When Cayman Islands’ voters go to the polls on Wednesday, they will have an opportunity to have their voices heard in answering three non-binding referendum questions that could, if passed, reshape the very identity of these islands.
To help voters prepare, the Cayman Independent has broken down the major arguments for and against each of the three referendum issues: building cruise berthing infrastructure, decriminalising the consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis, and launching a government-run national lottery.
Developing cruise berthing infrastructure
The question of whether Cayman should build a cruise port has lingered for more than two decades.
Its place on the referendum ballot in 2025 seems largely motivated by tourism’s vital role in Cayman’s economy and the argued need to adapt to an evolving cruise industry or else be disqualified from it.
The Economics and Statistics Office, in its 2024 report, makes perhaps the strongest case yet for berthing infrastructure. Alongside financial services, tourism was cited as a pillar of economic growth and employment. In particular, it showed that cruise tourism peaked in 2018, contributing CI$191.1 million or roughly 4.4% to gross domestic product and supporting 2,587 jobs.
The post-pandemic cruise industry, however, has shifted. According to the ESO, cruise lines are increasingly deploying larger vessels carrying 6,000 or more passengers. Unlike smaller ships, these mega vessels rarely tender and often bypass ports without dedicated berthing infrastructure. As a result, Cayman may have missed out on between 17,621 and 419,026 cruise visitors in 2024 alone, the ESO estimates. Without proper docking facilities, the report suggests, those losses could grow.
Still, critics argue that the ESO report presents an incomplete picture. It outlines the potential economic benefits of cruise berthing, but omits key details: cost estimates, proposed locations, funding mechanisms and environmental impact. This lack of information, they say, makes it difficult for voters to make a fully informed decision.
In addition, a report done by noted Caribbean economist Marla Dukharan pointed out that some destinations with cruise berthing infrastructure also experienced significant drops in cruise passenger arrivals since 2019. Dukharan’s report indicates that there is not a significant difference in disembarkation rates or passenger spending at destinations that have cruise berthing infrastructure compared with those that don’t.
With regard to the potential size and cost of a cruise berthing facility, the only available reference points are the previously rejected 2015 and 2019 berthing proposals, which would have removed 15 acres of coral reef and dredged 32 acres of seabed and 12 acres of marine habitat and 25.6 acres of seabed, respectively.
The environmental stakes are significant. A PwC report noted that George Town’s coral reefs brought in an estimated $16.5 million from cruise-related diving in 2013. With the coral reefs already in decline, further dredging could generate silt that clouds the water and accelerates coral damage. In that case, Cayman might still suffer economically if it loses its allure as a diving hotspot.
Marine biologist Tom Goreau has noted that the high quality and clarity of the ocean water in George Town Harbour make coral regeneration possible — but only if that water quality is preserved. Dredging, he warns, could jeopardise that potential.
| ARGUMENTS FOR | ARGUMENTS AGAINST |
| Cruise lines increasingly favour mega ships (≥ 6,000 passengers). Cruise berthing infrastructure could attract these vessels to Cayman. | No official cost estimates or detailed plans have been released, leaving voters uncertain about what exactly they’re approving. |
| Boosting cruise tourism could diversify Cayman’s economy and improve resilience against external shocks, such as global trade tensions. | Dredging to construct berthing piers could damage already vulnerable coral reefs and cloud Cayman’s waters, reducing its appeal as a premier diving and eco-tourism destination. |
| The current tendering process is seen as “outdated, uncomfortable, and unsafe,” reducing the time cruise passengers can spend (and spend money) onshore. | Tourist hotspots are already overcrowded with the current number of yearly visitors. Bringing in more cruise passengers would exacerbate that problem and add to waste, pollution and traffic. |
| Many George Town businesses depend on cruise passengers and could benefit from the higher spending associated with mega ship tourism. | George Town Harbour has a high potential for coral regeneration. However, infrastructure construction could threaten its high water quality, eliminating that possibility and leading to reef loss and coastal erosion. |
Decriminalising consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis
The government’s primary motivation for this referendum topic stems from the long-term consequences faced by Caymanians convicted of minor cannabis offences.
Government officials argue the move is necessary to address the disproportionate consequences Caymanians face for minor cannabis convictions, which can limit access to employment, education, visas and health care. By treating possession of small amounts as a misdemeanor, the government hopes to reduce these barriers without fully legalising cannabis use.
Supporters see this as a social justice issue, noting that foreign workers from countries with softer cannabis penalties often face fewer obstacles than Caymanians. According to the Global Commission on Drug Policy, decriminalising personal drug use can reduce harm and improve access to health services by removing the stigma and fear associated with criminal penalties. Supporters argue this approach could make it easier for individuals to seek treatment and reintegrate into society.
Critics, however, warn of unintended consequences. Cannabis use during adolescence has been linked to cognitive impairments, and some fear decriminalisation could normalise use among younger populations. Others argue that allowing possession while keeping sale and cultivation illegal could create contradictions, sustaining a black market.
While studies suggest decriminalisation does not significantly increase overall cannabis use — and may even cause a long-term decline — concerns remain about addiction, psychiatric risks for vulnerable individuals and the need for strong addiction treatment systems.
| ARGUMENTS FOR | ARGUMENTS AGAINST |
| Decriminalisation would remove lasting barriers to jobs, education and visas caused by minor possession charges. | Decriminalising possession while keeping selling and growing illegal could create contradictions, potentially sustaining a black market for cannabis. |
| Reducing criminal penalties would encourage more people to seek treatment for substance use without fear of stigma. | Cannabis consumption could worsen psychiatric conditions in individuals with existing vulnerabilities. |
| Law enforcement resources could be redirected from minor cannabis cases to more serious crimes. | Cannabis addiction would still require serious attention, even if possession is decriminalised. |
| Evidence from other countries shows decriminalisation often leads to stable or even declining cannabis use rates. | Cannabis use might initially rise due to curiosity, particularly among younger or first-time users. |
Launching a government-run national lottery
Illegal gambling has long been entrenched in Caymanian society, with 2023 estimates suggesting it generates between $30 million and $50 million annually. These unregulated activities are often linked to international crime syndicates and have been associated with violent crimes, including armed robberies and even murder.
The Royal Cayman Islands Police Service first raised the issue, recommending tougher penalties to deter related crimes. But with local attitudes towards “numbers” so commonplace — described by Deputy Premier and Tourism Minister Kenneth Bryan as “blasé” — the elected government decided it was time to ask the public whether the practice should be legalised instead.
The government is now considering a national lottery as a way to reduce illegal gambling and redirect funds toward public initiatives. Supporters argue that a regulated lottery could offer a safer alternative for gamblers, diminish the influence of criminal networks and generate revenue for education, infrastructure and social development. For example, Camelot Group, which operated the U.K. National Lottery, generated £1.8 billion for Good Causes in 2023.
Opponents, however, warn that legalisation may fuel higher addiction rates and broader social costs.
International studies suggest these costs can at times outweigh the financial benefits. In the United States, for example, the National Council on Problem Gambling estimates the social cost of problem gambling at roughly US$14 billion per year. In Jersey, calls to gambling helplines rose by 277% after betting was legalised in 2018.
While the referendum focuses on whether to legalise a national lottery, its deeper objective is crime reduction. Regardless of the outcome, government action appears likely: a “yes” vote could result in a regulated lottery, while a “no” vote may reopen discussion around stricter enforcement and harsher penalties.
| ARGUMENTS FOR | ARGUMENTS AGAINST |
| Legalising a national lottery could undercut the illegal gambling market, reducing associated crimes such as robbery and assault. | Legal gambling may lead to higher rates of addiction, financial hardship, suicide and associated social issues, potentially offsetting any economic benefits. |
| A government-run lottery could provide funds for public services, including education, infrastructure and sports development. | Some community members view gambling as morally objectionable. Others think it is not the government’s job to incentivise “risky” behavior. |
| Legalisation allows for regulation, ensuring fair play and consumer protection and reducing the risk of exploitation. | Legal lotteries may not fully eliminate illegal gambling, as some individuals may continue to seek untaxed or unregulated options. |
| Given the prevalence of gambling, a regulated lottery reflects existing behaviors and provides a safer alternative. | Gambling often disproportionately affects lower-income individuals, potentially exacerbating existing social inequalities. |
What happens after you vote?
It’s important to note that this referendum is non-binding. That means a “yes” vote won’t immediately change the law, but it will serve as a strong signal to the next government about the public’s appetite for reform.
A majority “yes” outcome gives policymakers the green light to explore the issue further. This could involve detailed research, drafting of regulations, and multiple rounds of public consultation before any legislation is passed. As Deputy Premier Kenneth Bryan put it, “‘We’re willing to listen to it,’ is what your yes is going to say.”
Whether it’s cruise berthing infrastructure, cannabis decriminalisation or a national lottery, voters help shape the conversation. The real work — crafting policy that balances public interest, feasibility, and fairness — will come in the months that follow.
