© 2001 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
SUBSTANCE MISUSE PAPERS |
Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes*,
Goldman School of Public Policy and Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley; RAND Drug Policy Research Center
School of Public Affairs and Department of Criminology, University of Maryland; RAND Drug Policy Research Center
Correspondence: Robert MacCoun, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley, 2607 Hearst Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94720-7320, USA
Declaration of interest Funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The authors have no financial interest in the outcome of the research.
* This paper is excerpted from MacCoun & Reuter (2001), with the permission of Cambridge University Press. The work was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation through a grant to RAND's Drug Policy Research Center.
See editorial, p. 98, this
issue.
ABSTRACT
Background Cannabis policy continues to be controversial in North America, Europe and Australia.
Aims To inform this debate, we examine alternative legal regimes for controlling cannabis availability and use.
Method We review evidence on the effects of cannabis depenalisation in the USA, Australia and The Netherlands. We update and extend our previous (MacCoun & Reuter, 1997) empirical comparison of cannabis prevalence statistics in the USA, The Netherlands and other European nations.
Results The available evidence indicates that depenalisation of the possession of small quantities of cannabis does not increase cannabis prevalence. The Dutch experience suggests that commercial promotion and sales may significantly increase cannabis prevalence.
Conclusions Alternatives to an aggressively enforced cannabis prohibition are feasible and merit serious consideration. A model of depenalised possession and personal cultivation has many of the advantages of outright legalisation with few of its risks.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  P. Menghrajani, K. Klaue, F. Dubois-Arber, and P.-A. Michaud Swiss adolescents' and adults' perceptions of cannabis use: a qualitative study Health Educ. Res., August 1, 2005; 20(4): 476 - 484. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Joffe, W. S. Yancy, and the Committee on Substance Abuse and Committee on Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth Pediatrics, June 1, 2004; 113(6): e632 - e638. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. T. Lynskey, A. C. Heath, K. K. Bucholz, W. S. Slutske, P. A. F. Madden, E. C. Nelson, D. J. Statham, and N. G. Martin Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls JAMA, January 22, 2003; 289(4): 427 - 433. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. MacCoun and P. Reuter PREFACE The Varieties of Drug Control at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, January 1, 2002; 582(1): 7 - 19. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. MacCoun and P. Reuter Cannabis regimes -- a response The British Journal of Psychiatry, October 1, 2001; 179 (4): 369 - 370. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. R. MacQueen Pragmatic approach to the dangers of cannabis use The British Journal of Psychiatry, September 1, 2001; 179 (3): 270 - 271. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. D. Abraham, P. D. A. Cohen, D. J. Beukenhorst, R. MacCoun, and P. Reuter Comparative cannabis use dataAuthors' reply The British Journal of Psychiatry, August 1, 2001; 179 (2): 175 - 177. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. d. Zwart and M. v. Laar Cannabis regimes The British Journal of Psychiatry, June 1, 2001; 178(6): 574 - 575. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. FARRELL and B. RITSON Cannabis and health The British Journal of Psychiatry, February 1, 2001; 178(2): 98 - 98. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|