Search

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]

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]