A review of cross-national cannabis law comparisons (original) (raw)

Implications of Cannabis Legalization: A National and International Perspective

Adolescent Psychiatry

Background: Issues related to the legalization of cannabis have significantly increased over the past 25 years. Federal policy has become minimally more flexible but essentially maintains marijuana’s dangerous drug status. Myriad laws and regulations characterize the legal status of cannabis across the US and internationally. Contradictory laws and regulations across states result from a lack of coherent federal policy, thus leaving states to address public health, cannabis industry and consumer pressures. Research prohibition has made public policy development difficult and informed by inadequately supported, restricted science. Objective 1: Consider key issues related to cannabis legalization and distinctions between gradients to access for medical purposes, decriminalization or adult recreational use. Objective 2: To consider the status of cannabis legalization on a state and global basis. Objective 3: Consider implications of cannabis legalization and avenues for mitigating harm...

The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition

2014

The cannabis plant has been used for spiritual, medicinal and recreational purposes since the early days of civilization. In this report the Transnational Institute and the Global Drug Policy Observatory describe in detail the history of international control and how cannabis was included in the current UN drug control system. Cannabis was condemned by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as a psychoactive drug with “particularly dangerous properties” and hardly any therapeutic value. Ever since, an increasing number of countries have shown discomfort with the treaty regime’s strictures through soft defections, stretching its legal flexibility to sometimes questionable limits. Today’s political reality of regulated cannabis markets in Uruguay, Washington and Colorado operating at odds with the UN conventions puts the discussion about options for reform of the global drug control regime on the table. Now that the cracks in the Vienna consensus have reached the point of treaty breach, this discussion is no longer a reformist fantasy. Easy options, however, do not exist; they all entail procedural complications and political obstacles. A coordinated initiative by a group of like-minded countries agreeing to assess possible routes and deciding on a road map for the future seems the most likely scenario for moving forward. There are good reasons to question the treaty-imposed prohibition model for cannabis control. Not only is the original inclusion of cannabis within the current framework the result of dubious procedures, but the understanding of the drug itself, the dynamics of illicit markets, and the unintended consequences of repressive drug control strategies has increased enormously. The prohibitive model has failed to have any sustained impact in reducing the market, while imposing heavy burdens upon criminal justice systems; producing profoundly negative social and public health impacts; and creating criminal markets supporting organised crime, violence and corruption. After long accommodating various forms of deviance from its prohibitive ethos, like turning a blind eye to illicit cannabis markets, decriminalisation of possession for personal use, coffeeshops, cannabis social clubs and generous medical marijuana schemes, the regime has now reached a moment of truth. The current policy trend towards legal regulation of the cannabis market as a more promising model for protecting people’s health and safety has changed the drug policy landscape and the terms of the debate. The question facing the international community today is no longer whether or not there is a need to reassess and modernize the UN drug control system, but rather when and how to do it.

Evaluating the impacts of cannabis legalization: The International Cannabis Policy Study

International Journal of Drug Policy, 2020

An increasing number of jurisdictions have legalized non-medical cannabis use, including Canada in October 2018 and several US states starting in 2012. The policy measures implemented within these regulated markets differ with respect to product standards, labelling and warnings, public education, retail policies, marketing, and price/taxation. The International Cannabis Policy Study (ICPS) seeks to evaluate the impacts of these policy measures as well as the broader population-level impact of cannabis legalization using a quasi-experimental research design. The objective of this paper is to describe the ICPS conceptual framework, methods, and baseline estimates of cannabis use. The ICPS is a prospective cohort survey conducted with national samples of 16-65year-olds in Canada and the US. Data are collected via an online survey using the Nielsen Consumer Insights Global Panel. Primary survey domains include: prevalence and patterns of cannabis use; purchasing and price; consumption and product types; commercial retail environment; problematic use and risk behaviours; cannabis knowledge and risk perceptions; and policy-relevant outcomes including exposure to health warnings, public educational campaigns, and advertising and promotion. The first annual wave was conducted in Aug-Oct 2018 with 27,169 respondents in three geographic 'conditions': Canada (n = 10,057), US states that had legalized non-medical cannabis (n = 7,398) and US states in which non-medical cannabis was prohibited (n = 9,714). The ICPS indicates substantial differences in cannabis use in jurisdictions with different regulatory frameworks for cannabis. Future waves of the study will examine changes over time in cannabis use and its effects associated with legalization in Canada and additional US states. personal cultivation and zoning restrictions (Government of Canada, 2019). The federal government has also committed to using cannabis tax revenue to fund public education campaigns and increase funding for mental health and addiction services (Budget 2018. Equality + growth: a strong middle class, 2018). The Government of Canada has identified several objectives for legalizing cannabis. These include: (1) protecting the health of young people by restricting access to cannabis; (2) preventing illicit activities by allowing licit cannabis production and ensuring appropriate legal sanctions; (3) reducing the burden on the criminal justice system; (4) providing a quality-controlled cannabis supply; and (5) ensuring Canadians understand the risks of cannabis (Cannabis regulations SOR/ 2018-144, 2018). Evaluating the impact of cannabis use is thus critically important to examining whether these public health objectives

Medicalization without legalization: the European policy for medical and recreational cannabis use

Journal of Public Health, 2024

Abstract Aim Cannabis, unlike other illicit drugs, possesses medical properties. This unique characteristic necessitates a distinction between its clinical and legal status, prompting an inquiry into the nature of the relationship between these two dimensions. Countries are adopting one of three clinical policies regarding medical use (opposition, pharmaceuticalization, and medicalization) and one of three legal regimes regarding recreational use (prohibition, decriminalization, and legalization). This study examines the correlation between the clinical policy and the legal regime for cannabis in European countries. Subject and methods We used data from 39 European countries to classify every country’s clinical policy and legal regime. Then, we employed chi-squared and Spearman correlation tests to assess the relationships between the clinical and legal dimensions. Results The chi-squared test results indicate a strong and statistically significant relationship between the clinical policy for cannabis and the legal regime for recreational cannabis (p < 0.01). Spearman correlation test results also reveal a positive, strong, and significant relationship (p < 0.001). We found that medicalization as a clinical policy is associated with decriminalization as a legal regime (68% of medicalization countries decriminalize recreational use). Conclusion This study proposes a novel perspective that separates the concepts of medicalization and legalization, challenging previous assumptions about their interconnectedness. We argue that medicalization and decriminalization of cannabis are closely associated, likely because decriminalization facilitates patient access and fosters a medical cannabis market while avoiding the extremes of prohibition or full-scale legalization. These findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of cannabis policy development in Europe and suggest that policymakers should consider the complex interplay between clinical and legal approaches when formulating cannabis policies. This research provides valuable insights for future policy discussions and highlights the need for further investigation into the long-term implications of these policy choices.

In thinking about cannabis policy, what can be learned from alcohol and tobacco?(2)

2008

If caffeine and other such banalised psychoactive substances are left out of consideration, almost everywhere in Europe today cannabis is one of the 'big three'of psychoactive substances, along with alcohol and tobacco. Although the international drug control system applies continuing pressure against it, cannabis has taken on a semi-legal status in many parts of Europe, at least at the level of the user.