Meeting of the Group: 3rd September 2019
APPG for Drug Policy Reform - Meeting notes
Review of Cannabis Regulation Initiatives around the world
On 3rd September, the Drug Policy Reform APPG and the charity Transform hosted a group of international speakers in Parliament, who presented the latest experience and evidence from the countries that have introduced legal markets for the consumption of Cannabis. To date, the regulation of cannabis for non-medical use has been limited to countries in North and South America. But with Luxembourg seeming certain to be the first EU country to follow suit, and the Netherlands piloting legal supply to their long established cannabis ‘coffee shops’, it is important that UK policy makers get the latest advice and information from the administrations who have pursued these reforms.
Cannabis policy in the UK is confused and inconsistent – with medical consumption now in principle legal, but unavailable to most potential patients due to bureaucratic and cost barriers. Meanwhile, non-medical use is still governed by the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act – with wide potential powers for imprisonment of consumers that are rarely used, and two rescheduling initiatives in the 2000’s that further confused the picture, while not reducing the level of over 100,000 arrests for possession each year, but have led to wide disparities in process and punishment in different areas. We therefore currently have the classic post code lottery, in which arrests rates vary widely (with the poor and ethnic minorities over-represented), and punishments ranging from a simple police warning, through small or large fines, to prosecution and imprisonment, for the same offence.
Clearly, policy on cannabis possession and consumption needs to be modernised in some way. Many countries have decided that the best way to address the health and mental health problems, the baleful effect of illegal drug dealing on communities, and easy access to cannabis for young people, is to introduce and administer a regulated market. We heard from four countries that have taken this route in recent years:
Canada – Sanho Tree
Sanho described how the Trudeau government had introduced country-wide regulation legislation in 2018. As Canada has a Federal system, however, much of the responsibility for designing and administering systems for licensing production and retail sales fell to the provincial governments, leading to a jigsaw of different regimes, some tighter, and some more liberal. This, and the relative short period of implementation so far, makes it difficult to draw any evidence based policy conclusions at this point, but Sanho pulled out a few emerging observations:
Canadian authorities have been rewarded for their careful planning for the reforms, with implementation going generally smoothly, and the institutions created to oversee the reforms functioning well.
There is no indication that overall rates of cannabis use in the country have spiked since legal sales were introduced.
The primary objective of the reforms, to control access to young people, will be assessed in terms of ease of access, and levels of correlated mental health problems, amongst under 18s. It is too early to tell if this objective is being met.
The main fears associated with legal sales, of a spike in crime around retail outlets, or in drug driving casualties, have not yet been observed.
Canada is facing a federal election this year, with the opposition expressing scepticism about the reforms, but it will now be difficult to reverse them entirely. In the coming years, therefore, Canada will produce good quality impact evidence that other countries can learn from.
Useful reading: https://transformdrugs.org/cannabis-legalisation-in-canada-one-year-on/
USA – Shaleen Title
Shaleen works at the Massachusetts Cannabis Commission, and is responsible for the introduction of a legally regulated market in that state, one of the 11 US states to make cannabis legal over the last 5 years. As with Canada, the various US state level regimes vary in many respects, and of course operate in a strange legal grey area in which the Federal law prohibits cannabis production, sale and consumption. Congress has made it clear that states’ rights allow them to operate legal regimes, irrespective of federal prohibition, but the legal inconsistency makes it hard for fully licensed operators to work with banking and tax authorities, inhibiting growth of what has quickly become a big business. The creation of an entirely new legal business has given an economic and fiscal boost to the ‘early adopter’ states, although some of the wilder estimates for boosts to state coffers have led to disappointment. As with Canada, but with a longer time to develop evidence, none of the US states has seen a significant uptick in cannabis prevalence or related problems, but the long term impact on youth use and mental health is not yet definable. In contrast with Canada, many US states have put little restriction on marketing and promotion of cannabis products, leading to concerns about commercialisation, and marketing to young people – for example through cannabis flavoured ‘edibles’ – cakes and sweets. This has led some states to retroactively introduce restrictions on the flavours, shapes, and packaging that may appeal to children. One of the features of implementation debates in the USA, and a particular feature of the Massachusetts system, is the need for the communities most harmed by previous strict cannabis laws (millions of Americans – once again mainly poor and ethnic minority – have had their life chances curtailed by a cannabis conviction), to have a stake in the new economic opportunities afforded by the legal market. There are therefore concerted attempts to ensure that the new market welcomes small entrepreneurs from affected communities, rather than being dominated by ‘big Marijuana’ or pharmaceutical companies that mimic the problems seen with the existing tobacco, alcohol, and pharma sectors.
Uruguay – Marie Nougier
Marie updated the audience on the longest established regulated market, with the legal reforms in Uruguay passing as long ago as 2013. However, due to long delays in implementation, many aspects of the Uruguayan model are only now coming into force. Part of the reason for this slow progress is that the model is the most tightly controlled of the initiatives so far – there are tight restrictions on cultivation, distribution and retail sales. All of these activities need to be registered with and overseen by the government, which has taken a long time to design procedures and create institutions to implement the agreed policy. Legal sales from a small number of licensed pharmacies have been in place for several years now but, after initial excitement, some customers have found the long queues and longer travelling distances to the few registered outlets to be a disincentive, and have returned to the illicit market. On the other hand, a strength of Uruguay’s model is the tight control of advertising and marketing, which addresses concerns around commercialisation of the sector, and marketing to young people.
Useful reading - https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/gs_032118_uruguaye28099s-cannabis-law_final.pdf
Bolivia – Kathy Ledebur
Moving off the subject of cannabis, but nonetheless a fascinating example of the development of a regulated drug market (this time for the coca leaf), Bolivia is an example of a national strategy to separate a naturally occurring and culturally accepted substance (coca leaf) from the concentrated and synthetic product (cocaine) derived from it. Bolivia, like most South American countries, has a historic and culturally embedded practice of chewing coca leaves, that was challenged by the prohibition of this practice in the 1961 United Nations Convention that established global drug prohibition. When President Evo Morales (an indigenous leader from a coca growing area) was elected in 2006 he, reasonably enough, pointed out that Bolivia had been signed up to this Convention by an unelected dictator, who had allowed the country’s indigenous culture to be wrapped up in wider efforts to prohibit cocaine production and trafficking. Under the slogan of ‘Coca Si, Cocaine No’, President Morales pursued a policy of working with coca growers and consumers to create a legal market for the coca leaf, while preventing its diversion in to the production of cocaine. While there is still undoubtedly an illegal market for cocaine in Bolivia, it is significantly smaller than in neighbouring countries (Peru and Colombia), and the indicators of associated problems - organised crime, violence, corruption, and community unrest – are significantly lower in Bolivia. Meanwhile, there is a thriving regulated market in coca leaf for chewing, and a set of consumer products ranging from tea to soap. As coca leaf is still prohibited internationally, however, President Morales’ dreams of a thriving export market are yet to be realised.
These four national examples gave us an insight into the practical experiences, and impact, of implementing regulated markets for previously prohibited drugs. The APPG for Drug Policy Reform will continue to monitor evidence from these and other policy changes, and make it available to all parliamentarians, as it becomes available.