Regulated Legalisation

"It's freedom Jim, but not as we know it!"

What do we want?

Options between Prohibition and a Free Market:

Table from the King County Bar Association Report;
Controlling Psychoactive Substances; the Current System and Alternative Models.pdf

We have had some email, from a proponent of the free market model, and calling it the "Cabbage model":

"I have been listening to the hemp hour and am amazed that you don't yet have a model for legalising cannabis.
Here is one.
Think cabbages. Anyone who wants to grow them can. Those who don't want to, can buy them cheap.
You seem to think that the value of cannabis will only halve when the growing of it is legal.
People who use it will grow it and not buy it. It grows easily. Those who don't smoke it are not interested, it has no value. Those who don't have gardens will buy it, but it wont have much value when most people grow it.
The models you have put forward all have policing and rules designed to keep the price up.
Are you into the cannabis, or the money?
Just think cabbages."

If only it were that simple, but I thought about "cabbages" and underage consumers, and the other difficulties the cabbage model has. Cannabis is not cabbage anyway, but a psychoactive drug. What money? There's no money in it for us, just an end to criminalising cannabis and its supporters. I do not think our government is going to embrace the idea anyway, but the cabbages model just isn't going to happen, even though I might wish it could. The proposal below reccommends pricing below black market levels.

There are numerous proposals available already (See Legalisation), and one of them really worries me as it seeks to impose an oppressive regime of tracked registered users with "responsible drug use licences". This brings up a vision of a more draconian Health Enforcement replacing existing Law Enforcement. The others are from Health authorities, written from a health harm minimisation perspective, and there is a German cannabis only proposal.

We just want to produce a "least harm" version from the cannabis user's perspective, but it needs to be something we think has a chance of consideration. If we can come up with something worthy of consideration we might have some influence on outcomes.

Another email pointed out that we had not included the Traditional NSW Police Green Light model, where selective trading is allowed for a recurring fee. I apologise for the omission, but feel it is not a sustainable model in any just and fair society.

Anyone unhappy with this direction is free to formulate alternate proposals for display on this web site. If you are prepared to write up a serious proposal, we can put it on the web, credited or un credited, as you prefer.

Objectives?

Here are examples of other organisation's objectives in formulating such a policy:

Vancouver City Council: Recommendations fall under five key prevention priorities:
reducing risk factors and increasing protective factors across the life course, community centred prevention, addressing impacts on communities, legislative and public policy change and regulated markets. In each priority, specific areas of action are identified. Taken together, these prevention priorities, areas of action and recommendations form an integrated response to preventing harm from substance use.

Kings County Bar Association (USA) Drugs Policy Project Report. The Criminal Sanctions Task Force report found that the continued arrest, prosecution and incarceration of persons violating the drug laws has failed to reduce the chronic societal problem of drug abuse and its attendant public and economic costs. Further, the Task Force found that toughening drug-related penalties has not resulted in enhanced public safety nor has it deterred drug-related crime nor reduced recidivism by removing drug offenders from the community. The Task Force also chronicled the numerous “collateral” effects of current drug policy, including the erosion of public health, compromises in civil rights, clogging of the courts, disproportionately adverse effects of drug law enforcement on poor and minority communities, corruption of public officials and loss of respect for the law. Based on those findings, the Task Force concluded that the use of criminal sanctions is an ineffective means to discourage drug use or to address the problems arising from drug abuse, and it is extremely costly in both financial and human terms, unduly burdening the taxpayer and causing more harm to people than the use of drugs themselves.

The Legal Frameworks Group, building on the work of the Criminal Sanctions Task Force, moved beyond the mere criticism of the current drug control regime and set out to lay the foundation for the development of a new, state- level regulatory system to control psychoactive substances that are currently produced and distributed exclusively in illegal markets. The purposes of such a system would be to render the illegal markets in psychoactive substances unprofitable, to improve restricting access by young persons to psychoactive substances and to expand dramatically the opportunities for substance abuse treatment in the community. Those purposes conform to the primary objectives of drug policy reform identified by the King County Bar Association in 2001: to reduce crime and public disorder; to enhance public health; to protect children better; and to use scarce public resources more wisely.

Hemp Embassy: We have barely begun to think about this regulated and responsible adult use of cannabis, and even then there are only a few seriously thinking about it. It is not familiar territory and personally I am still reading and re-reading the various proposals at hand and absorbing a bit more each time trying to get the bigger picture involved.

Our primary objective is to end prohibition, end zero tolerance, end the drug war and to no longer be considered criminals. We wish to be able to smoke cannabis and make our own health choices even if they are not the choices health authorities would prefer. Irrespective of other marketing considerations we would like to be allowed to grow a number of plants for personal use and gardening pleasure. We would like there to be at least specified places where it would be legal to smoke in company.

Ok, I can't quite put that in front of a proposal.

"To end the harms of cannabis prohibition, and minimise any harms associated with regulated legal cannabis." or 'To reduce the health, social and economic costs of cannabis and policies implemented to regulate cannabis'?


It is my feeling that if we wish to "End Prohibition" we have to have a viable alternative to point to, and say that's what we aim for. That alternative could be a coherent credible model for regulated legalisation of cannabis. It would need to be understandable by as wide an audience as possible, and to be as non-radical as possible. Possibly one version in committee-speak and a plain language version, to keep it readable for a wider demographic.

Some of those proposals were very well argued and it would be easy to adopt one of them, and then generally support it and enumerate any differences the Embassy had with that proposal. That would not be the same as a fresh proposal, which may be preferable, something from Australia at least. That could more properly be some group involved in health and science as that would carry more weight than the Hemp Embassy.. I assume that that is not on the cards at this time?

The Hemp Embassy went through a period of debate in the early Noughties about whether we just stood for the legalisation of cannabis or the legalisation of all drugs, and the greater number did not want to be seen to promote legal amphetamines, cocaine or the opium drug family at that time, feeling it too extreme a prospect. Issues like that can be discussed for a long time, and be tired of without resolution. I note that there are proposals that would regulate all drugs and not just cannabis. Regulated stimulants look like a continuing nightmare to me. I have no idea what would reduce harms significantly there. But a cannabis only policy would have to be defended - why only for cannabis? An argument can be made that cannabis is different from all the other illegal drugs - e.g. much larger number of consumers, much less harmful, can be grown almost anywhere. It is the only currently illegal drug which could realistically be considered for control by taxation and regulation.


There are also those who think the Embassy and MardiGrass should leave things alone or we'll just stuff things up. No more dealing or the money that can bring into a disadvantaged household. No more rebel cachet to being a smoker, no mystique any more, everyone would give it up then because its a straight thing to do ............ Any proposal should try not to arouse fears of loss of culture.

Here are some of the "Mission Statements" and "Objectives" of existing drug law reform organisations.

Existing Proposal Differences:
The Canadian reports: Regulated legalisation for "psychoactive drugs" from a harm minimisation perspective.

The USA King County Bar Association Drug policy project: All scheduled drugs. Points of concern include
"7. Registrations of purchasers . This would allow the purchasers to be tracked for “engagement” and health education. It might also discourage individuals from wanting to participate.
8. Licensing of users . Like licenses for new motor vehicle drivers that restricts where and when they drive and who they are permitted to drive with, these licenses would control time, place and associations for new substance users. This would be a graduated program with demonstrated responsible, non- harmful drug use. The license could be given demerit points or suspended based on infractions such as providing substances to non- licensed users, driving under influence or public intoxication. The licenses could also specify different levels of access to various substances based on levels of training and experience. People in some professions, like airplane pilots or taxi drivers, could be restricted from obtaining licenses to purchase long-acting drugs that impair motor skills."
"12. Tracking of consumption habits. Registered purchasers would have the volume and frequency of purchasing tracked. This could be used to instigate “health interventions” by health professionals who could register their concerns with the user and offer assistance if a problem is identified. The tracking may be a deterrent to use, as well as a possible increase in price of the substance once the user has passed a certain volume threshold."

Transform "After the War on Drugs - Options for Control". Regulated legalisation for all scheduled drugs from a harm minimisation view

The Global Cannabis Regulation Model. Regulated legalisation of cannabis from a harm minimisation view. "Cannabis is not harmless, but the least harmful."

Email us with "Regulation Hemp" in the subject line if you have a contribution.

Advertising, Promotion and Marketing would maximise harms?

"The models identify the key activities in product acquisition as wholesaling, marketing, and distribution, which link products to consumers. They look at how these activities exert strong influences on producers and retailers, engage in promotion and show how the marketing activities may be more of a problem more than the substances themselves.

These alternate models challenge the belief that for-profit corporations should play a primary role in psychoactive substance trade. Since the for-profit corporations are obliged under law to act only in the "best interests of shareholders" by maximising profits, public health considerations are not drivers. And because the for-profit model compels the maintenance and expansion of sales, to the detriment of health, a different type of enterprise with public health as its primary mandate could be chosen to provide and control psychoactive substances.

There are business models such as publicly owned enterprises, private non-profit enterprises, cooperatives, or community interest companies that could be chosen to manage psychoactive substances. These models have been established to meet common social, economic, and environmental needs: In Canada, energy, water, education, corrections, and health services are predominantly supplied by such models.

For example this approach would allow wholesaling, marketing, and distribution only through a dedicated agency that has primarily a health promotion, protection, and harm minimisation charter." Health Officers Council of British Columbia

"We must proceed with caution, however, taking particular care to avoid the mistakes that were made with alcohol and tobacco. Marketing and promotion of psychoactive substances by corporations will continue to be a source of concern for those interested in strengthening prevention efforts. Control, and possible prohibition of these activities will be a critical part of any regulatory system for currently illegal substances." Vancouver City Council, “Preventing Harm From Psychoactive Substance Use”

Former PM (Howard) said that Australians like to be relaxed and comfortable, and we would like to point out that there are more than two million Australians using cannabis every year to get relaxed and comfortable.

Regarding the plant limit in the regulated legalisation proposal: http://cannabis.net/medical-marijuana/pot-plants.html

Proposal:

A Regulated “Adult Market” Option:

The suggestion that free market promotion, advertising and merchandising of drugs harder than coffee may be doubly damaging to health outcomes when compared to the black market is very persuasive, and influenced the following "discussion model".

Preamble

Rationale:

"Persisting in our current policies will only result in more drug abuse, more empowerment of drug markets and criminals, and more disease and suffering. Too often those who call for open debate, rigorous analysis of current policies, and serious consideration of alternatives are accused of "surrendering." But the true surrender is when fear and inertia combine to shut off debate, suppress critical analysis, and dismiss all alternatives to current policies. Mr. Secretary General, we appeal to you to initiate a truly open and honest dialogue regarding the future of global drug control policies - one in which fear, prejudice and punitive prohibitions yield to common sense, science, public health and human rights". This letter to Kofi Annan, signed by over 500 prominent academics, scientists and political leaders, appeared in the New York Times in 1998.

Canada and the UK have both shown disatisfaction with the War on Drugs and Zero Tolerance policies promoted by the USA, which, so far Australia has accepted without much debate. That debate rages in Canada and the UK, both countries finding that the USA approach does not work for them. The evidence is there. The policy of cannabis prohibition has been shown to have no impact on rates of use. The vast majority of people who are interested in trying cannabis have already done so. Our government's current cannabis policies are neither effective nor evidence-based. In a modern liberal democracy, policies should be based on common sense and compassion, not fear, prejudice and misinformation. The real question is, "What message is our current policy toward cannabis sending to our youth?"

* Prohibitionists have assumed laws can control drug consumption, but few if any cultures can be forced or persuaded to be drug free. Some would contend that it is because of prohibition that drug use in the modern world has escalated in the way that it has, but globalisation is another obvious larger cause.

* The limits of legislation must be recognised. Laws do not always have the intended effect, and when this occurs the law/s concerned need to be reconsidered.

* Divided societies have more problems. How many fault lines does society need? Is active discrimination against cannabis users justified by any benefits?

We feel that cannabis users are the meat in the drug sandwich, disproportionately targeted by police, and often ripped off by dealers who are addicted to other drugs. Our drug of choice has a distinctive smell and is bulky. Unlike powder drugs cannabis is not often fully consumed at point of sale. The cannabis user is an easy target to boost arrest rates. Cannabis offenders from lower income minorities are thus over-represented in prison populations. Inmates have described prisons as crime universities. In what way is this forced association of cultures useful?

Given the inoffensive nature of the average cannabis consumer, it seems irrational to expend large sums persecuting them for that vice alone.

As a first experimental step in the retreat from the War on Drugs, we would suggest serious consideration towards a regulated legalisation of cannabis use and supply.

1. Methods of Primary Production:
Home Growing: less than certain number of plants and /or weight stored.
Plantations: more than certain number of plants – licensed farm/farmer combination (only a natural person as the titled landowner would be licence eligible) – no corporate monopolies or proxy ownership/s?
Board buys all. Adjusts licence numbers to meet demand. Let the Government and Health have the income? (Not much real world control here, most likely any income would go to "consolidated revenue" and any Board would be on an annual budget.)
“Boutique” Growers – provision for specialist markets?

2. Processing and Packaging:
Sorting and Grading: Would it be Light to Full Strength Bush, Light (?) to Full Strength Hydro, and Light to Full Strength Hashish? Hashish made by different methods? THC content alone is not an adequate quality guide due to variations in taste and smokability.
Food and Drugs standards compliance.
Health warnings on packaging.
Administered by Board, but sorted, packaged and distributed in house, or outsourced?

3. Import and Export:
Countries exchange certificates where there is agreement on such trade. Provision for exotic sales category i.e. genuine African grown “Durban Poison” sold in Europe and Australia (limited quantities? c.f. Cuban cigars, French wines.)

4. Trade:
Controlling body (Cannabis Board?): suggest single desk government body with health positive charter – not the open market. No advertising. No sales drives. (?)
Licensed retail sales outlets – no franchises – one retailer licence per person non-transferable, or transfer subject to approval. (?)
Separation of markets – not sold in same premises as other drugs? (except coffee?) (Member clubs, Cannabis Cafes, Rastafarian Churches?)
Industrial cultivation should remain administered by agriculture, medical by health and recreational would come within the regulation of previously mentioned "Cannabis Board". (Then you argue about the composition of that board.)

5. Price Control and Taxation:
To end black market the legal product should be cheaper/better quality. Taxation should ideally go to defray any associated health care costs.

6. Consumption Controls:
Youth protection/age limited, product health warnings. It is suggested that free market advertising and merchandising of drugs harder than coffee may be inappropriate. Too late for alcohol and tobacco maybe, but not cannabis.
Should consumption be limited to home, member clubs, and cannabis cafes? i.e. no public smoking?

7. Changes in Law Enforcement:
Licence regulation, underage purchases, supply minor, etc
All police records for simple cannabis offences should be erased.

8. Provision for Religious and Spiritual Use
Rastafarian Church, etc
Long haired freaky people over 18 who want to sit in the lotus position in a circle smoking pot talking about the oneness of existence while listening to sitar music should be allowed to. (Where noise regulations permit)

9. Cannabis Research
Research should continue, in the health and industrial areas, but without the current political or social pressures on outcomes, possibly producing more accurate results.

Detail Options:

The number of plants - 5 to 100 and any number between. How many and why?

Licences - cannabis offences alone under the prior regime should not preclude a licence.

Above table taken from Preventing Harm From Psychoactive Substance Use.pdf

Guidelines for smoking cannabis?

Cannabis Smoking Advice 2000

Dutch Coffee Shop Advice

Risks of using Cannabis

Without oppression there is no underground.