

Des Vignes acknowledged the logic behind harsher penalties for offending adults, stating “those criminals that use young people in this way should be penalised harshly.” Even so, he cast doubt on whether the steep penalty increases will actually serve as an effective deterrent for illegal activity in high-risk communities, asking “Even these increases sometimes, the question is, are they really deterrents in communities?”

Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles echoed these concerns, specifically calling out the proposed $50,000 fine for minors found with alcohol, and questioned the government’s underlying motivation for the policy. Speaking to reporters outside the parliamentary chamber after the debate, she challenged, “Are they serious? Is this a revenue-generating measure?”

Beckles noted that this proposed fine hike comes as part of a broader series of penalty increases rolled out by the current government, and connected the move to a previous budget statement from Finance Minister Davendranath Tancoo, who announced the government aimed to raise $1 billion in new tax revenue last year. She asked, “Is it revenue generation, or is it that you genuinely care about social issues and young people?”

She slammed the proposed measure as overtly punitive, adding that the government failed to conduct meaningful public or stakeholder consultation before drafting the policy. She described the legislation as “another piece of legislation by vaps,” criticizing the government’s rushed, unplanned approach to lawmaking.

A contentious parliamentary vote has cleared the way for two senior temporary police appointments in Trinidad and Tobago, after the opposition People’s National Movement (PNM) pushed back against the nominations, centered on a decades-old disciplinary ruling against one of the candidates.

The dispute unfolded this week when Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander tabled two motions before the House, seeking legislative approval for President-endorsed nominations from the Police Service Commission (PolSC). Under the proposal, Junior Benjamin would serve as acting Commissioner of Police, while Anand Ramesar, currently an Assistant Commissioner of Police, would step in as acting Deputy Commissioner. The temporary arrangement is designed to cover the official travel of incumbent Commissioner Allister Guevarro, who is scheduled to attend the International Association of Chiefs of Police’s annual conference and trade exposition in Orlando, Florida, from October 22 to 28.

Despite unified opposition from the PNM, the government’s parliamentary majority carried both motions, with 23 government-aligned MPs voting in favor and 8 opposition members voting against.

Opposition MP and former police officer Marvin Gonzales led the push against Ramesar’s nomination, raising pointed questions about the candidate’s 11-year-old internal disciplinary record. Gonzales told the chamber that opposition researchers had uncovered a 2012 Daily Express report documenting a 2011 disciplinary tribunal ruling that found Ramesar guilty of professional misconduct. The case stemmed from an incident at Tobago’s Scarborough Magistrates’ Court, where Ramesar provided unauthorized legal representation to a fellow police officer facing public misconduct charges connected to the illegal rental of his service weapon. The tribunal ultimately ordered a salary deduction equivalent to 36 days’ pay as punishment.

Gonzales further cited additional reporting showing Ramesar chose not to appeal the guilty verdict, despite disagreeing with it, to avoid delaying his promotion from sergeant to inspector. “So he accepted the punishment,” Gonzales told the House, adding that he could not rule out the possibility that Minister Alexander was aware of this critical background but chose not to disclose it to parliament.

Alexander launched a sharp defense of both nominees and pushed back against Gonzales’ line of questioning, dismissing the opposition’s criticisms as a fruitless search for scandal that he dubbed “Scooby-Doo tactics.” “It seems like the member for Arouca/Lopinot came here with a kind of Scooby-Doo tactics and looking for clues because he had none at all,” Alexander said.

The minister, who also targeted Gonzales for misunderstanding the inner workings of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS), noted that PolSC had already vetted all candidates for the acting positions through a structured interview process, and Ramesar had ranked high enough on the merit-based list to earn the nomination. Alexander emphasized that Ramesar has already advanced to the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, and described the decades-old infraction as a “very minor” offense that does not bar officers from promotion within the TTPS. He also reaffirmed full confidence in both Benjamin and Ramesar, pointing to falling national crime rates under the TTPS’s current leadership as evidence of effective command.

The debate boiled over into personal tension when Alexander responded to Gonzales’ comment that he had passed every polygraph examination during his police career by posing a provocative question: “Would you subject yourself to one today? If I was to polygraph you and ask you if you want to be the leader of the opposition?” The Speaker of the House rebuked Alexander for the personal jab, prompting the minister to issue a formal apology. Despite the heated exchange, the government moved forward with the vote, securing final approval for the temporary appointments.

Standing outside the Red House Parliament building in Port of Spain ahead of a critical parliamentary sitting, Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles has publicly condemned the current ruling administration over two major controversial moves: targeted attacks against independent Senate members and a pattern of rushing key legislation through parliament with barely any advance notice. Beckles announced on Tuesday that the parliamentary Opposition will formally deliver a letter to President Christine Kangaloo to highlight and protest the government’s departure from long-standing democratic parliamentary norms.

Beckles told assembled reporters that the recent actions taken by the ruling party came as no surprise to the Opposition, pointing to incendiary public comments made just weeks earlier by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar. The prime minister has previously labeled some independent senators ‘satanic’ and publicly levelled unproven bribery accusations against at least two of the body’s independent members. ‘No one should be shocked by what is unfolding right now,’ Beckles stated. ‘When the head of government uses language that extreme and makes those kinds of damaging claims, none of what we have seen recently catches us off guard.’

The latest parliamentary dispute also centers on Senate President Wade Mark’s tie-breaking votes last week and on Monday, which cleared the way for the passage of two high-stakes bills: the 2026 Special Operations Bill and the 2026 Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property (Amendment) Bill. Beckles argued that Mark’s votes broke with centuries of established parliamentary convention, which dictates that the presiding officer of the Senate only casts a tie-breaking vote to preserve the existing status quo, not to advance new government legislation. The Opposition leader added that her caucus will monitor whether this irregular voting approach becomes the government’s standard operating procedure moving forward.

Beckles also pushed back strongly against the prime minister’s recent claim that independent senators have rendered themselves irrelevant to the legislative process. She framed the government’s hostility to the independent caucus as a direct attack on the country’s constitutional framework, which enshrines the role of independent senators as a critical check on executive power. ‘This government has made it very clear it has no respect for independent senators,’ Beckles said. ‘If you erase their purpose and make their position meaningless, you are essentially saying our Constitution is a waste of time. Independent senators exist to deliver the checks and balances any healthy democracy needs, and this administration wants no oversight at all.’

Beyond the dispute over independent senators, Beckles also sharply criticized the government for repeatedly introducing major pieces of legislation with extremely short notice to the Opposition, a practice she described as ‘absolutely ridiculous’. She confirmed the Opposition will raise this issue with the Speaker of the House of Representatives. While the Opposition leader acknowledged that emergency legislation occasionally requires expedited processing, she warned that the frequency of this approach, particularly when applied to high-impact bills, poses a serious threat to democratic lawmaking.

As an example, Beckles pointed to a recent bill that would lower the minimum age for issuing fines to children found in possession of alcohol and cannabis, a major public policy issue that the government introduced without consulting any stakeholders outside the ruling party. ‘These are issues that directly impact the lives of everyone in this country, and the government didn’t consult anyone at all before bringing it for a vote,’ she said. ‘That is simply not acceptable governance.’

Beckles emphasized that the Opposition is entitled to sufficient time to review, analyze and prepare for debate on every piece of legislation, highlighting the inconsistent scheduling that has left opposition lawmakers with just days to review complex policy changes. She noted that the government has used its parliamentary majority to ram through bills with minimal review, urging the administration to stop abusing its legislative advantage and extend basic respect to the opposition caucus. ‘You hold the majority, that is true, but that does not give you the right to misuse that power to cut out meaningful debate,’ she said.