Cannabis control in Europe (original) (raw)

Cannabis production and markets in Europe

2012

This study brings together available evidence to provide a comprehensive analysis of cannabis production and markets across the EU. It combines information from EMCDDA routine reporting — data on patterns of prevalence and use, seizures, police reports, drug-law offences, cannabis potency and retail market prices — with literature on cannabis markets to create an in-depth analysis of the issue in a European context

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.

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.