Search

In October 2018, Canada legalized recreational cannabis. Key goals of legalization included reducing access by minors and eliminating the illicit market. Now, three years into the legal regime, important public policy questions are beginning to emerge. With police being tasked to enforce the Cannabis Act and associated provincial/territorial legislation, there is a critical need to understand their experiences, including the successes they have had, challenges they have experienced, and issues that remain unresolved. This paper begins to address these issues by presenting results from a qualitative study involving law enforcement personnel who, through their primary roles and responsibilities, have been actively involved in overseeing cannabis enforcement (in supervisory roles) since legalization in October 2018. Three key findings emerged from the analyses, and all were tied to the overarching perception that the illicit cannabis market has persisted since legalization: 1) there is a small but significant pattern of abuse of the medical system of production and distribution, specifically tied to designated grower provisions; 2) there are many challenges associated with halting online sales of illicit cannabis; and 3) the issue of unregulated sales of cannabis from Indigenous reserves remains a "hot button" political issue, in need of resolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cannabis liberalization is a fascinating case study in moral-legal re-negotiation. From broad international examples of decriminalization to specific local legalization models, numerous criminological questions are emerging. This paper describes three significant challenges for cannabis liberalization. These include persistent inequalities associated with policing cannabis, the invisibility of coercive care and control within diversion, and the hazards associated with illusory policy reform. We present Cannabis Criminology as a multidisciplinary effort to understand the prohibition, decriminalization, legalization, and nascent regulation of cannabis in ways that acknowledge but transcend law-based paradigms. Consistent with criminology's multiple and sometimes contradictory dimensions, we outline five thematic areas that can inform the study of cannabis. These include law, society, and social control, police and policing cannabis, race, ethnicity and intrusion, the economics of cannabis use, and cannabis and criminal behavior. Finally, we conclude that privileging the views of people who use cannabis can provoke more inclusive, participatory, and otherwise imaginative efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cannabis 'formula stories' are disproportionately conceptualized from the gaze of a few mostly high-income Anglo-American nations that not only shape their own narratives and policies of cannabis but are also influential abroad. Lack of research in other mostly non-English-speaking countries has translated into a gap in knowledge about what cannabis formula stories are adopted, and how stigma is conceptualized by cannabis users. Using semi-structured interviews with cannabis users, this paper gives the first insight into how cannabis stigma is constructed in the post-Soviet European Riga, Latvia. Analysis corroborates previous findings of the delegitimization strategies that cannabis users adopt to resist stigma. However, people who stigmatize cannabis use are constructed as Soviet-born and agency-stripped Homo Sovieticus, who perceives all cannabis users as physically discriminable 'potheads.' To avoid sanctions, cannabis users, as members of the generation that does possess agency, avoid appearing as potheads. Thus, the knowledge and considered evasion of symbols that adhere to societal discriminatory ideas about 'pothead' cannabis users represent users' 'secret knowledge' and their functional relationship with a cannabis-disdaining society. The study demonstrates how exaggerated stories shift user attention away from reflections about consumption patterns and toward a concern for the critical capacity of exaggerated cannabis story disseminators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The liberalization of cannabis policies has the potential to affect the use of other substances and the harms from using them, particularly alcohol. Although a previous review of this literature found conflicting results regarding the relationship between cannabis policy and alcohol-related outcomes, cannabis policies have continued to evolve rapidly in the years since that review. SEARCH METHODS: The authors conducted a narrative review of studies published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, that assessed the effects of cannabis policies on the use of alcohol in the United States or Canada. SEARCH RESULTS: The initial search identified 3,446 unique monographs. Of these, 23 met all inclusion criteria and were included in the review, and five captured simultaneous or concurrent use of alcohol and cannabis. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Associations between cannabis policy liberalization and alcohol use, alcohol-related outcomes, and the co-use of alcohol and cannabis were inconclusive, with studies finding positive associations, no associations, and negative associations. Although several studies found that cannabis policy liberalization was associated with decreases in alcohol use measures, these same studies showed no impact of the cannabis policy on cannabis use itself. The lack of a consistent association was robust to subject age, outcome measure (e.g., use, medical utilization, driving), and type of cannabis policy; however, this may be due to the small number of studies for each type of outcome. This paper discusses several notable limitations of the evidence base and offers suggestions for improving consistency and comparability of research going forward, including a stronger classification of cannabis policy, inclusion of measures of the alcohol policy environment, verification of the impact of cannabis policy on cannabis use, and consideration of mediation effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2015, a new Liberal Government came to power in Canada, elected on a platform that included legalization and regulation of cannabis for recreational purposes. Their legislation, based on recommendations from a Federal Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation, is due in early April 2017.Methods: This commentary utilizes Canadian Federal policy papers, previous literature, and internal and international agreements to examine two key areas critical to the development of a nationwide regulated market for cannabis in Canada; the need to overcome restrictions to legalizing cannabis in United Nations' drug control treaties, and the unique challenges that non-medical cannabis creates for navigating interprovincial trade policies in Canada.Results: Irrespective of UN conventions that appear to prohibit legalization of cannabis the Government is preparing to bring forward legislation as this article goes to print. At the same time significant squabbles impede the selling of even beer and wine inter-provincially in Canada. This paper identifies the challenges facing Canadian legalization efforts, but also shows how the legalization legislation may provide opportunities to engender significant change beyond the simple legalization of a specific drug.Conclusion: This commentary does not argue for any specific course of action for Canada, but rather explores the nuance of legalization absent from the declaration in the Liberal party platform. The paper argues that Canada's efforts may hasten the dismantling of the UN drug control structure, and provide renewed opportunities for intern-provincial trade in Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Marijuana policies are rapidly evolving. In the United States, recreational use of marijuana is now legal in 4 states and medical marijuana is legal in 23 states. Research evaluating such policies has focused primarily on how policies affect issues of price, access to, use, and consequences of marijuana. Due to potential spillover effects, researchers also need to examine how marijuana policies may impact use and consequences of alcohol. Methods The current paper is a critical review of articles evaluating alcohol outcomes associated with marijuana decriminalization, medical marijuana legalization, and nonmedical or recreational marijuana legalization. We identified articles and reports through (1) online searches of EBSCO host database including Academic Search Premier, Econlit, Legal Collection, Medline, PsycARTICLES, and Psyc INFO, as well as PubMed and Google Scholar databases; (2) review of additional articles cited in papers identified through electronic searches; and (3) targeted searches of state and local government records regarding marijuana law implementation. We reviewed studies with respect to their data sources and sample characteristics, methodology, and the margin of alcohol and marijuana use, timing of policy change, and the aspects of laws examined. Results The extant literature provides some evidence for both substitution (i.e., more liberal marijuana policies related to less alcohol use as marijuana becomes a substitute) and complementary (i.e., more liberal marijuana policies related to increases in both marijuana and alcohol use) relationships in the context of liberalization of marijuana policies in the United States. Conclusions Impact of more liberal marijuana policies on alcohol use is complex, and likely depends on specific aspects of policy implementation, including how long the policy has been in place. Furthermore, evaluation of marijuana policy effects on alcohol use may be sensitive to the age group studied and the margin of alcohol use examined. Design of policy evaluation research requires careful consideration of these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This research aimed to explore people’s beliefs associated with opposition to cannabis legalisation in Uruguay. In 2014, Uruguay passed a national law regulating the production, sale and consumption of recreational marijuana. However, two-thirds of the Uruguayan public expressed disagreement towards the government’s new policy. Methods: This study used logistic regressions on data from a national probabilistic sample of 1512 adults in Uruguay. Opinions and beliefs towards cannabis legalisation were collected in face-to-face interviews, using a battery of questions included in Vanderbilt University’s AmericasBarometer national survey in 2014. Findings: Results showed that opposition to legalisation in Uruguay is independently associated with the beliefs that the new cannabis law will worsen the public security conditions in the country, that it will serve as a gateway to the use of harder drugs, and that the law will ultimately be ineffective to curb illegal trafficking. They also showed the importance of political ideology. Conclusions: Public views towards cannabis liberalisation are more intertwined with concerns about public security and apprehension that it will open the gate to heavier drugs than with concerns about individual health and demographic factors. The paper underscores the importance of belief systems and political socialisation over personal behaviour of use. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background and aims Prohibitions on producing, distributing and selling cannabis are loosening in various jurisdictions around the world. This paper describes the diversification of cannabis supply laws and discusses the challenges to and opportunities for learning from these changes. Methods We document changes in cannabis supply laws that de jure legalized cannabis production for medical and/or non-medical purposes (excluding industrial hemp) in Australasia, Europe, North America and South America. We also highlight challenges to evaluating these legal changes based on our experiences studying cannabis laws and policies in the United States. Findings As of August 2016, two countries have passed laws to legalize large-scale cannabis production for non-medical purposes at the national (Uruguay) or subnational level (four US states). At least nine other countries legally allow (or will soon allow) cannabis to be supplied for medicinal purposes. Most of the changes in cannabis supply laws have occurred since 2010. The data available in most countries are inadequate for rigorously evaluating the changes in cannabis supply laws. Conclusion The evidence base for assessing changes in cannabis supply laws remains weak. Efforts should focus upon collecting information about quantities consumed and market transactions as well as validating self-report surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims In 2014 the legislature of Vermont, USA passed a law requiring the Secretary of Administration to report on the consequences of legalizing marijuana. The RAND Corporation was commissioned to write that report. This paper summarizes insights from that analysis that are germane to other jurisdictions. Method Translation of key findings from the RAND Corporation report to the broader policy debate. Results Marijuana legalization encompasses a wide range of possible regimes, distinguished along at least four dimensions: which organizations are allowed to produce and supply the drug, the regulations under which they operate, the nature of the products that can be distributed and taxes and prices. Vermont's decriminalization had already cut its costs of enforcing marijuana prohibition against adults to about $1 per resident per year. That is probably less than the cost of regulating a legal market. Revenues from taxing residents' purchases after legalization could be many times that amount, so the main fiscal cost of prohibition after decriminalization relative to outright legalization may be foregone tax revenues, not enforcement costs. Approximately 40 times as many users live within 200 miles of Vermont's borders as live within the state; drug tourism and associated tax revenues will be important considerations, as will be the response of other states. Indeed, if another state legalized with lower taxes, that could undermine the ability to collect taxes on even Vermont residents' purchases. Conclusions Analysis of possible outcomes if Vermont, USA, legalized marijuana reveal that choices about how, and not just whether, to legalize a drug can have profound consequences for the effects on health and social wellbeing, and the choices of one jurisdiction can affect the options and incentives available to other jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An effective approach to drug regulation is a growing concern. Since 2012, 10 US States and Uruguay have taken the step to revoke prohibition and legalize the recreational cannabis market. Based on the findings from a study ('Cannalex') carried out in 2015-2017 in Colorado, Washington and Uruguay by the French Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (OFDT) and the Institute of Security and Justice (INHESJ), relying on a hundred of in-depth interviews analyzed in line with the existing official statistics and studies, this paper shows heterogeneous policy-making models and contexts for reform. It also examines the early outcomes of the cannabis policy change. A mixed picture is emerging from the regulatory regimes currently implemented. This paper discusses the reform processes and their early outcomes, with a specific focus on the less documented area: the political processes that led to legalizing cannabis, analyzed with qualitative data. It argues that the different outcomes reported across Colorado, Washington and Uruguay are framed by the regulatory options that were taken, depending on specific dynamics of reform. The discussion focuses on some hot topics raised by the effective regulations, stressing that the array of cannabis regulatory options is a public debate that has just begun. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Drug policy strategies and discussions often use prevalence of drug use as a primary performance indicator. However, three other indicators are at least as relevant: the number of heavy users, total expenditures and total amount consumed. This paper stems from our efforts to develop annual estimates of these three measures for cocaine (including crack), heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine in the United States. Methods The estimates exploit complementary strengths of a general population survey ( National Survey on Drug Use and Health) and both survey and urinalysis test result data for arrestees ( Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program), supplemented by many other data sources. Results Throughout the 2000s US drug users spent in the order of $100 billion annually on these drugs, although the spending distribution and use patterns changed dramatically. From 2006 to 2010, the amount of marijuana consumed in the United States probably increased by more than 30%, while the amount of cocaine consumed in the United States fell by approximately 50%. These figures are consistent with supply-side indicators, such as seizures and production estimates. For all the drugs, total consumption and expenditures are driven by the minority of users who consume on 21 or more days each month. Conclusions Even for established drugs, consumption can change rapidly. The halving of the cocaine market in five years and the parallel (but independent) large rise in daily/near-daily marijuana use are major events that were not anticipated by the expert community and raise important theoretical, research, and policy issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: There is little information on consumption patterns across the diverse range of cannabis product types. This paper examines trends in consumption patterns in Canada and the United States (US) between 2018-2020.Design: Repeat cross-sectional surveys were conducted as part of the International Cannabis Policy Study online survey in 2018 (n=27,024), 2019 (n=45,426), and 2020 (n=45,180).Setting: Respondents were recruited from commercial panels in Canada and US states that had and had not legalized non-medical cannabis (US 'legal' and 'illegal' states, respectively).Participants: Respondents were male and female participants aged 16-65 years.Measurements: Data on frequency and consumption amounts were collected for nine types of cannabis products, including dried flower and processed products (e.g., oils and concentrates). Consumers were also asked about mixing cannabis with tobacco. Socio-demographic information was collected.Findings: Dried flower was the most commonly used product, although use in the past 12 months declined between 2018 and 2020 in Canada (81% to 73%), US legal (78% to 72%) and illegal states (81% to 76%; p<0.05 for all). Prevalence of past 12-month use increased for virtually all other product forms, although prevalence of daily use remained stable across years. In 2020, edibles and vape oils were the most commonly used products after flower. Use of non-flower products was highest in US legal states, although similar trends were observed in all jurisdictions. Males were more likely to report using processed products, and vape oils were the most commonly processed product among 16-20-year-olds. Daily use of cannabis flower increased in US legal and illegal states, and average joint size increased across all jurisdictions over time.Conclusions: Dried flower remains the dominant product in Canada and the US; however, use of processed cannabis products has increased, with the largest increases observed in legal cannabis markets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Response variability across the lifespan is an important consideration in toxicology and risk assessment, and the toxic effects of drugs and chemicals during adolescence need more research. This paper summarizes a workshop presented in March 2019, at the Society of Toxicology Annual Meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, that brought together experts in research on drug dependence and toxicity related to nicotine, cannabis, cocaine, and other illicit drugs during adolescence. The goal of the workshop was to address the following issues: (1) Do the effects of adolescent exposure differ from the same exposure in adults? (2) Are there unique biological markers of adolescent brain development? If so, what are they and how reliable are they? (3) Since multiple factors influence substance use disorder, can we disentangle risk factors for abuse and/or toxicity? What are the underlying biological susceptibilities that lead to dependence and neurotoxicity? What are the social, psychosocial and environmental factors that contribute to abuse susceptibilities? This paper reviews drug policy and national trends in adolescent substance use; the public health consequences of e-cigarettes; rat models of adolescent-onset nicotine self-administration and persisting effects of gestational nicotine; sex-dependent effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on adolescent brain-behavior relationships; and translational approaches for identifying adolescent risk factors for transition to drug dependence. There is strong evidence that drug exposure prior to adulthood has longer lasting effects on behavior and the underlying neural circuitry. These effects, which are sex-dependent and influenced by stress, may be candidates as predictors of adolescent vulnerability. A major challenge to determining if adolescents have a unique susceptibility to dependence is whether and to what extent the human data allow distinction between the increased risk due to biological immaturity, an underlying biological susceptibility to dependence, or psychosocial and environmental factors for substance dependence. Factors important to consider for development of animal models include the timing and pattern of exposure as it relates to adolescence; age of assessment, and direct comparison with similar effects following exposures to adults to demonstrate that these effects are unique to adolescence. Here we provide a roadmap for further research into what makes adolescent brain development unique. • Evidence supports increased vulnerability to drug dependence during adolescence. • A number of promising biological indicators for addiction risk are being developed. • A roadmap for further research into adolescent brain development is presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Aims No modern jurisdiction has ever legalized commercial production, distribution and possession of cannabis for recreational purposes. This paper presents insights about the effect of legalization on production costs and consumption and highlights important design choices. Methods Insights were uncovered through our analysis of recent legalization proposals in California. The effect on the cost of producing cannabis is largely based on existing estimates of current wholesale prices, current costs of producing cannabis and other legal agricultural goods, and the type(s) of production that will be permitted. The effect on consumption is based on production costs, regulatory regime, tax rate, price elasticity of demand, shape of the demand curve and non-price effects (e.g. change in stigma). Results Removing prohibitions on producing and distributing cannabis will dramatically reduce wholesale prices. The effect on consumption and tax revenues will depend on many design choices, including: the tax level, whether there is an incentive for a continued black market, whether to tax and/or regulate cannabinoid levels, whether there are allowances for home cultivation, whether advertising is restricted, and how the regulatory system is designed and adjusted. Conclusions The legal production costs of cannabis will be dramatically below current wholesale prices, enough so that taxes and regulation will be insufficient to raise retail price to prohibition levels. We expect legalization will increase consumption substantially, but the size of the increase is uncertain since it depends on design choices and the unknown shape of the cannabis demand curve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]