Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:53 am
Time: 3:53 am
Results for drug legalization
43 results foundAuthor: Kilmer, Beau Title: Altered State? Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets Summary: To learn more about the possible outcomes of marijuana legalization in California, RAND researchers constructed a model based on a series of estimates of current consumption, current and future prices, how responsive use is to price changes, taxes levied and possibly evaded, and the aggregation of nonprice effects (such as a change in stigma). Key findings include the following: (1) the pretax retail price of marijuana will substantially decline, likely by more than 80 percent. The price the consumers face will depend heavily on taxes, the structure of the regulatory regime, and how taxes and regulations are enforced; (2) consumption will increase, but it is unclear how much, because we know neither the shape of the demand curve nor the level of tax evasion (which reduces revenues and prices that consumers face); (3) tax revenues could be dramatically lower or higher than the $1.4 billion estimate provided by the California Board of Equalization (BOE); for example, uncertainty about the federal response to California legalization can swing estimates in either direction; (4) previous studies find that the annual costs of enforcing marijuana laws in California range from around $200 million to nearly $1.9 billion; our estimates show that the costs are probably less than $300 million; and (5) there is considerable uncertainty about the impact of legalizing marijuana in California on public budgets and consumption, with even minor changes in assumptions leading to major differences in outcomes. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2010. 68p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119335 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug PolicyDrugs (California)Marijuana |
Author: Miron, Jeffrey A. Title: The Budgetary Implications of Drug Prohibition Summary: "Government prohibition of drugs is the subject of ongoing debate. One issue in this debate is the effect of prohibition on government budgets. Prohibition entails direct enforcement costs and prevents taxation of drug production and sale. This report examines the budgetary implications of legalizing drugs. The report estimates that legalizing drugs would save roughly $48.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. $33.1 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government. Approximately $13.7 billion of the savings would results from legalization of marijuana, $22.3 billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $12.8 from legalization of other drugs. The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $34.3 billion annually, assuming legal drugs are taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $6.4 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana, $23.9 billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $4.0 billion from legalization of other drugs. State-by-state breakdowns provide a rough indication of legalization’s impacts on state budgets, but these estimates are less reliable than those for the overall economy. Whether drug legalization is a desirable policy depends on many factors other than the budgetary impacts discussed here. Rational debate about drug policy should nevertheless consider these budgetary effects. The estimates provided here are not definitive estimates of the budgetary implications of a legalized regime for currently illegal drugs. The analysis employs assumptions that plausibly err on the conservative side, but substantial uncertainty remains about the magnitude of the budgetary impacts." Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Department of Economics, 2010. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 21, 2010 at: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/miron/files/budget%202010%20Final.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/miron/files/budget%202010%20Final.pdf Shelf Number: 118415 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug PolicyDrug ProhibitionDrugs |
Author: Donohue, John J., III Title: Rethinking America's Illegal Drug Policy Summary: This paper provides a critical review of the empirical and theoretical literatures on illegal drug policy, including cross-country comparisons, in order to evaluate three drug policy regimes: criminalization, legalization and “depenalization.” Drawing on the experiences of various states, as well as countries such as Portugal and the Netherlands, the paper attempts to identify cost-minimizing policies for marijuana and cocaine by assessing the differing ways in which the various drug regimes would likely change the magnitude and composition of the social costs of each drug. The paper updates and evaluates Jeffrey Miron’s 1999 national time series analysis of drug prohibition spending and the homicide rate, which underscores the lack of a solid empirical base for assessing the theoretically anticipated crime drop that would come from drug legalization. Nonetheless, the authors conclude that given the number of arrests for marijuana possession, and the costs of incarceration and crime systemic to cocaine criminalization, the current regime is unlikely to be cost-minimizing for either marijuana or cocaine. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2011. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper Series; Working Paper 16776: Accessed February 14, 2011 at: http://mfi.uchicago.edu/publications/papers/donohue_drugpolicy.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://mfi.uchicago.edu/publications/papers/donohue_drugpolicy.pdf Shelf Number: 120757 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeDrug Abuse PolicyDrug ControlDrug LegalizationDrug Policy |
Author: Caulkins, Jonathan P. Title: Smuggling and Excise Tax Evasion for Legalized Marijuana: Lessons from Other Excise Taxes Summary: We explore three lines of evidence that may shed light on whether marijuana excise tax revenue could be threatened by black market sales and smuggling: (1) Comparing the Ammiano Bill’s proposed $50 per ounce tax to various other current and proposed excise taxes on a variety of metrics, (2) Placing a $50 per ounce tax in the context of cross-sectional state-level data relating tobacco smuggling to tobacco excise taxes, and (3) Comparing the tax to current marijuana prices on a per pound basis. This exercise suggests that: As compared with other familiar excise taxes, a $50 per ounce excise tax on marijuana is either very high or truly unprecedented depending on the metric employed. California should expect at least some degree of tax evasion; it is hard to see why evasion would be less of an issue than it is with cigarettes. California should not rule out the possibility that tax evasion would wipe out essentially all of the potential revenues from a $50 per ounce excise tax. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND Drug Policy Research Center, 2010. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper 766-RC, 2010. 10p. Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 121357 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug PolicyMarijuana (California)SmugglingTax Evasion |
Author: Williams, Jenny Title: Why Do Some People Want to Legalize Cannabis Use? Summary: Preferences and attitudes to illicit drug policy held by individuals are likely to be an important influence in the development of illicit drug policy. Among the key factors impacting on an individual's preferences over substance use policy are their beliefs about the costs and benefits of drug use, their own drug use history, and the extent of drug use amongst their peers. We use data from the Australian National Drug Strategy's Household Surveys to study these preferences. We find that current use and past use of cannabis are major determinants of being in favor of legalization. These results control for reverse causality from favorable attitudes to use. We also find that cannabis users are more in favor of legalization the longer they have used cannabis and, among past users, the more recent their own drug using experience. This may reflect that experience with cannabis provides information about the costs and benefits of using this substance. Finally, we uncover some evidence that peers' use of cannabis impacts on preferences towards legalization. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 16795: Accessed May 2, 2012 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16795 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16795 Shelf Number: 125121 Keywords: CannabisDrug LegalizationDrug Policy (U.S.)Marijuana |
Author: Rosmarin, Ari Title: A Quiet Revolution: Drug Decriminalisation Policies in Practice Across the Globe Summary: Increasingly countries around the world are changing their drug policies by ending the criminalization of those who use and possess drugs for their own personal use. This report published by Release, the UK national center of expertise on drugs and drug laws, reviews the evidence in 21 countries that have adopted some form of decriminalization and has found that the model of enforcement adopted has little impact on the rates of drug use in a country. The paper defines decriminalization as the removal of sanctions under the criminal law, with optional use of administrative sanctions; under this model drug supply offences are still criminal acts. A Quiet Revolution: Drug Decriminalization Policies in Practice across the Globe shows that countries and States as disparate as Belgium, Estonia, Australia, Mexico, Uruguay, the Netherlands and Portugal have adopted different models of decriminalization. It also highlights that decriminalization is not a new phenomenon with some countries, such as Spain, having adopted a non-criminal approach to drug use since the 1970s. Research from Australia, highlighted in the report, showed that as well as not needlessly criminalizing people, decriminalization could have other positive consequences. This research compared individuals who had been criminalized for cannabis possession against those who had received a non-criminal response. It found that individuals given criminal penalties were more likely to suffer negative employment, relationship, and accommodation consequences as a result of their cannabis charge and were more likely to come into further contact with the criminal justice system. Details: London: Release, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 26, 2012 at: http://www.soros.org/sites/default/files/release-quiet-revolution-drug-decriminalisation-policies-20120709.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.soros.org/sites/default/files/release-quiet-revolution-drug-decriminalisation-policies-20120709.pdf Shelf Number: 125787 Keywords: DecriminalizationDrug LegalizationDrug Policy (International)Drug Use and Abuse |
Author: Taylor, Stuart, Jr. Title: Marijuana Policy and Presidential Leadership: How to Avoid a Federal-State Train Wreck Summary: This paper explores how the federal government and the eighteen states (plus the District of Columbia) that have partially1 legalized medical or recreational marijuana or both since 1996 can be true to their respective laws, and can agree on how to enforce them wisely, while avoiding federal-state clashes that would increase confusion and harm the community and consumers. The paper takes no position (and this writer has no firm conviction) on whether legalizing recreational marijuana use, production, and distribution—as Colorado and Washington have now become the first modern jurisdictions to do—is a good or a bad idea. Rather, the paper seeks to persuade even people who think legalization is a bad idea that the best way to serve the federal interest in protecting public health and safety is not for the federal government to seek to abort state legalization. To the contrary, a federal crackdown would backfire by producing an atomized, anarchic, state-legalized but unregulated marijuana market that federal drug enforcers could neither contain nor force the states to contain. Rather, the Justice Department should use its considerable leverage to ensure that state regulators protect the federal government’s interests in minimizing exports across state lines, sales outside the state-regulated system, sales of unduly large quantities, sales of adulterated products, sales to minors, organized crime involvement, and other abuses. Legalizing states, for their part, must provide adequate funding for their regulators as well as clear rules to show that they will be energetic in protecting federal as well as state interests. If that sort of balance is struck, a win-win can be achieved. And the Obama Administration and legalizing states should take advantage of a provision of the 1970 federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to hammer out clear, contractual cooperation agreements so that stateregulated marijuana businesses will know what they can and cannot safely do. The urgency of this subject is at a zenith because of the ballot initiatives that 55 and 56 percent majorities of the voters in Colorado and Washington, respectively, adopted in November, legalizing possession (and, in Colorado, home growing and gifting) of small quantities of recreational marijuana. Both states are also putting in place plans, effective later this year, to license, regulate, and tax commercial production and distribution of marijuana. Both states had previously legalized medical marijuana. With public opinion tipping toward legalization,2 more states seem poised to legalize medical or recreational marijuana or both in the next few years.3 But the criminal sanctions and other penalties in the CSA for marijuana possession, cultivation, and distribution seem etched in stone by congressional inertia. So the Obama Administration’s response to the Colorado and Washington initiatives, and state officials’ sensitivity to federal law and federal interests, will shape the evolution of state as well as federal drug policy for years to come. The time for presidential leadership on marijuana policy is now. And, happily, Congress long ago directed in the CSA that the Attorney General “shall cooperate” with the states on controlled substances and authorized him “to enter into contractual agreements . . . to provide for cooperative enforcement and regulatory activities.”4 The CSA also gives the Administration ample leverage to insist that the legalizing states take care to protect the federal interests noted above. Details: Washington, DC: Governance Studies, Brookings Institution, 2013. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2013 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/04/11%20marijuana%20legalization%20taylor/marijuana%20policy%20and%20presidential%20leadership_v24.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/04/11%20marijuana%20legalization%20taylor/marijuana%20policy%20and%20presidential%20leadership_v24.pdf Shelf Number: 128340 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug PolicyMarijuana (U.S.)Medical Marijuana |
Author: Garvey, Todd Title: State Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: Selected Legal Issues Summary: May a state authorize the use of marijuana for recreational purposes even if such use is forbidden by federal law? This novel and unresolved legal question has vexed judges, politicians, and legal scholars, and it has also generated considerable public debate among supporters and opponents of “legalizing” the recreational use of marijuana. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana are prohibited for any reason other than to engage in federally approved research. Yet 18 states and the District of Columbia currently exempt qualified users of medicinal marijuana from penalties imposed under state law. In addition, Colorado and Washington recently became the first states to legalize, regulate, and tax small amounts of marijuana for nonmedicinal (so-called “recreational”) use by individuals over the age of 21. Thus, the current legal status of marijuana appears to be both contradictory and in a state of flux: as a matter of federal law, activities related to marijuana are generally prohibited and punishable by criminal penalties, whereas at the state level, certain marijuana usage is increasingly being permitted. Individuals and businesses engaging in marijuana-related activities that are authorized by state law nonetheless remain subject to federal criminal prosecution or other consequences under federal law. The Colorado and Washington laws that legalize, regulate, and tax an activity the federal government expressly prohibits appear to be logically inconsistent with established federal policy toward marijuana, and are therefore likely subject to a legal challenge under the constitutional doctrine of preemption. This doctrine generally prevents states from enacting laws that are inconsistent with federal law. Under the Supremacy Clause, state laws that conflict with federal law are generally preempted and therefore void and without effect. Yet Congress intended that the CSA would not displace all state laws associated with controlled substances, as it wanted to preserve a role for the states in regulating controlled substances. States thus remain free to pass laws relating to marijuana, or any other controlled substance, so long as they do not create a “positive conflict” with federal law, such that the two laws “cannot consistently stand together.” This report summarizes the Washington and Colorado marijuana legalization laws and evaluates whether, or the extent to which, they may be preempted by the CSA or by international agreements. It also highlights potential responses to these recent legalization initiatives by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and identifies other noncriminal consequences that marijuana users may face under federal law. Finally, the report closes with a description of legislative proposals introduced in the 113th Congress relating to the treatment of marijuana under federal law, including H.R. 499 (Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013); H.R. 501 (Marijuana Tax Equity Act of 2013); H.R. 689 (States’ Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act); H.R. 710 (Truth in Trials Act); H.R. 784 (States’ Medical Marijuana Property Rights Protection Act); and H.R. 964 (Respect States’ and Citizens’ Rights Act of 2013). Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: R43034: Accessed April 16, 2013 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43034.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43034.pdf Shelf Number: 128387 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug Policy ReformMarijuana (U.S.) |
Author: Spagens, Toine Title: Decriminalization as Regulation: The Gambling and Cannabis Markets in the Netherlands Summary: Decriminalizing an illegal market may be a useful strategy for reducing crime. It is also necessary, however, to have a clear understanding of the nature of the illegal market before undertaking such an endeavor. Experiences in the Netherlands show that decriminalizing illegal markets may indeed result in a substantial reduction of organized crime and other criminal activities, if the regulatory system is designed adequately. These experiences also show that such systems inherently lack flexibility and that criminals are usually quick to re-enter the market when unforeseen developments, particularly technical innovations and internationalization, create new illegal business opportunities. Details: Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University, 2013. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Tilburg Law School Research Paper No. 05/2013: Accessed April 17, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2107654 Year: 2013 Country: Netherlands URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2107654 Shelf Number: 128392 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug MarketsGamblingIllegal MarketsMarijuana (Netherlands)Narcotic Drugs |
Author: Organization of American States Title: The Drug Problem in the Americas: Studies. Legal and Regulatory Alternatives Summary: FINDINGS Over the past two years, the hemispheric drug policy debate has become much more active and intense. Marijuana legalization initiatives in Uruguay and two western U.S. states are drawing broad attention in the hemisphere. About a dozen OAS member states have non-criminal or reduced penalties or no penalty at all for possession of a personal amount of controlled substances, including Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. Decriminalization of marijuana for personal use is common in many states of the United States, in practice or by law. The available evidence suggests that reducing penalties for possession of small quantities has little effect on the number of users. Legalization of controlled substances, especially if commercialized, could complicate prevention efforts, decrease prices, and thus expand use and addiction, with all the negative consequences that accompany these trends. Assuming well-functioning regulatory structures, legalization could reduce many of the negative consequences with which society is most concerned, including violence, corruption, and public disorder surrounding drug distribution; the transmission of blood-borne diseases associated with shared needles; and the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of low-level drug offenders. There is limited evidence available to accurately measure tradeoffs, and it is difficult to predict exactly to what extent legalization would reduce violence and other harms or increase the prevalence of addiction and use. The results would vary by country, by drug, and by the nature of the legalization regime adopted. No country has legalized any of these drugs, and neither historical analogies (such as to the period when cocaine was legal in many Western countries) nor comparisons to alcohol prohibition provide much insight. Details: Washington, DC: OAS, 2013. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 28, 2013 at: http://www.cicad.oas.org/main/policy/informeDrogas2013/alternativasLegales_ENG.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.cicad.oas.org/main/policy/informeDrogas2013/alternativasLegales_ENG.pdf Shelf Number: 128833 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Control PolicyDrug Legalization |
Author: Galston, William A. Title: The New Politics of Marijuana Legalization Summary: Over less than a decade, public opinion has shifted dramatically toward support for the legalization of marijuana. For many years, opinion on the issue was quite stable, but the turn of the millennium unsettled this long-standing consensus: sentiment in favor of legalization has increased by 20 points in just over a decade. The proportion of Americans who view marijuana use as immoral has fallen from 50 percent to 32 percent in just seven years. A recent national survey showed a narrow national majority in favor of legalization, and its supporters translated this sentiment into ballot initiative victories in Colorado and Washington State in 2012. Some of the change is likely to be durable. The 4-to-1 edge that opponents of legalization enjoyed twenty years ago has almost certainly vanished permanently. Momentum is on the side of those favoring legalization. Support for legalization is especially strong among the young, while the only age group staunchly opposed consists of those 65 years old and over. Unless the younger generation substantially alters its views as it ages, generational change alone is likely to keep support well above the levels of the relatively recent past, even if enthusiasm for legalization wanes. One possible explanation for the shift is a sharp decline over the past generation in the proportion of Americans who see marijuana as a “gateway” to harder drugs. That decline has been steepest among those who have never tried marijuana. In addition, some surveys have found that a slim majority now believes that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana to both individuals and society. The implicit syllogism: if we long ago ceased regarding alcohol use as morally wrong, why should we continue to think this way about marijuana use? Details: Washington, DC:Governance Studies The Brookings Institution, 2013. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/05/29%20politics%20marijuana%20legalization%20galston%20dionne/dionne%20galston_newpoliticsofmjleg_final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/05/29%20politics%20marijuana%20legalization%20galston%20dionne/dionne%20galston_newpoliticsofmjleg_final.pdf Shelf Number: 128907 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug PolicyMarijuana (U.S.) |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: The War on Marijuana in Black and White: Billions of Dollars Wasted on Racially Biased Arrests Summary: This report is the first to examine marijuana possession arrest rates by race for all 50 states (and the District of Columbia) and their respective counties from 2001 to 2010. The report relies on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program and the United States Census’ annual county population estimates to document arrest rates by race per 100,000 for marijuana possession. The report finds that between 2001 and 2010, there were over 8 million marijuana arrests in the United States, 88% of which were for possession. Marijuana arrests have increased between 2001 and 2010 and now account for over half (52%) of all drug arrests in the United States, and marijuana possession arrests account for nearly half (46%) of all drug arrests. In 2010, there was one marijuana arrest every 37 seconds, and states spent combined over $3.6 billion enforcing marijuana possession laws. The report also finds that, on average, a Black person is 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person, even though Blacks and whites use marijuana at similar rates. Such racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests exist in all regions of the country, in counties large and small, urban and rural, wealthy and poor, and with large and small Black populations. Indeed, in over 96% of counties with more than 30,000 people in which at least 2% of the residents are Black, Blacks are arrested at higher rates than whites for marijuana possession. The report concludes that the War on Marijuana, like the larger War on Drugs of which it is a part, is a failure. It has needlessly ensnared hundreds of thousands of people in the criminal justice system, had a staggeringly disproportionate impact on African- Americans, and comes at a tremendous human and financial cost. The price paid by those arrested and convicted of marijuana possession can be significant and linger for years, if not a lifetime. Arrests and convictions for possessing marijuana can negatively impact public housing and student financial aid eligibility, employment opportunities, child custody determinations, and immigration status. Further, the War on Marijuana has been a fiscal fiasco. The taxpayers’ dollars that law enforcement agencies waste enforcing marijuana possession laws could be better spent on addressing and solving serious crimes and working collaboratively with communities to build trust and increase public health and safety. Despite the fact that aggressive enforcement of marijuana laws has been an increasing priority of police departments across the country, and that states have spent billions of dollars on such enforcement, it has failed to diminish marijuana’s use or availability. To repair this country’s wrecked War on Marijuana, the ACLU recommends that marijuana be legalized for persons 21 or older through a system of taxation, licensing, and regulation. Legalization is the smartest and surest way to end targeted enforcement of marijuana laws in communities of color, and, moreover, would eliminate the costs of such enforcement while generating revenue for cash-strapped states. States could then reinvest the money saved and generated into public schools and public health programs, including substance abuse treatment. If legalization is not possible, the ACLU recommends depenalizing marijuana use and possession for persons 21 or older by removing all attendant civil and criminal penalties, or, if depenalization is unobtainable, decriminalizing marijuana use and possession for adults and youth by classifying such activities as civil, not criminal, offenses. The ACLU also recommends that until legalization or depenalization is achieved, law enforcement agencies and district attorney offices should deprioritize enforcement of marijuana possession laws. In addition, police should end racial profiling and unconstitutional stop, frisk, and search practices, and no longer measure success and productivity by the number of arrests they make. Further, states and the federal government should eliminate the financial incentives and rewards that enable and encourage law enforcement to make large numbers of arrests, including for low-level offenses such as marijuana possession. In sum, it is time to end marijuana possession arrests. Details: New York: ACLU, 2013. 187p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2013 at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu-thewaronmarijuana-rel2.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu-thewaronmarijuana-rel2.pdf Shelf Number: 128970 Keywords: Drug EnforcementDrug LegalizationMarijuana (U.S.)Racial DiscriminationRacial DisparitiesRacial Profiling in Law Enforcement |
Author: Murray, Chad Title: Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations and Marijuana: The Potential Effects of U.S. Legalization Summary: Mexico's drug war has claimed more than 30,000 lives since 2006. The intensity and duration of this violence has produced an environment in which “few Mexican citizens feel safer today than they did ten years ago, and most believe that their government is losing the fight.” However, the problem of drug violence in Mexico is not domestic, but transnational in nature. President Barack Obama recently noted that “we are very mindful that the battle President Calderón is fighting inside of Mexico is not just his battle; it's also ours. We have to take responsibility just as he is taking responsibility.” It is U.S. demand for illicit drugs that provides the primary incentive for Mexican narcotics trafficking. Therefore, there is a possibility that a change in U.S. drug policy could negatively affect the revenues of Mexican DTOs, and even their ability to wage violence. This paper will examine the validity of that argument, as well as several of the issues that would accompany such a fundamental policy shift. The purpose of this report is to evaluate current U.S. policy on marijuana, extract lessons learned from policy changes in other countries, analyze the effects that legalization of marijuana in the United States might have on Mexican DTOs, and provide recommendations for future U.S. policies. Current U.S. laws will serve as a starting point to determine if existing decriminalization or medicinal marijuana reforms have had any impact on Mexican DTOs. After examining what effects, if any, these policies have had, reforms in other countries will be examined. From the case studies of Portugal, the Netherlands, and Mexico, lessons will be drawn to give context to any possible ramifications or benefits of U.S. marijuana legalization. Finally, concrete recommendations will be made on whether recent marijuana policy reforms should be maintained, improved, or repealed. Details: Washington, DC: George Washington University, Elliott School of International Affairs, 2011. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Elliott School of International Affairs/Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission: Capstone Report: Accessed July 13, 2013 at: http://elliott.gwu.edu/assets/docs/acad/lahs/mexico-marijuana-071111.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://elliott.gwu.edu/assets/docs/acad/lahs/mexico-marijuana-071111.pdf Shelf Number: 129388 Keywords: Drug ControlDrug LegalizationDrug PolicyDrug TraffickingMarijuana |
Author: Jacobi, Liana Title: Marijuana on Main Street: What if? Summary: Illicit drug use is prevalent. While the nature of the market makes it di¢ - cult to determine sales with certainty, estimates are around $150 billion a year in the US. Marijuana is the most common illicit drug used, where the US spends upwards of $7.7 bil- lion per year in law enforcement (Miron, 2005). For the past 30 years there has been a debate regarding marijuana legalization. There are two important avenues through which legalization could impact use: it would make marijuana easier to get, and it would remove the stigma (and cost) associated with illegal behavior. Studies to date have not considered either of these avenues explicitly. However, both are important for policy. We develop and estimate a model of marijuana use that disentangles the impact of limited accessibility from consumption decisions based solely on preferences (and distaste for illegal behavior). We nd that both play an important role and that individuals who have access to the illicit market are of speci c demographics. We nd that selection into who has access to cannabis is not random, and the results suggest estimates of the demand curve will be biased un- less selection is explicitly considered. Counterfactual results indicate that making marijuana legal and removing accessibility barriers would have a smaller relative impact on younger individuals but still a large impact in magnitude. Use among teenagers would (a little less than) double and use among individuals in their thirties and forties would almost triple. Details: Unpublished paper, 2013. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2013 at: https://economics.adelaide.edu.au/research/seminars/2013-cannabis.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: https://economics.adelaide.edu.au/research/seminars/2013-cannabis.pdf Shelf Number: 129419 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug MarketsDrug PolicyIllicit DrugsMarijuana |
Author: Finklea, Kristin Title: State Marijuana Legalization Initiatives: Implications for Federal Law Enforcement Summary: Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug across the world, including in the United States. In 2011, an estimated 18.1 million individuals in the United States aged 12 or older (7% of this population) had used marijuana in the past month. The rate of reported marijuana use in 2011 was significantly higher than those rates reported prior to 2009. Mirroring this increase in use, marijuana availability in the United States has also increased. This growth has been linked to factors such as rising marijuana production in Mexico, decreasing marijuana eradication in Mexico, and increasing marijuana cultivation in the United States led by criminal networks including Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Along with the uptick in the availability and use of marijuana in the United States, there has been a general shift in public attitudes toward the substance. In 1969, 12% of the surveyed population supported legalizing marijuana; today, more than half (52%) of surveyed adults have expressed opinions that marijuana should be legalized. And, 60% indicate that the federal government should not enforce its marijuana laws in states that allow the use of marijuana. The federal government—through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA; P.L. 91-513; 21 U.S.C. §801 et. seq.)—prohibits the manufacture, distribution, dispensation, and possession of marijuana. Over the last few decades, some states have deviated from an across-the-board prohibition of marijuana. Evolving state-level positions on marijuana include decriminalization initiatives, legal exceptions for medical use, and legalization of certain quantities for recreational use. Notably, in the November 2012 elections, voters in Washington State and Colorado voted to legalize, regulate, and tax the recreational use of small amounts of marijuana. These latest moves have spurred a number of questions regarding their potential implications for related federal law enforcement activities and for the nation’s drug policies on the whole. Among these questions is whether or to what extent state initiatives to decriminalize, or even legalize, the use of marijuana conflict with federal law. In general, federal law enforcement has tailored its efforts to target criminal networks rather than individual criminals; its stance regarding marijuana offenders appears consistent with this position. While drug-related investigations and prosecutions remain a priority for federal law enforcement, the Obama Administration has suggested that efforts will be harnessed against large-scale trafficking organizations rather than on recreational users of marijuana. Some may question whether state-level laws and regulations regarding marijuana prohibition—in particular those that clash with federal laws—may adversely impact collaborative law enforcement efforts and relationships. Currently, there is no evidence to suggest that the operation of these collaborative bodies will be impacted by current state-level marijuana decriminalization or legalization initiatives. Data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission seem to indicate a federal law enforcement focus on trafficking as opposed to possession offenses. Of the federal drug cases with marijuana listed as the primary drug type (28% of total drug cases sentenced), over 98% involved a sentence for drug trafficking in 2012. A number of criminal networks rely heavily on profits generated from the sale of illegal drugs— including marijuana—in the United States. As such, scholars and policymakers have questioned whether or how any changes in state or federal marijuana policy in the United States might impact organized crime proceeds and levels of drug trafficking-related violence, particularly in Mexico. In short, there are no definitive answers to these questions; without clear understanding of (1) actual proceeds generated by the sale of illicit drugs in the United States, (2) the proportion of total proceeds attributable to the sale of marijuana, and (3) the proportion of marijuana sales controlled by criminal organizations and affiliated gangs, any estimates of how marijuana legalization might impact the drug trafficking organizations are purely speculative. Given the differences between federal marijuana policies and those of states including Colorado and Washington, Congress may choose to address state legalization initiatives in a number of ways, or choose to take no action. Among the host of options, policymakers may choose to amend or affirm federal marijuana policy, exercise oversight over federal law enforcement activities, or incentivize state policies through the provision or denial of certain funds. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2013. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: R43164: Accessed August 8, 2013 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43164.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43164.pdf Shelf Number: 129595 Keywords: Drug EnforcementDrug LegalizationDrug PolicyMarijuana (U.S.) |
Author: Dank, Meredith Title: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana in Washington: Monitoring Trends in Use Prior to the Implementation of I-502 Summary: The Washington State Institute for Public Policy is directed to conduct a benefit-cost analysis of the implementation of I-502, which legalizes recreational marijuana use for adults within the state. As a preliminary step, we analyzed population-level data to begin monitoring four key indicators of marijuana use prior to implementation. We used data from the 2002 to 2011 administrations of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health to examine trends in the prevalence of current marijuana use, lifetime marijuana use, age of initiation, and marijuana abuse or dependency. We examined these trends separately for youth and adults in Washington, and also provide estimates for Colorado (the other state that has legalized recreational marijuana use) and the rest of the United States (US). Examining trends in this manner will allow us to monitor whether the implementation of I-502 appears to affect these key indicators of marijuana use over time. Although more sophisticated analyses will be required for us to evaluate the policy, these initial trends provide a baseline to compare future data against. Findings. The prevalence of marijuana use in the past 30 days - a key indicator of the proportion of people who are current marijuana users - appears to be on the rise in recent years among both youth and adults in Washington, Colorado, and the US. The other indicators of use appear to be relatively stable or increasing slightly over time. In general, the estimates from Washington are slightly higher than the US and slightly lower than Colorado. Next steps. We will continue to monitor these trends over time within the context of our larger benefit-cost analysis to examine whether the new policy appears to affect marijuana use rates within the state. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2013. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: (Document No. 13-11-1401): Accessed March 12, 2014 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1540/Wsipp_Legalization-of-Recreational-Marijuana-in-Washington-Monitoring-Trends-in-Use-Prior-to-the-Implementation-of-I-502_Full-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1540/Wsipp_Legalization-of-Recreational-Marijuana-in-Washington-Monitoring-Trends-in-Use-Prior-to-the-Implementation-of-I-502_Full-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 131885 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug LegalizationDrug Reform PolicyMarijuana |
Author: Kilmer, Beau Title: Before the Grand Opening: Measuring Washington State's Marijuana Market in the Last Year Before Legalized Commercial Sales Summary: In 2012, Washington state voters passed Initiative 502 (I-502), which removed the prohibition on the production, distribution, and possession of marijuana for nonmedical purposes and required the state to regulate and tax a new marijuana industry. Legalization of possession went into effect almost immediately, but the revolutionary aspect of the law - allowing businesses to openly produce and distribute commercial-scale quantities for nonmedical use - is expected to be fully implemented in 2014. Decisionmakers in Washington need baseline information about the amount of marijuana that is currently consumed in the state for many reasons. For example, it is important for making informed decisions about the number of licenses to distribute, to accurately project tax revenues, and to provide a foundation for evaluations of I-502. This report estimates the total weight of marijuana consumed in Washington in 2013 using data from existing household surveys as well as information from a new web-based consumption survey. Although the principal motivation for the study was estimating the size of the market, the report also describes various characteristics of the market, including traits of marijuana users in Washington and how they obtain marijuana. While the Washington Office of Financial Management projected that 85 metric tons (MT) of marijuana would be consumed in the state in 2013, this report suggests that estimate is probably too low, perhaps by a factor of two. There is inevitable uncertainty surrounding estimates of illegal and quasi-illegal activities, so it is better to think in terms of a range of possible sizes, rather than a point estimate. Analyses suggest a range of 135-225 MT, which might loosely be thought of as a 90-percent confidence interval, with a median estimate close to 175 MT. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, Drug Policy Research Center, 2013. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR466/RAND_RR466.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR466/RAND_RR466.pdf Shelf Number: 132177 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug MarketsDrug Policy ReformMarijuana |
Author: Magson, Jessica Title: Drugs, Crime and decriminalisation: Assessing the impact of drug decriminalisation policies on the efficience and integrity of the criminal justice system Summary: In recent decades a number of countries have moved away from a prohibitionist model of drug control towards policies that prioritise harm reduction and rehabilitation, with the goal of reducing demand and minimising the social and individual harms caused by drug abuse. In Portugal and the Czech Republic, low-threshold possession of any drug is a misdemeanour rather than a criminal offence, diverting users away from the criminal justice system and in the case of Portugal, providing support through newly created Dissuasion Commissions. The authorities in Uruguay have long decriminalised drug possession and are now on the cusp of regulating the supply and distribution of cannabis. Drug use and abuse continues in all three countries but demand has remained stable and notable successes have been observed. In the UK there are also growing calls from frontline practitioners and officials in the criminal justice system for a similar process of diversion and regulation, and we have now reached a stage where significant numbers in the police, courts, prisons and probation services are critical of both the effectiveness and intellectual coherence of the drug laws they are charged with upholding. Set in this context, the report considers how the criminal justice system may be affected by the removal of criminal penalties for possession-only offences, as well as a longer-term shift to supply-side regulation. Drawing on meetings with officials in Portugal, the Czech Republic and Uruguay it explains some of the lessons we can learn from their experiences, as the government works to support recovery and reduce demand in the UK. There are four main findings to this report that together reinforce arguments in support of the diversion of possession cases away from the criminal justice system; Enhanced efficiency and streamlined processes - All the different strands of the system (police, courts, prisons, and probation) should to differing extents make efficiency gains, see a gradual fall in their caseload and a longer-term trend of enhanced trust with the individuals they are working with. The police in particular are likely to see their work dealing with drug users simplified. These improvements depend on reform being enacted with a proper prioritization of diversion to health and social support, attention to practical detail and clear strategic vision. Feasibility - A diversionary system would in the first instance require limited statutory change and fairly minor adjustments to staff procedures, and the UK is in the strong position of being able to draw on and expand existing pilots and national schemes supporting rehabilitation. Opportunities for greater strategic and structural coherence - Effective rehabilitation in Portugal was enabled by a strategic shift towards multidisciplinary oversight, reflecting the complex needs of problematic users and the diverse impact of drug abuse on areas such as health, employment, education and housing. The diversion of possession offences is unlikely to have a significant impact on rehabilitation rates unless combined with a broader set of reforms that allow health and welfare agencies to better identify and provide support to problematic users. There is a case for adjusting oversight responsibilities in the UK in a similar way, to better align policy with responses on the ground. International alignment - There is a clear international shift towards a reassessment of approaches to drug control. We know that reform is best achieved incrementally. The UK is now in a strong position to reform its possession laws, better preparing the country for a possible future of supply-side regulation. Proactive engagement would allow the UK to feed in its well known rule of law expertise in helping to shape multilateral decisions that could have a huge bearing on the nation's own domestic landscape. Details: Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, 2014. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2015 at: http://www.wcmt.org.uk/sites/default/files/migrated-reports/1200_1.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.wcmt.org.uk/sites/default/files/migrated-reports/1200_1.pdf Shelf Number: 134737 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug DecriminalizationDrug EnforcementDrug LegalizationDrug Reform Policy |
Author: Blickman, Tom Title: Cannabis policy reform in Europe: Bottom up rather than top down Summary: With the regulation of recreational cannabis markets in Uruguay and the US states of Colorado and Washington in 2013, and - in November 2014 - the approval of cannabis regulation ballots in the states of Oregon and Alaska, a breakthrough in conventional cannabis policy is emerging. The current policy trend towards legal regulation of the cannabis market is increasingly seen as a more promising model for protecting people's health and safety and has changed the drug policy landscape and the terms of the debate. The prohibitive model has failed to show 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. While in the Americas cannabis policy reform is taking off, Europe seems to be lagging behind. That is to say, in European nations at the level of national governments - where denial of the changing policy landscape and inertia to act upon calls for change reigns. At the local level, however, disenchantment with the current cannabis regime gives rise to new ideas. In several countries in Eu rope, local and regional authorities are looking at regulation, either pressured by grassroots movements - in particular the Cannabis Social Clubs (CSCs) - or due to the involvement of criminal groups and public disorder. This briefing will give an overview of recent developments in Europe. Details: Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, 2014. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies No. 28: Accessed March 11, 2015 at: http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/dlr28.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/dlr28.pdf Shelf Number: 134889 Keywords: CannabisDrug LegalizationDrug Policy (Europe)Drug ReformMarijuanaOrganized Crime |
Author: Coelho, Manuel Pinto Title: Drugs: The Portuguese Fallacy and the Absurd Medicalization of Europe Summary: Drug decriminalization in Portugal is a failure despite of various reports published all over the world pretending the opposite. There is a complete and absurd campaign of an unacceptable manipulation of Portuguese drug policy. Underestimating the readers understanding and suggesting the contrary to what facts and numbers show unequivocally, a book written by a writer/lawyer fluent in Portuguese for an American "libertarian" think-tank a long time advocating drug legalization - Cato Institute - has been carried out naively by some usually responsible national and international press all over the world, that boosting the proliferation of the Portuguese "good news" are dangerously distorting the projection of the reality. On the other hand, is very preoccupant indeed the appeal, among others, of two notorious personalities on the field of drug dependence that among others are inviting the world "to move human rights into the mainstream of drug control" and "place health at the core of drug policy". Applying in their speech the two favorite arguments the two "jewels of the crown" of the well known economic-social-political group that insistently and restlessly wishes at any cost to legalize drugs - "health" and "human rights" - those high representative officials amazingly seems they did not find the strength enough to resist the pressure and, capitulating to that lobby group are opening dangerously the door to the medicalization of drug dependency. Surprisingly the very recent 2010 EMCDDA Report, emphasizing the use of substitution drugs as main tool to tackle opioid dependence, shows clearly that Europe seems wishing to go in the same way. Details: Association for a Drug Free Portugal, 2013. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2015 at: http://www.drugfree.org.au/fileadmin/library/Policies__Legislation_and_law/ThePortugueseDrugFallacyReport.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Portugal URL: http://www.drugfree.org.au/fileadmin/library/Policies__Legislation_and_law/ThePortugueseDrugFallacyReport.pdf Shelf Number: 134954 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug LegalizationDrug Policy (Portugal) |
Author: Neill, Katharine A. Title: Marijuana Reform: Fears and Facts Summary: In 1972, a National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, comprising establishment figures chosen mostly by President Richard Nixon himself, issued a report that declared that "neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety" and recommended that Congress and state legislatures decriminalize the use and casual distribution of marijuana and seek means other than prohibition to discourage use. President Nixon ignored the report and Congress declined to consider its recommendations, but during the 40-plus years since its publication, at least 37 states have acted to refashion a crazy-quilt collection of prohibitions, nearly always in the direction favored by the commission. The specifics vary by state, but most reform legislation has followed one of three formulas: decriminalization of marijuana possession, legalization of marijuana for medical use, or legalization of marijuana for adult recreational use. In this issue brief, authors Katharine Neill and William Martin examine the facts and fears surrounding each of these options. Details: Houston, TX: Rice University, Baker Institute for Public Policy, 2015. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief: Accessed March 27, 2015 at: http://bakerinstitute.org/media/files/research_document/1886afae/BI-Brief-020415-MJlegalization.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://bakerinstitute.org/media/files/research_document/1886afae/BI-Brief-020415-MJlegalization.pdf Shelf Number: 134955 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug LegalizationDrug Reform Policy (U.S.)Marijuana |
Author: Murkin, George Title: Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight Summary: Portugal decriminalised the possession of all drugs for personal use in 2001, and there now exists a significant body of evidence on what happened following the move. Both opponents and advocates of drug policy reform are sometimes guilty of misrepresenting this evidence, with the former ignoring or incorrectly disputing the benefits of reform, and the latter tending to overstate them. The reality is that Portugal's drug situation has improved significantly in several key areas. Most notably, HIV infections and drug-related deaths have decreased, while the dramatic rise in use feared by some has failed to materialise. However, such improvements are not solely the result of the decriminalisation policy; Portugal's shift towards a more health-centred approach to drugs, as well as wider health and social policy changes, are equally, if not more, responsible for the positive changes observed. Drawing on the most up-to-date evidence, this briefing clarifies the extent of Portugal's achievement, and debunks some of the erroneous claims made about the country's innovative approach to drugs. Details: Bristol, UK: Transform, 2014. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2015 at: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight Year: 2014 Country: Portugal URL: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight Shelf Number: 134957 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug LegalizationDrug Policy (Portugal)Drug Reform |
Author: Gettman, Jon B. Title: Marijuana Arrests in Colorado After the Passage of Amendment 64 Summary: Colorado's Amendment 64 was enacted in November 2012. The constitutional amendment allowed for the personal possession, cultivation and private use of marijuana in the state of Colorado for people over 21 years of age. The state was also mandated to establish a framework for taxation and regulation so adults could legally purchase non-medical marijuana from licensed cultivators and retailers. The new rights conferred to adults went into effect on December 10, 2012. The first retail stores opened on January 1, 2014. This report reviews changes in the number and characteristics of marijuana arrests in Colorado after the passage of Amendment 64. Not all arrests are equal in terms of consequences for the individual and the costs to the criminal justice system because an arrested individual may be charged with several criminal violations. Consequently this report refers to arrests in terms of the number of individual charges prosecuted in court. Data obtained from the Judicial Branch of Colorado was used to compare the number of cases and charges brought before the courts in the state prior to the passage of Amendment 64. Additional data from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation was used to review the racial characteristics of those arrested by law enforcement for marijuana law violations. This report reveals that marijuana-related charges statewide (not including Denver) decreased by 85% between 2010 and 2014. An overwhelming majority of this decrease in charges came in the aftermath of Amendment 64. Possession charges at all levels (not simply the level now legal or previously considered a petty offense) are the primary reason for the decline. Cultivation charges over the last two years were halved when compared to the previous two years before Amendment 64. In addition, all drug-related charges are down 23% since 2010. This underscores the central role of marijuana prohibition in the drug war, as well as marijuana legalization's implications for criminal justice reform more generally. This report also finds that racial disparities for marijuana offenses persist at similar levels as before Amendment 64. However, disparities for the charge of intent to distribute actually went down, easing fears of many racial justice advocates. While the overall decrease in marijuana-related offenses statewide has been enormously beneficial to communities of color, one troubling concern is the rise in disparities for the charge of public consumption, especially in Denver. It is also worth noting that, due to a lack of credible data, this report does not analyze Amendment 64's impact on the state's Latino population. The report also reveals a sharp decline in synthetic marijuana arrests since retail stores opened in 2014. According to judicial county court records, arrests for synthetic marijuana in 2014 have declined by 27% from the prior year. Given the health impacts of marijuana are more established and understood than those related to synthetic marijuana, advocates see this as yet another potential benefit of legalization. Details: New York: Drug Policy Alliance, 2015. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Marijuana_Arrests_After_the_Passage_of_Amendment_64.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Marijuana_Arrests_After_the_Passage_of_Amendment_64.pdf Shelf Number: 135227 Keywords: ArrestsDecriminalizationDrug EnforcementDrug LegalizationDrug Policy (Colorado)Drug ReformMarijuana Legalization |
Author: Caulkins, Jonathan P. Title: After the Grand Fracture: Scenarios for the Collapse of the International Drug Control Regime Summary: Key Findings - Decriminalizing the possession of amounts of marijuana suitable for personal use has minimal repercussions beyond a nation's borders. But even one country's legalization of a commercial cocaine or heroin industry would affect global markets. - International prohibitions against cocaine and heroin create asymmetries. Production and transshipment concentrate in relatively few places that bear the bulk of the negative externalities created by the illegal production and international trade. - The impact of negative externalities has led to calls for altering the United Nations treaty framework and for individual nations to legalize outside of the existing framework. - Legalization of production in one country would attract productive activities (with their associated externalities) from the remaining illicit producers. This incentivizes current producing countries to encourage others to take the first step. - Legalization of transshipment in one country would attract transportation activities from existing jurisdictions where drugs remain illegal since it would reduce the need for traffickers to assume the risk of covert shipments or armed guards. - The impact of legalized transshipment of cocaine is different for the United States and for other regions of the world. As the United States shares a large porous border with Mexico, current covert smuggling networks would continue to operate. Transshipment to Europe and Asia would take place through regular trade routes, principally containers, given the distances involved. - If a European or Asian state with large porous land borders were to legalize transshipment, it would attract the bulk of cocaine transported to their region, producing covert smuggling networks similar to those currently existing on the U.S.-Mexico border. Details: Washington, DC: Brooking Institute, 2015. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 21, 2015 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/Caulkinsfinal.pdf?la=en Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/Caulkinsfinal.pdf?la=en Shelf Number: 135752 Keywords: Criminal NetworksDrug Control PolicyDrug LegalizationDrug SmugglingDrug Trafficking |
Author: Marijuana Policies of Ohio Taskforce Title: Marijuana and Ohio; Past, Present, Potential Summary: As Ohioans consider approving the personal and therapeutic use of marijuana, legitimate questions are being raised about the way in which legalization will impact the economy, public safety and public health. In many instances the answers to those questions are, as is often the case with controversial public policy matters, colored by the political perspective and philosophy of the person or group providing the reply. As a result, citizens are being subjected to a debate that is often clouded by unsupported and/or exaggerated claims and counter-claims offered by advocates on both sides of the issue. Sorting through the rhetoric and distinguishing reality from fiction can be a difficult challenge for those who want to make an informed choice about legalization. That challenge is made even more daunting by the fact that marijuanas classification as a Schedule 1 Substance by the federal government in 1971 has severely limited the amount and type of scientific and medical research that has been conducted relative to its health effects and medical efficacy. While billions of dollars were and continue to be spent by public and private entities to clearly identify and abate health hazards associated with everything from tobacco to texting as well as to develop treatments and/or cures for maladies ranging from cancer to impotence, marijuana and its components have been the subject of comparatively few broad-based, scientifically valid studies. Finally, an examination of the overall impact of legalization must be made in the proper context and with the acknowledgement that thousands of Ohioans of all ages now use marijuana each and every day and are currently exposed to the risks associated with that behavior. They obtain the cannabis they are ingesting from unregulated, untaxed, unlicensed sources. It is grown in fields located in this and other states as well as in foreign countries. It is impossible to track its origin, whether or not it has been exposed to pesticides or other chemicals or how it has been processed. All this must be taken into consideration by anyone who wants to make an objective decision about whether and to what extent marijuana should be legalized in the state. Details: Columbus, OH: Marijuana Policies of Ohio Taskforce, 2015. 189p., ex. summary. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2015 at: http://mpotf.org/executive-summary/#mpotexecusummary/page1 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://mpotf.org/executive-summary/#mpotexecusummary/page1 Shelf Number: 136095 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug Policy Drug Reform Marijuana |
Author: International Drug Policy Consortium Title: A Public Health Approach to Drug Use in Asia: Principles and Practices for Decriminalisation Summary: In this report, the International Drug Policy Consortium offers recommendations based on evidence and examples of good practice to inform a shift in policy responses to drug use in Asia away from criminalisation and punishment, and towards public health and harm reduction. It describes effective approaches to the decriminalisation of drug use. It also discusses approaches implemented in Asia that have proven ineffective, such as the detention of people who use drugs in compulsory centres as a form of 'rehabilitation'. The report is intended as a resource for policy makers, legislators, communities of people who use drugs and civil society organisations in Asia. The overall goal of the report is to offer guidance on steps that countries can undertake to develop drug policies that achieve better public health outcomes, by shifting away from the criminalisation and punishment of people who use drugs. It also describes legal and policy responses to drugs that are not effective, such as the detention of people who use drugs in compulsory centres for drug users, forced urine testing, compulsory registration and other punitive measures. Details: London: IDPC, 2016. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 4, 2016 at: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64663568/library/Drug-decriminalisation-in-Asia_ENGLISH-FINAL.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Asia URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64663568/library/Drug-decriminalisation-in-Asia_ENGLISH-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 138559 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug LegalizationDrug PolicyDrug Policy Reform |
Author: Reed, Jack K. Title: Marijuana Legalization in Colorado: Early Findings. A Report Pursuant to Senate Bill 13-283 Summary: In 2013, following the passage of Amendment 64 which allows for the retail sale and possession of marijuana, the Colorado General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 13-283. This bill mandated the Division of Criminal Justice in the Department of Public Safety to conduct a study of the impacts of Amendment 64, particularly as these relate to law enforcement activities. This report seeks to establish and present the baseline measures for the metrics specified in S.B. 13-283, codified as C.R.S. 24-33.4-516. The majority of the information presented here should be considered pre-commercialization, baseline data because much of the information is available only through 2014, and data sources vary considerably in terms of what exists historically. Consequently, it is too early to draw any conclusions about the potential effects of marijuana legalization or commercialization on public safety, public health, or youth outcomes, and this may always be difficult due to the lack of historical data. Furthermore, the information presented here should be interpreted with caution. The decreasing social stigma regarding marijuana use could lead individuals to be more likely to report use on surveys and to health workers in emergency departments and poison control centers, making marijuana use appear to increase when perhaps it has not. Finally, law enforcement officials and prosecuting attorneys continue to struggle with enforcement of the complex and sometimes conflicting marijuana laws that remain. Thus, the lack of pre-commercialization data, the decreasing social stigma, and challenges to law enforcement combine to make it difficult to translate these early findings into definitive statements of outcomes. Details: Denver, CO: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Department of Public Safety, 2016. 147p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2016 at: http://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2016-SB13-283-Rpt.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2016-SB13-283-Rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 138798 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug Law EnforcementDrug LegalizationDrug PolicyMarijuanaOrganized Crime |
Author: Walsh, John Title: Uruguay's Drug Policy: Major Innovations, Major Challenges Summary: Key Findings - Uruguay, the first country to legalize and regulate every level of the market for cannabis, will be an important example globally for political leaders contemplating whether and how to liberalize drug policies. - Even before its return to democracy in 1985, Uruguay had traditionally adopted relatively liberal drug policies. - A combination of political leadership by President Jose "Pepe" Mujica and public unease over rising criminality led Uruguay to pursue drug reform. - Compared to similar cannabis laws in Washington and Colorado, the Uruguayan measure is more state-centered, with less emphasis on commercialization and greater restrictions on use. - Uruguayan public opinion has remained opposed toor at least skeptical of - the law. - Uruguay will have to contend with international criticism and domestic political forces as it moves to implement enabling legislation in 2015. Policy Recommendations - We recommend that the government of Uruguay: Maintain flexibility regarding the cannabis law's key variables, such as market price and potency varieties available to consumers; Adjust the law based on thorough monitoring and evaluation, taking into account academic and civil society analysts; Articulate an enforcement and inspection strategy for the relevant officials; Implement a drug use prevention strategy aimed at youth that does not dissuade users and home-growers from registering with the government; and Better educate the public on the behind the law and what it aims to accomplish. Details: Washington, DC: Foreign Policy at Brookings, 2016. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 25, 2016 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/Walsh--Uruguay-final.pdf?la=en Year: 2016 Country: Uruguay URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/Walsh--Uruguay-final.pdf?la=en Shelf Number: 139156 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug PolicyDrug ReformMarijuana Legalization |
Author: Starling, Boris Title: The Tide Effect: How the world is changing its mind on cannabis legalisation Summary: The people of California have just voted to legalise cannabis – a decision which will have immense repercussions both in America and around the world, while efforts are already underway in Canada to legally regulate the cannabis market. The Tide Effect argues strongly that the UK should follow suit, and that the legalisation of cannabis here is both overdue and imperative. The eight main points outlined in The Tide Effect are: 1. The government strategy is based around three main pillars: reducing demand, restricting supply and building recovery. All three are failing. 2. Regulation is substantially more desirable than simple decriminalisation or unregulated legalisation, because only regulation addresses all four key issues: ensuring that the product meets acceptable standards of quality and purity; removing criminal gangs from the equation as far as possible; raising revenue for the Treasury through point-of-sale taxation; and best protecting public health. 3. The entire language used to address cannabis-related issues needs to change. Language poses a barrier every bit as formidable as legislation does. The opponents of legalisation have long been able to reinforce their position by using the words of public fear – ‘illegal,’ ‘criminal’, ‘dangerous’, and so on. Only by using the language of public health, consumer rights and harm reduction, the same language used about alcohol and tobacco, can we move towards regulation. 4. The scale of a legalised industry will be huge. The US market is estimated to be worth $25bn by the time of the next election in 2020. A similarly regulated UK market could be worth around £7bn per annum. 5. Legally regulating cannabis will allow long-term studies of its health effects not currently possible. The effects of both tobacco and alcohol are well understood because of the amount of scientific scrutiny brought to bear on them. 6. Many shifts in public policy are prompted, or at least prodded, by an emotional response on the part of the public. Greater efforts must be made to show that the cannabis issue also has a human aspect to which many people respond. 7. Any campaign to legalise cannabis must be multifaceted, involving public support, media analysis and political engagement. 8. Responsibility for cannabis policy should be moved primarily to the department for Health, while the role of the Home Office should change from enforcement of prohibition to enforcement of regulation and licensing Details: London: Adam Smith Research Trust, 2016. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 16, 2016 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56eddde762cd9413e151ac92/t/582eecc6e3df2844237ca6dc/1479470281332/The+Tide+Effect+WEB+VERSION.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56eddde762cd9413e151ac92/t/582eecc6e3df2844237ca6dc/1479470281332/The+Tide+Effect+WEB+VERSION.pdf Shelf Number: 140509 Keywords: Cannabis Drug LegalizationDrug Policy Marijuana Legalization |
Author: Ramsey, Geoff Title: Getting Regulation Right: Assessing Uruguay's Historic Cannabis Initiative Summary: After close to three years, the final element of Uruguay's historic cannabis law is set to be implemented in early 2017, when commercial sales are expected to begin. While advancements have been slow and deliberate, Uruguay is not alone in taking such a cautious approach. The U.S. state of Maryland, for instance, approved a medical cannabis program in 2013, but a series of careful adjustments has also postponed sales until 2017. Now that the commercial sales element of the law is about be phased in, the government of President Tabaré Vázquez is facing a key moment of opportunity. With the basic structures created by the law soon to be up and running, the government should ensure a robust system of monitoring and evaluation is also in place, to assess whether the cannabis law is in fact achieving its goals, identify problems that may arise, and indicate where and how the new regime may need to be revised. This report, "Getting Regulation Right: Assessing Uruguay’s Historic Cannabis Initiative," lays out the progress that Uruguayan authorities have made in rolling out the law to date. It also examines current monitoring and evaluation efforts underway, as well as opportunities for Uruguay to respond to potential obstacles thus far. Uruguay's government makes no pretense that its law should be a model for others. But Uruguay's leaders also know that, as the first nation to legalize and regulate every level of the cannabis market, their new system will be coming under close scrutiny, at home and abroad. As citizens and leaders elsewhere ponder whether and how to legalize and regulate cannabis in their own countries, the lessons to be learned in Uruguay can help inform cannabis policy well beyond the country's own borders. Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2016. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 20, 2016 at: https://www.wola.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Getting-Regulation-Right-WOLA-Uruguay.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Uruguay URL: https://www.wola.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Getting-Regulation-Right-WOLA-Uruguay.pdf Shelf Number: 147301 Keywords: CannabisDrug LegalizationDrug PolicyDrug ReformMarijuana Legalization |
Author: Canada. Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Title: A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada Summary: On June 30, 2016, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Minister of Health announced the creation of a nine-member Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“the Task Force”). Our mandate was to consult and provide advice on the design of a new legislative and regulatory framework for legal access to cannabis, consistent with the Government’s commitment to “legalize, regulate, and restrict access.” To fulfill our mandate, we engaged with provincial, territorial and municipal governments, experts, patients, advocates, Indigenous governments and representative organizations, employers and industry. We heard from many other Canadians as well, including many young people, who participated in an online public consultation that generated nearly 30,000 submissions from individuals and organizations. The Task Force looked internationally (e.g., Colorado, Washington State, Uruguay) to learn from jurisdictions that have legalized cannabis for non-medical purposes, and we drew lessons from the way governments in Canada have regulated tobacco and alcohol, and cannabis for medical purposes. A Discussion Paper prepared by the Government, entitled “Toward the Legalization, Regulation and Restriction of Access to Marijuana,” informed the Task Force’s work and helped to focus the input of many of the people from whom we heard. The Discussion Paper identified nine public policy objectives. Chief among these are keeping cannabis out of the hands of children and youth and keeping profits out of the hands of organized crime. The Task Force set out guiding principles as the foundation of our advice to Ministers: protection of public health and safety, compassion, fairness, collaboration, a commitment to evidenceinformed policy and flexibility. In considering the experience of other jurisdictions and the views of experts, stakeholders and the public, we sought to strike a balance between implementing appropriate restrictions, in order to minimize the harms associated with cannabis use, and providing adult access to a regulated supply of cannabis while reducing the scope and scale of the illicit market and its social harms. Our recommendations reflect a public health approach to reduce harm and promote health. We also took a precautionary approach to minimize unintended consequences, given that the relevant evidence is often incomplete or inconclusive. Minimizing Harms of Use In taking a public health approach to the regulation of cannabis, the Task Force proposes measures that will maintain and improve the health of Canadians by minimizing the harms associated with cannabis use. This approach considers the risks associated with cannabis use, including the risks of developmental harms to youth; the risks associated with patterns of consumption, including frequent use and co-use of cannabis with alcohol and tobacco; the risks to vulnerable populations; and the risks related to interactions with the illicit market. In addition to considering scientific evidence and input from stakeholders, the Task Force examined how other jurisdictions have attempted to minimize harms of use. We examined a range of protective measures, including a minimum age of use, promotion and advertising restrictions, and packaging and labelling requirements for cannabis products. In order to minimize harms, the Task Force recommends that the federal government: f Set a national minimum age of purchase of 18, acknowledging the right of provinces and territories to harmonize it with their minimum age of purchase of alcohol f Apply comprehensive restrictions to the advertising and promotion of cannabis and related merchandise by any means, including sponsorship, endorsements and branding, similar to the restrictions on promotion of tobacco products f Allow limited promotion in areas accessible by adults, similar to those restrictions under the Tobacco Act f Require plain packaging for cannabis products that allows the following information on packages: company name, strain name, price, amounts of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) and warnings and other labelling requirements f Impose strict sanctions on false or misleading promotion as well as promotion that encourages excessive consumption, where promotion is allowed f Require that any therapeutic claims made in advertising conform to applicable legislation f Resource and enable the detection and enforcement of advertising and marketing violations, including via traditional and social media f Prohibit any product deemed to be “appealing to children,” including products that resemble or mimic familiar food items, are packaged to look like candy, or packaged in bright colours or with cartoon characters or other pictures or images that would appeal to children f Require opaque, re-sealable packaging that is childproof or child-resistant to limit children’s access to any cannabis product f Additionally, for edibles: Z Implement packaging with standardized, single servings, with a universal THC symbol Z Set a maximum amount of THC per serving and per product f Prohibit mixed products, for example cannabis-infused alcoholic beverages or cannabis products with tobacco, nicotine or caffeine f Require appropriate labelling on cannabis products, including: Z Text warning labels (e.g., “KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN”) Z Levels of THC and CBD Z For edibles, labelling requirements that apply to food and beverage products f Create a flexible legislative framework that could adapt to new evidence on specific product types, on the use of additives or sweeteners, or on specifying limits of THC or other components f Provide regulatory oversight for cannabis concentrates to minimize the risks associated with illicit production f Develop strategies to encourage consumption of less potent cannabis, including a price and tax scheme based on potency to discourage purchase of high-potency products f Require all cannabis products to include labels identifying levels of THC and CBD f Enable a flexible legislative framework that could adapt to new evidence to set rules for limits on THC or other components f Develop and implement factual public education strategies to inform Canadians as to risks of problematic use and lower-risk use guidance f Conduct the necessary economic analysis to establish an approach to tax and price that balances health protection with the goal of reducing the illicit market f Work with provincial and territorial governments to determine a tax regime that includes equitable distribution of revenues f Create a flexible system that can adapt tax and price approaches to changes within the marketplace f Commit to using revenue from cannabis as a source of funding for administration, education, research and enforcement f Design a tax scheme based on THC potency to discourage purchase of high-potency products f Implement as soon as possible an evidenceinformed public education campaign, targeted at the general population but with an emphasis on youth, parents and vulnerable populations f Co-ordinate messaging with provincial and territorial partners f Adapt educational messages as evidence and understanding of health risks evolve, working with provincial and territorial partners f Facilitate and monitor ongoing research on cannabis and impairment, considering implications for occupational health and safety policies f Work with existing federal, provincial and territorial bodies to better understand potential occupational health and safety issues related to cannabis impairment f Work with provinces, territories, employers and labour representatives to facilitate the development of workplace impairment policies The Task Force further recommends that: f In the period leading up to legalization, and thereafter on an ongoing basis, governments invest effort and resources in developing, implementing and evaluating broad, holistic prevention strategies to address the underlying risk factors and determinants of problematic cannabis use, such as mental illness and social marginalization f Governments commit to using revenue from cannabis regulation as a source of funding for prevention, education and treatment Details: Ottawa: Health Canada, 2016. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 23, 2016 at: http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/task-force-marijuana-groupe-etude/framework-cadre/alt/framework-cadre-eng.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/task-force-marijuana-groupe-etude/framework-cadre/alt/framework-cadre-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 147805 Keywords: CannabisCannabis LegalizationDrug LegalizationDrug PolicyMarijuana |
Author: Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) Title: Lessons Learned After 4 Years of Marijuana Legalization Summary: In the wake of multimillion-dollar political campaigns funded with out-of-state money, Colorado and Washington voted to legalize marijuana in November 2012. Though it would take more than a year to set up retail stores, personal use (in Colorado and Washington) and home cultivation (in Colorado, which includes giving away of up to six plants) were almost immediately legalized after the vote. Using marijuana in public, which remains illegal under these new laws, has increased conspicuously in both states. Also, a brand-new marijuana industry selling candies, cookies, waxes, sodas, and other marijuana items has exploded—and with it a powerful lobby to fight any sensible regulation. Though it is still early—the full effects on mental health and educational outcomes, for example, will take many more years to fully develop—these “experiments” in legalization and commercialization are not succeeding by any measure. Colorado now leads the country in past-month marijuana use by youth, with Washington not much further behind. Other states that have since legalized marijuana occupy 4th place (District of Columbia) and 5th place (Oregon). States with lax “medical marijuana” laws occupy 2nd and 3rd place (Vermont and Rhode Island, respectively). Additionally, as explained in greater detail below, the laws have had significant negative impacts on public health and safety, such as: • Rising rates of pot use by minors • Increasing arrest rates of minors, especially black and Hispanic children • Higher rates of traffic deaths from driving while high • More marijuana-related poisonings and hospitalizations • A persistent black market that may now involve increased Mexican cartel activity in Colorado The federal government, through the Department of Justice (DOJ), announced it would initially take a hands-off approach to state implementation of legalization, instead promising to track eight specific consequences—from youth marijuana use to use on public lands—and determine action later. So far, however, neither the federal nor state authorities have implemented a robust public tracking system for these criteria. This failure led the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to criticize DOJ in 2016 for not appropriately monitoring and documenting legalization outcomes. As of the date of this publication, there has been no word from the Department of Justice about state marijuana program compliance with any of the eight criteria it identified. Quietly, however, state agencies such as the Colorado Department of Public Safety, have released very negative updates on marijuana data and other indicators. In the meantime, the promises of tax revenue windfalls and decreased crime have not materialized. Pot tax revenue comprises a tiny fraction of the Colorado state budget— less than one percent—and after costs of enforcement are subtracted, the remaining revenue is very limited. Some Colorado school districts, such as Denver's, have not seen a single dollar of new funding from state pot taxes. And in Washington, half of the marijuana tax money legalization advocates promised for prevention and schools has been siphoned off into the state's general fund. Details: Alexandria, VA: SAM, 2016. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 13, 2017 at: https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SAM-report-on-CO-and-WA-issued-31-Oct-2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SAM-report-on-CO-and-WA-issued-31-Oct-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 145017 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse PolicyDrug LegalizationMarijuanaMarijuana Legalization |
Author: Dragone, Davide Title: Crime and the Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Summary: We provide first-pass evidence that the legalization of the cannabis market across US states may be inducing a crime drop. Exploiting the recent staggered legalization enacted by the adjacent states of Washington (end of 2012) and Oregon (end of 2014) we find, combining county-level difference-in-differences and spatial regression discontinuity designs, that the legalization of recreational marijuana caused a significant reduction of rapes and thefts on the Washington side of the border in 2013-2014 relative to the Oregon side and relative to the pre-legalization years 2010-2012. We also find evidence that the legalization increased consumption of marijuana and reduced consumption of other drugs and both ordinary and binge alcohol. Details: Bonn, Germany: Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), 2017. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Discussion Paper Series no. 10522: Accessed March 8, 2017 at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp10522.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://ftp.iza.org/dp10522.pdf Shelf Number: 141374 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeDrug LegalizationMarijuana |
Author: Ramirez, Anthony Title: Marijuana, Other Drugs, and Alcohol Use by Drivers in Washington State Summary: In Washington State legal sales of marijuana began July 8, 2014. A voluntary, anonymous roadside study was conducted to assess the prevalence of drivers testing positive for alcohol and other drugs, including marijuana, on Washington's roads. Data was collected in three waves, before implementation of legal sales, about 6 months after implementation, and 1 year after implementation. Of the almost 2,400 participants who provided an oral fluid or blood sample, 14.6 percent of drivers, 19.4 percent of drivers, and 21.4 percent of drivers were THC-positive in Waves 1, 2, and 3, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between waves. There was a statistically significant increase in daytime prevalence of THC-positive drivers between Wave 1 (7.8%) and Wave 2 (18.4%), and also between Wave 1 and Wave 3 (18.9%). There was an increase in the percentage of THC-positive nighttime drivers with each successive wave, but these increases were not statistically significant. Synthetic marijuana was found in only 2 of the participants. Details: Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2016. 73p., app. Source: Internet Resource: (Report No. DOT HS 812 299: Accessed April 13, 2017 at: http://theathenaforum.org/sites/default/files/812299-WashingtonStatedrugstudy.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://theathenaforum.org/sites/default/files/812299-WashingtonStatedrugstudy.pdf Shelf Number: 144899 Keywords: Cannabis Driving Under the Influence Drug LegalizationDrugged Driving Drunk Driving Marijuana |
Author: Apfel, Rachael Title: Implementing Proposition 64: Marijuana Policy in California Summary: The Law and Policy Lab practicum is an important innovation in the curriculum at Stanford Law School. Policy Lab students address important public policy questions for a real-world client, under the supervision of a SLS faculty member. In some ways, the Policy Lab is similar to a traditional legal clinic, but the focus is on the general public interest rather than advocacy on behalf of a particular individual or organization. This report is the work of a Policy Lab on marijuana regulation, a subject of extraordinary current importance in California. After 20 years of unregulated medical marijuana, the legislature passed a comprehensive set of rules governing how the industry should operate. Shortly thereafter, the voters approved Proposition 64 (The Adult Use of Marijuana Act), which legalized recreational marijuana. This new environment creates challenges and opportunities for policymakers, including Assemblyman Jim Wood, whose district includes most of the states' marijuana production. Our Stanford policy lab was very fortunate to have Dr. Wood as our client for this semester. Dr. Wood posed three questions that our students, with our guidance, tried to answer: (1) What are the conflicts between the recently passed medical marijuana regulations and Proposition 64, and how can they be reconciled within the constraints of the State Constitution? (2) How serious a problem is cannabis-impaired driving, and what technologies and policies could combat it? (3) How can policymakers protect the environment from destructive marijuana grows, and how can environment protection officials hold destructive growers responsible when they are shielded under multiple limited license corporations (LLCs). Details: Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Law School, Law and Policy Lab, 2017. 71p. Source: Accessed April 21, 2017 at: https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Implementing_Prop_64_Stanford_Law_School.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Implementing_Prop_64_Stanford_Law_School.pdf Shelf Number: 145136 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug PolicyMarijuanaProposition 64 |
Author: Camacho, Adriana Title: Drug Consumption in Colombia Summary: This paper examines the evolution of drug use in Colombia over the past years. Our analysis, based on surveys from the Direccion Nacional de Estupefacientes, shows that drug consumption grew substantially between 1996 and 2013. The growth occurred for both genders, all ages, socioeconomic strata and types of occupation. The results also suggest that men of high socioeconomic strata who regularly consume alcohol and cigarettes and who are between 18 and 24 years of age are more likely to use drugs. Finally, the paper presents some indirect evidence that contradicts the alleged effects of the judgment of the Constitutional Court (Sentencia C-221 of May 1994) that decriminalized the personal dose on the consumption of drugs in Colombia. Details: Bogota: Universidad de los Andes, Colombia - Department of Economics, 2016. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Documento CEDE No. 2016-36: Accessed May 9,. 2017 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2877199 Year: 2016 Country: Colombia URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2877199 Shelf Number: 145363 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug LegalizationDrug Policy |
Author: Hughes, Brendan Title: Cannabis Legislation in Europe: An Overview Summary: Cannabis is the drug most often mentioned in reports of drug law offences in Europe. In 2014, the drug accounted for 57% of an overall estimate of 1.6 million offences (EMCDDA, 2016). Cannabis is also Europe's most commonly used illicit drug. It is estimated that at least one in every eight young adults (aged 15-34 years) used cannabis in the last year across the European Union. At the national level, these rates range from less than 1% to over 20% of young adults. The most recent data suggest that 1% of the adult population (aged 15-64 years) of the European Union and Norway, or about 3 million individuals, are smoking cannabis on a daily or near- daily basis. The trends in use also vary between countries. In surveys since around 2005, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom have shown decreasing or stable trends in reported use, while upward trends can be observed in Bulgaria, France and three of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland and Sweden). A renewed debate about the laws prohibiting or permitting cannabis use and supply around the world has been fuelled by the legalisation of supply and use of cannabis for 'recreational' purposes in some US states and Uruguay since 2012. Proposals to legalise the drug have raised concerns they may lead to increases in cannabis use and related harms, and questions about the ways in which cannabis for non-medical purposes could be regulated to mitigate these concerns. In the European Union, a system of unlimited distribution has evolved in the Netherlands since the 1970s, and this has seen further developments in the last few years. The advantages and disadvantages of these regulated systems are being closely observed. The model of 'cannabis social clubs' has been increasingly mentioned in drug policy debates. Its advocates argue that the decision to not prosecute individuals for cannabis use in some countries can also be applied to registered groups of individuals, in order to permit a closed system of cannabis production and distribution. At present, the model is rejected by national authorities in Europe. Throughout Europe there is media and public discourse on the issue of changing cannabis laws. However, national administrations are concerned about the public health impact of cannabis use and generally oppose the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis for recreational use. Nonetheless, cannabis laws and the medical and scientific research that informs policy-making can be regarded as entering a period of change, the direction of which is still unclear. It is with this background in mind that the EMCDDA has decided to produce this report. Incorporating and building on earlier EMCDDA work (see Resources, page 30), the present study outlines the legislation relating to cannabis around the European Union (with a focus on 'recreational' use, rather than production and use for medical or industrial purposes). Written for a broad audience, the report aims to give brief answers to some of the more frequently asked questions raised in the discussions about cannabis legislation. These have been grouped into four parts: 1. What is cannabis and what are countries' obligations to control it? 2. What do the laws and associated guidelines say? 3. What happens to cannabis offenders in practice? 4. Where is cannabis legislation going? Details: Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 25, 2017 at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/4135/TD0217210ENN.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Europe URL: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/4135/TD0217210ENN.pdf Shelf Number: 145791 Keywords: CannabisDrug LegalizationDrug PolicyIllicit DrugsMarijuana |
Author: Dills, Angela K. Title: The Effects of Marijuana Liberalizations: Evidence from Monitoring the Future Summary: By the end of 2016, 28 states had liberalized their marijuana laws: by decriminalizing possession, by legalizing for medical purposes, or by legalizing more broadly. More states are considering such policy changes even while supporters and opponents continue to debate their impacts. Yet evidence on these liberalizations remains scarce, in part due to data limitations. We use data from Monitoring the Future's annual surveys of high school seniors to evaluate the impact of marijuana liberalizations on marijuana use, other substance use, alcohol consumption, attitudes surrounding substance use, youth health outcomes, crime rates, and traffic accidents. These data have several advantages over those used in prior analyses. We find that marijuana liberalizations have had minimal impact on the examined outcomes. Notably, many of the outcomes predicted by critics of liberalizations, such as increases in youth drug use and youth criminal behavior, have failed to materialize in the wake of marijuana liberalizations. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper No. 23779: Accessed September 11, 2017 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23779.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23779.pdf Shelf Number: 147209 Keywords: Drug Enforcement Drug LegalizationDrug Policy Marijuana |
Author: Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) Title: Working Paper on Projected Costs of Marijuana Legalization in Illinois Summary: Potential revenue resulting from the legalization of marijuana is often discussed as a remedy for lagging state budgets. Indeed, 24/7 Wall St. reports "marijuana sales could add to state coffers an estimated $566 million in excise tax revenue per year," which is in the middle of the low ($350M) and high ($700M) projections estimated by pro-marijuana groups like the Marijuana Policy Project. This report finds that legalization in Illinois, however, would cost at least $670 million, outweighing the projected tax revenue. To justify legalization, proponents often cite high criminal justice costs, often not recognizing that in 2016 Illinois decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana. Additionally, the issue of legalization is often confused with the matter of medical marijuana, claiming the drug is necessary to aid those in need of medication. Supporters of the commercialization of marijuana often fail to acknowledge the costs resulting from marijuana use, including, but not limited to, drugged driving crashes and increased workplace absenteeism. Catalyst members have partnered with SAM to create this study in an attempt to publish valuable data in regard to the costs of the commercialization of marijuana. While we believe that this study has viable financial information about the monetary costs related to Illinois, we also feel that there are experiences far more significant than quantitative cost data. It is crucial to examine this cost study as one element of a larger view on the issue of marijuana in Illinois - an issue that touches individuals, families, and communities. Much has been said about the revenues that marijuana legalization might bring to Illinois. Few, however, discuss the costs of such a policy. Omitting costs is a critical oversight: no policy or business plan would be complete without discussing both sides of the balance sheet. It is also important to note that this study uses similar methods as previous studies by SAM estimating costs in Rhode Island and Connecticut. Although a full cost accounting of marijuana legalization would be impossible at present, enough data exists to make rough-and-ready estimates of certain likely direct and short-term costs, such as: 1. Administrative and enforcement costs for regulators 2. Increased drugged driving fatalities 3. Increased serious injuries from drugged driving crashes 4. Increased Property Damage to Vehicles from Drugged Driving 5. Short-term health costs a. More emergency room visits for marijuana poisonings b. Injuries from marijuana concentrate extraction lab explosions/fires 6. Increased rates of homelessness 7. Workplace costs/costs to employers: a. Increased absenteeism b. More workplace accidents Initial approximations even of these few costs indicate that it is unlikely that revenues from legalization would ever exceed its costs. This report concludes that even conservative cost estimates of only the issues above would cost Illinois approximately $670.5 million in 2020. Details: Alexandria, VA: SAM, 2018. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2018 at: http://healthyillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ILLINOIS-REPORT_419.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://healthyillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ILLINOIS-REPORT_419.pdf Shelf Number: 149855 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug PolicyMarijuana Legalization |
Author: Snowdon, Christopher Title: Joint Venture: Estimating the Size and Potential of the UK Cannabis Market Summary: -- This report aims to provide estimates of: (a) the size and value of the UK's illicit cannabis market in 2016/17 (b) the size and value of the market if cannabis were legalised and regulated (c) the annual tax revenue that a legal cannabis market would yield -- Our best estimate suggests that 255 tonnes of cannabis were sold in the UK in 2016/17 at a cost of L2.6 billion to three million consumers. -- Assuming a pre-tax retail price of 4 per gram and a price elasticity of -0.7, legalisation could cause demand to rise from 255 tonnes to at least 321 tonnes per annum. Total THC consumption would rise by less than this and could even fall if regulation mandated maximum THC levels. -- A commercialised marijuana market which capped THC levels at 15 per cent would virtually eradicate the black market, but some unlicensed cannabis would remain. If licensed cannabis made up 95 per cent of market, it would produce annual tax revenues of L495 million (with VAT plus a 10 per cent tax), L557 million (VAT plus a 20 per cent tax) or L690 million (VAT plus a 30 per cent tax). The total market size in these three scenarios (including the unlicensed share) would be 339 tonnes, 329 tonnes and 321 tonnes respectively. -- The highest suggested duty rate of 30 per cent would mean that 36 per cent of the retail price of an average gram of cannabis was tax. This is a lower share of tax than is paid on an average bottle of spirits, litre of petrol or pack of cigarettes in the UK. Although the government could tax cannabis at a higher rate than 30 per cent, this would risk reigniting the black market. Details: London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 2018. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: IEA Discussion Paper No.90: Accessed October 22, 2018 at: https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/DP90_Legalising-cannabis_web-1.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/DP90_Legalising-cannabis_web-1.pdf Shelf Number: 153048 Keywords: Black Markets Cannabis Drug LegalizationDrug Markets Illegal Drugs Marijuana |
Author: New York State. Department of Health Title: Assessment of the Potential Impact of Regulated Marijuana in New York State Summary: Charge -- In his January 2018 budget address, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo called for an assessment of the possible impact of regulating marijuana in New York State (NYS). The Governor directed NYS agencies to evaluate the health, public safety, and economic impact of legalizing marijuana. The experience of legalized marijuana in surrounding states was identified as an important issue to consider in the impact assessment. Review Process -- Pursuant to the Governor's charge, a thorough review was conducted of the health, criminal justice and public safety, economic, and educational impacts of a regulated marijuana program in NYS. The assessment included an examination of the implications of marijuana legalization that has recently occurred in surrounding jurisdictions. This is particularly important because the status quo in NYS is changing as the State shares borders with some jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana and some that are likely to legalize soon. This impact assessment involved a public health approach to examining the benefits and risks associated with legalizing marijuana in NYS as compared to maintaining the status quo. In developing the impact assessment, an extensive analysis of peer-reviewed literature was conducted, and information was obtained from jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana. In addition, experts in State agencies were consulted, including the Department of Health (DOH), the Office of Mental Health, the Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services, the NYS Police, the Office of Children and Family Services, the Department of I Vaporizing is the process of heating dried marijuana to a temperature just below its combustion point of 392F. Vaporizers, devices used to use marijuana this way, consist of a heating source and a delivery system. II Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the primary psychoactive component in marijuana which binds to the cannabinoid receptors primarily in the brain. Taxation and Finance, and the Department of Transportation. Notably, some issues associated with regulating marijuana have been studied more thoroughly than others. In addition, relevant stakeholders with differing viewpoints have weighed in on the potential impact of legalizing marijuana. To ensure a comprehensive assessment, data from a variety of sources were acquired. Given the variety of sources utilized and the breadth of information contained in this report, some areas of potential impact contain discordant findings or viewpoints. Details: Albany: The Department, 2018. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 21, 2018 at: https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/regulated_marijuana/docs/marijuana_legalization_impact_assessment.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/regulated_marijuana/docs/marijuana_legalization_impact_assessment.pdf Shelf Number: 153525 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug Policy Marijuana Marijuana Legalization |
Author: Alabama Appleseed Title: Alabama's War on Marijuana: Assessing the Fiscal and Human Toll of Criminalization Summary: Kiasha Hughes dreamed of becoming a medical assistant. Now, she works an overnight shift at a chicken plant to support her children. Nick Gibson was on track to graduate from the University of Alabama. Now, he works at a fast-food restaurant. Wesley Shelton spent 15 months in jail and ended up with a felony conviction - for having $10 worth of marijuana. Like thousands of others, they're casualties of Alabama's war on marijuana - a war the state ferociously wages with draconian laws that criminalize otherwise law-abiding people for possessing a substance that's legal for recreational or medicinal use in states where more than half of all Americans live. In Alabama, a person caught with only a few grams of marijuana can face incarceration and thousands of dollars in fines and court costs. They can lose their driver's license and have difficulty finding a job or getting financial aid for college. This war on marijuana is one whose often life-altering consequences fall most heavily on black people - a population still living in the shadow of Jim Crow. Alabama's laws are not only overly harsh, they also place enormous discretion in the hands of law enforcement, creating an uneven system of justice and leaving plenty of room for abuse. This year in Etowah County, for example, law enforcement officials charged a man with drug trafficking after adding the total weight of marijuana-infused butter to the few grams of marijuana he possessed, so they could reach the 2.2-pound threshold for a trafficking charge. Marijuana prohibition also has tremendous economic and public safety costs. The state is simply shooting itself in the pocketbook, wasting valuable taxpayer dollars and adding a tremendous burden to the courts and public safety resources. This report is the first to analyze data on marijuana-related arrests in Alabama, broken down by race, age, gender and location. It includes a thorough fiscal analysis of the state's enforcement costs. It also exposes how the administrative burden of enforcing marijuana laws leaves vital state agencies without the resources necessary to quickly test evidence related to violent crimes with serious public safety implications, such as sexual assault. The study finds that in Alabama: - The overwhelming majority of people arrested for marijuana offenses from 2012 to 2016 - 89 percent - were arrested for possession. In 2016, 92 percent of all people arrested for marijuana offenses were arrested for possession. - Alabama spent an estimated $22 million enforcing the prohibition against marijuana possession in 2016 - enough to fund 191 additional preschool classrooms, 571 more K-12 teachers or 628 more Alabama Department of Corrections officers. - Black people were approximately four times as likely as white people to be arrested for marijuana possession (both misdemeanors and felonies) in 2016 - and five times as likely to be arrested for felony possession. These racial disparities exist despite robust evidence that white and black people use marijuana at roughly the same rate. - In at least seven law enforcement jurisdictions, black people were 10 or more times as likely as white people to be arrested for marijuana possession. - In 2016, police made more arrests for marijuana possession (2,351) than for robbery, for which they made 1,314 arrests - despite the fact that there were 4,557 reported robberies that year. - The enforcement of marijuana possession laws creates a crippling backlog at the state agency tasked with analyzing forensic evidence in all criminal cases, including violent crimes. As of March 31, 2018, the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences had about 10,000 pending marijuana cases, creating a nine-month waiting period for analyses of drug samples. At the same time, the department had a backlog of 1,121 biology/DNA cases, including about 550 "crimes against persons" cases such as homicide, sexual assault and robbery. While Alabama continues to criminalize people who use marijuana either recreationally or medicinally, an increasing number of states have come to treat marijuana like alcohol and tobacco. Nine states and the District of Columbia now allow recreational use. The early evidence strongly suggests that this approach benefits public safety and the criminal justice system. In those states, arrests for marijuana possession have been virtually eliminated, freeing up officers to focus on crimes of violence. Drunken-driving arrests are down as well. And, there's no evidence of a spike in crime or increased marijuana use among youth. These states have also enjoyed a corresponding fiscal and economic windfall. Across the country, thousands of jobs are being created where marijuana has been legalized. Three of the states where it has been legal the longest - Colorado, Washington and Oregon - have thus far collected a total of $1.3 billion in new revenue. And, as the human toll discussed throughout this report falls disproportionately on black people, legalization offers an opportunity to begin to address the disproportionate harms that Alabama's criminal justice system causes to its African-American population. It's time for Alabama to join an increasing number of states in taking a commonsense, fiscally responsible approach to marijuana policy. Details: Montgomery, Alabama: Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, 2018. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2019 at: https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/marijuana_law/2018/10/alabamas-war-on-marijuana-assessing-the-fiscal-and-human-toll-of-criminalization.html Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/com_decriminalization_of_marijuana_web_final.pdf Shelf Number: 154308 Keywords: African AmericansDrug EnforcementDrug LegalizationMarijuanaMarijuana ProhibitionRacial DisparitiesSubstance AbuseWar on Drugs |
Author: Ludin, Abasin Title: Regulatory Framework for Marijuana Legalization: City of Pacific Grove, California Summary: In November 2016, 57 percent of California voters approved ballot measure Proposition 64 to legalize the use of recreational marijuana. This happened despite the fact that marijuana is still considered illegal under federal law. Although Prop 64 requires the state to issue marijuana licenses to businesses by January 2018, local governments are granted the authority to allow recreational or medical marijuana sales. The aim of this project is to focus on a regulatory framework regarding marijuana legalization for the City of Pacific Grove, California. Currently, the sale of both medical and recreational marijuana remains banned in the city. However, as 69 percent of Pacific Grove voters supported Prop 64, officials are currently working on establishing regulations for the city. The literature review for this project draws from the experiences of Colorado and Washington state. Research indicates that the main areas of concern related to legalization are in its effects on health, the prevalence of usage, traffic accidents, crime and tax revenues. In order to understand the perceptions of Pacific Grove residents, a survey was distributed using an online link. The survey received a total of 332 recorded responses, with 263 of them from Pacific Grove residents. While 66 percent of residents are in favor of allowing a medical dispensary to operate in the city, 50 percent favor allowing a recreational dispensary. The three major concerns amongst residents are, "ensuring that children don't have access to edible marijuana," "taxing marijuana businesses in order to earn revenue for the city," and "ensuring that youth become aware of risks". The major themes that emerge as a result of the open-ended responses are economy/taxes, youth/children, medical, public smoking, driving/accidents, crime and health. Details: Pacific Grove, CA: City of Pacific Grove, 2018. 109p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 14, 2019 at: https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/sites/default/files/city-council/2018/1-10-2018/city-council-1-10-2018-14a-abasin-ludin-report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/sites/default/files/city-council/2018/1-10-2018/city-council-1-10-2018-14a-abasin-ludin-report.pdf Shelf Number: 154969 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug Policy Marijuana Legalization Marijuana Regulation |