Serving Substance Abuse Professionals Since 1993

Last Update: 22.10.03

C O R K O N L I N E

powerpoint presentations
CORK database search
resource materials
bibliographies
clinical tools
user services
newsletters
about cork
home

CORK Bibliography: Drug Legalization

55 citations. January 1996 to present

Prepared: September 2003

Agar M. Harm reduction and decriminalization in the United States. Commentary. Substance Use & Misuse 31(14): 1947-1948, 1996. (0 refs.)

Ali R. Special section: Cannabis expiation in South Australia. Introduction. Drug and Alcohol Review 19(3): 249-249, 2000. ( 1 refs.)

Barnes RE. Reefer madness: Legal & moral issues surrounding the medical prescription of marijuana. Bioethics 14(1): 16-41, 2000. (43 refs.)

California, Arizona, and several other states have recently legalized medical marijuana. My goal in this paper is to demonstrate that even if one grants the opponents of legalization many of their contentious assumptions, the federal government is still obligated to fake several specific steps toward the legalization of medical marijuana. I defend this claim against a variety of objections, including the claims: that marijuana is unsafe, that as, marijuana cannot be adequately tested or produced as a drug, that the availability of synthetic TI-IC makes marijuana superfluous, and especially that legalizing medical marijuana will increase recreational use by 'sending the wrong message '. I then go on to argue that given the intransigent position of the federal government on this issue, state governments are justified in a unilaterally legalizing medical marijuana as an act of civil disobedience. A large portion of this paper consists of an extensive response to the objection that legalizing medical, marijuana will 'send the wrong message' - which I take to be the primary independent to legalization. This objection basically claims that the consequences of withholding legalization (especially preventing increased recreational use) are superior to those of legalizing medical marijuana. I argue that legalization is justified even if one were to grant both that the harms of legalization outweighed its benefits and that utilitarianism is true. This requires a subtle and somewhat extended discussion of utilitarian moral and political theory.

Beauchesne L. Legalization of drugs: Responsible action towards health promotion and effective harm reduction strategies. IN: Erickson PG; Riley DM; Cheung YW; O'Hare PA, eds. Harm Reduction: A new direction for dug policies and programs. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. pp. 32-46. (65 refs.)

Canada with a health promotion policy has continually distanced itself from repressive American drug policies. This approaches contains several challenges. According to a government report among the major ones is the reduction socio-economic disparities and inequalities. The consequences of drug use too vary depending on a person's over-all health, which varies as a function of social class and living conditions. Accordingly efforts to establish a harm reduction approach include improving ways to enhance living conditions, increase autonomy, and enhance access to care. The chapter provides an overview of major policy issues. One is the impact of drug legalization and its connection to health promotion. There is also the issue of whether harm reduction strategies may unwittingly provide a basis for socio-medical control. The issues attendant to moving from drug prohibition to regulating the drug market pace are also considered. What is evident to the author is the prohibitive laws may unintentionally be a primary cause of harm. Thus any harm reduction efforts need to consider more enlightened legal policies.

Belenko SR. Drugs and Drug Policy in America: A Documentary History. Westport CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000

Debates over the use and abuse of drugs, the laws controlling drugs in this country, and the question of whether or not certain drugs should be legally available have generated controversy since the 19th-century. This volume is a collection of over 271 primary documents, allowing one to trace the history and development of current views. These include enacted laws, other government documents, court decisions, scholarly writings, and articles in the popular print media. The attention is on illegal drugs, rather than alcohol or prescription medicine. The book is organized in 14 chapters. It begins with a timeline and review of key events in American drug policy, this is followed by a review of drug policy in the 19th century. Turning to the 20th century, it highlights the early expansion of federal drug control. This includes several chapters on the Harrison Act and supreme court decisions related to it. Attention then turns to examination of State anti-drug Laws. There is also a chapter directed to the issues related to marijuana prior to WWII. The final half of the book considers drug policy since WWII. Through the 1950s, there was an escalation of punishment as a response to drug problems. Beginning in the 1960s, there has been what is described as a "medicalization" of addiction, with new views emerging. Marijuana policy after the rise in use in the 1960s is addressed. This is followed by consideration of the drug laws and policy that emerged in the 1980s, and the rise in crack cocaine. The final chapter addresses issues related to legalization and de-criminalization.

Blendon RJ; Young JT. The public and the war on illicit drugs. Journal of the American Medical Association 279(11): 827-832, 1998. (39 refs.)

This article presents what Americans think about the policies subsumed under the label of the "War on Drugs." It is based on an analysis of 47 national surveys conducted between 1978 and 1997. The major results are that most Americans rely on the mass media for information about the scope of the drug abuse problem; Americans do not think that the Wars on Drugs have succeeded, but they do not want to quit on these efforts; weak support exists for increasing funding for drug treatment; support for preventive education has increased during the 1990s; criminal justice responses remain very popular; for many, illicit drug use is a moral rather than a public health issue; the public supports allowing physicians to prescribe marijuana for severe illness, but opposes the general legalization of marijuana and other illicit drugs; and needle exchange programs are supported by a bare majority, but only when they are told that the American Medical Association supports these programs.

Boister N. Decriminalising the personal use of cannabis in the United Kingdom: Does international law leave room for manoeuvre? Criminal Law Review : 171-183, 2001. (59 refs.)

The Police Foundation's Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971, proclaimed that the Government has room to manoeuvre in respect of the decriminalisation of the personal use of cannabis. This article explores the extent to which the UN Drug Conventions allow the Government such room. It sets out the specific international obligations binding on the United Kingdom with respect to cannabis, focusing in particular on the obligation to criminalise the possession, purchase and cultivation of cannabis for personal use contained in article 3(2) of the 1988 UN Drug Trafficking Convention. The three potential avenues of permissible exception to this obligation are examined. The article concludes that while constitutional exceptions are unreliable, provision for prosecutorial and penal autonomy in the drug conventions provides sufficient discretion in the application of its international obligations for the United Kingdom to follow the Netherlands and effectively decriminalise the personal use of cannabis without violating international law.

Boyum D. Prohibition and legalization: Beyond the false dichotomy. Social Research 68(3): 865-870, 2001. (4 refs.)

This volume is essentially the proceeedings of the 8th Social Research conference. Sparked by the "War on Drugs" the conference considered the origin of current attitudes toward use of drugs that alter consiciousness, patterns of use through history, and the origins and nature of government control policies. This paper is one of seven that provides a perspective on alternatives to the "war on drugs," and considers a harm reduction approach.

Brown B. Harm reduction and decriminalization in the United States. Commentary. Substance Use & Misuse 31(14): 1949-1952, 1996. (4 refs.)

Cheung Y. Harm reduction and decriminalization in the United States. Commentary. Substance Use & Misuse 31(14): 1953-1954, 1996. (0 refs.)

Christie P; Ali R. Offences under the Cannabis Expiation Notice scheme in South Australia. Drug and Alcohol Review 19(3): 251-256, 2000. (7 refs.)

Since the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) scheme in South Australia in April 1987, the number of minor cannabis offences for which CENs have been issued has increased from 6231 expiable offences in the 1987/88 financial year to a peak of over 18000 offences in 1996/97. This-net-widening' appears unrelated to prevalence of cannabis use. The rate of expiation of issued CENs has remained below 50%. Of those CENs that are not expiated, the vast majority was forwarded for prosecution and result in a conviction for the offender. Overall, around 46% of total CENs issued between 1991/92 and 1995/96 resulted in a conviction, or around 90% of all CENs forwarded for prosecution. This net-widening and the low rate of expiation may have resulted in more convictions than would have occurred had the system not been introduced. The low expiation rate may relate to difficulties faced by offenders in paying expiation fees. Changes to the payment options for expiation offences in the last few years have led to a minor increase in the proportion cleared by expiation. Further education on the consequences of failure to expiate may improve the situation.

Courtwright DT. Harm reduction and decriminalization in the United States. Commentary. Substance Use & Misuse 31(14): 1955-1958, 1996. (6 refs.)

Crites-Leoni A. Medicinal use of marijuana: Is the debate a smoke screen for movement toward legalization? (editorial). Journal of Legal Medicine 19(2): 273-304, 1998. (236 legal refs.)

This commentary takes the position that the legalization of medicinal marijuana is unnecessary. This hypothesis is based on four assumptions: 1) the illegal status is necessary to prevent drug abuse; 2) Because of Schedule I classification, the physiological effects of marijuana may pose significant health risks; 3) the federal drug laws are a valid constitutional exercise of protective powers; and 4) the medical necessity defense is an adequate means to protect marijuana use by terminally ill patients. The paper is organized into four parts. The first discusses the history of marijuana and the policy and development of prevention programs. Pat II discusses the movement to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. Part III discusses the scientific facts and effects associated with marijuana, including benefits and detriments of use. Part IV addresses government regulation and discusses the Arizona and California legislation permitting marijuana use. The concluding section provides an analysis for and against legalization of the drug.

Curry R. Harm reduction and decriminalization in the United States. Commentary. Substance Use & Misuse 31(14): 1959-1964, 1996. (4 refs.)

Ditton J. Cannabis: Should we decriminalize argument? (editorial). Addiction Research 4(1): R1-R3, 1996. (0 refs.)

Dupont R. Harm reduction and decriminalization in the United States: A personal perspective. Substance Use & Misuse 31(14): 1929-1945, 1996. (34 refs.)

Harm reduction, an alternative to both drug legalization and drug prohibition, seeks to preserve prohibition by keeping the supply of drugs illegal while softening some of the harsh consequences of prohibition. Typical harm reduction proposals are needle exchanges for intravenous drug users to reduce the spread of HIV infection and the medical use of marijuana for a variety of illnesses including AIDS, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, and cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. While attractive as a reasonable-sounding compromise, harm reduction carries a high price because it undermines the social signal of prohibition. This signal is a vital public health strategy, especially when it comes to primary prevention of use of alcohol and other drugs by youth. A personal experience with harm reduction, leading to rejection of this approach, is described. Harm reduction, enjoying a minor come back in the United States, is a favored policy in much of Europe today. Harm reduction is not new, and it is a failure as a public health policy.

DuPont RL. Examining the debate on the use of medical marijuana. Proceedings of the Association of American Physicians 111(2): 166-172, 1999. (27 refs.)

The opium poppy and the coca leaf offer useful perspectives on the current controversies over medical marijuana. In both cases, purified synthetic analogues of biologically active components of ancient folk remedies have become medical mainstays without undermining efforts to reduce nonmedical drug use. A decade ago, a campaign strove to legalize heroin for the compassionate treatment of pain in terminally ill patients. Like the current campaign to legalize medical marijuana, many well-meaning people supported this effort. The campaign for medical heroin was stopped by science when double-blind studies showed that heroin offered no benefits over the standard opioid analgesics in the treatment of severe cancer pain. Scientific medicine requires purified chemicals in carefully controlled doses without contaminating toxic substances. That a doctor would one day write a prescription for leaves to be burned is unimaginable. The Controlled Substances Act and international treaties limit the use of abused drugs or medicines. In contrast to smoked marijuana, specific chemicals in marijuana or, more likely, synthetic analogues, may prove to be of benefit to some patients with specific illnesses. Most opponents of medical use of smoked marijuana are not hostile to the medical use of purified synthetic analogues or even synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which has been available in the United States for prescription by any licensed doctor since 1985. In contrast, most supporters of smoked marijuana are hostile to the use of purified chemicals from marijuana, insisting that only smoked marijuana leaves be used as "medicine," revealing clearly that their motivation is not scientific medicine but the back door legalization of marijuana.

DuPont RL. Biology and the environment: Rethinking demand reduction. Journal of Addictive Diseases 18(4): 121-138, 1999. (19 refs.)

This thoughtful essay is based upon a speech made upon the author's receipt of the second annual American Society of Addiction Medicine's John P. McGovern Award. It addresses very diverse topics -- the biological basis of addiction, public policy issues around particularly control policy, legalization of illicit drugs, with self-help, 12 step recover programs -- and ties them into a coherent whole.

Elster J; Skog OJ, eds. Getting Hooked: Rationality and Addiction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1999. (Chapter refs.)

The 8 essays in this book, with 10 contributors, discuss the relationship between addiction and rationality. The contributors include philosophers, psychiatrists, neurobiologists, sociologists, and economists. Contrary to the widespread view that addicts are subject to overpowering and compulsive urges, the authors in this volume demonstrate that addicts are capable of making choices and responding to incentives. At the same time there is disagree with the argument that addiction is the result of rational choice. Essays consider the neurophysiology of addiction; a critical examination of Gary Becker's theory of rational addiction; an argument for a "visceral theory of addiction;" a discussion of compulsive gambling as a form of addiction, and discussion of George Ainslie's theory of hyperbolic discounting. There is also discussion of factors beyond the individual, namely social causes; policy implications, and consideration of the problem of relapse. In tackling the critical issue of voluntary self-destructive behavior from many perspectives, the book is intended as an important resource for philosophers, psychologists, psychiatrists, economists, and sociologists.

Epstein GS; Rapoport H; Weiss A. Drug addiction and the economic rationalization of gun control. Economics Letters 65(1): 55-57, 1999. (1 refs.)

The authors compare the legalization of drugs with the issue of gun control, and show that there are some important similarities and differences between the two that should be considered when setting policy.

Erickson P. Harm reduction and decriminalization in the United States. (commentary). Substance Use & Misuse 31(14): 1965-1970, 1996. (15 refs.)

Frazzetto G. Does marijuana have a future in pharmacopoeia? Although recent research backs the therapeutic benefits of cannabis, its adverse effects and the risk of addiction push against the legalization of the drug for medical use. (letter). EMBO Reports 4(7): 651-653, 2003. (6 refs.)

Frey BS. Drugs, economics and policy. Economic Policy 25: 389-387, 1997. (60 refs.)

A major objective of this paper is to demonstrate that drug consumption can not be eradicated by repression, in large measure, for economic reasons. As long as there is demand for drugs, an increase in expected punishment raises the incentives to act against the prohibition, therefore making deterence less effective. Thus, the author argues a sound drug policy seeks to minimize the harmful effects. The paper examines who uses drugs, and the nature of addiction, ans subburzes the experience in the city of Zurich. The author notes that there is no necessary link between drug consumption, addiction and social disintegration. Empirical evidence suggests that a considerable share of the population has consumed illegal drugs during some period of their lives. A substantial proportion of drug users have a job and home. Many 'mature out' of drug consumption in their thirties. Most drug users are normal consumers responding systematically to relative prices. After the failure of a repressive drugs policy, Switzerland allows cities to pursue a 'third way' between repression and liberalization. The state allows carefully screened heavy addicts to inject heroin at a nominal price, while at the same time raising the cost to potential entrants. The 'experiment' has produced encouraging results. The health of heroin users has improved and crime has been reduced A homogenized drugs policy in the European Union would probably disallow, such promising programmes.

Gray C. Legalize use of marijuana for medical purposes, MDs and patients plead. Canadian Medical Association Journal 158(3): 373-375, 1998

As debate about the legalization of marijuana continues in Canada, physicians are joining the fray. Ottawa family physician Don Kilby is working hard to make it easier for ill patients to use the marijuana that alleviates their symptoms. A recent case in Toronto indicates that the courts are starting to share these views.

Grossman M; Chaloupka FJ; Shim K. Illegal drug use and public policy. Health Affairs 21(2): 134-145, 2002. (22 refs.)

The period from the 1980s to the present has witnessed a lively and unsettled debate concerning the legalization of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and other illicit substances in the United States. Proponents of legalization argue that the demand for these harmful and potentially addictive substances is not responsive to price. Opponents argue that prices will fall tremendously in a regime characterized by legalization and that the option of legalization and taxation is not feasible. In this paper we summarize theoretical and empirical evidence suggesting that none of these propositions is correct.

Haden M. Illicit IV drugs: A public health approach. Canadian Journal of Public Health 93(6): 431-434, 2002. (41 refs.)

This article explores, from a public health perspective, the harm done by Canadian drug laws, to both individuals and society. It challenges the perceived dichotomy of legalization and criminalization of intravenous drugs. The article then expands the discussion by exploring eight legal options for illicit drugs and examines how these options interact with the marginalization of users, the illicit drug black market, and levels of drug consumption. While the main focus of this article is intravenous drugs, it draws some lessons from cannabis research.

Hall W. The recent Australian debate about the prohibition on cannabis use. Addiction 92(9): 1109-1115, 1997. (29 refs.)

This paper outlines the ethical arguments used in the Australian debate about whether or not to relax the prohibition on cannabis use by adults. Over the past two decades a rising prevalence of cannabis use in the Australian population has led to proposals for the decriminalization of the personal use of cannabis. Three states and territories have removed criminal penalties for personal use while criminal penalties are rarefy imposed in the remaining states. Libertarian arguments for legalization of cannabis use have attracted a great deal of media interest but very little public and political support. Other arguments in favour of decriminalization have attracted more support. One has been the utilitarian argument that prohibition has failed to deter cannabis use and the social costs of its continuation outweigh any benefits that it produces. Another has been the argument from hypocrisy that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and so, on the grounds of consistency, if alcohol is legally available then so should cannabis. To date public opinion has not favoured legalization, although support for the decriminalization of personal cannabis use has increased. In the long term, the outcome of the debate may depend more upon trends in cannabis use and social attitudes among young adults than upon the persuasiveness of the arguments for a relaxation of the prohibition of cannabis.

Hall W. The cannabis policy debate: Finding a way forward. (editorial). Canadian Medical Association Journal 162(12): 1690-1692, 2000. (28 refs.)

The author notes that in an ideal world social policies toward cannabis would be informed by epidemiological evidence on prevalence of us and the personal harms that are caused, and by evaluations of the costs and benefits of alternative approaches intended to minimize these harms. However, there is a paucity of evidence about both of these areas, as well as highly polarized public opinion about the harms caused by cannabis. The author summarizes the data on prevalence, and the harms and benefits of cannabis use, both acute and chronic. The elements in the current debate over cannabis are noted; namely that there is widespread use, with modest adverse effects on public health, and therefor there should be the removal of penal sanctions for personal use and possession (decriminalization). A competing view is that with reduced deterrence there is an increase in use. It is noted that there has been little evaluation of alternative policies. However, of the data that do exist, evidence suggests that in the Netherlands the relaxation of criminal sanctions was not accompanied by higher levels of use and that there were not greater rates of use of other drugs. However, others examining the same data, offer different interpretations. The author concludes that specific epidemiological research is required to secure data to make informed policy decisions. He also suggests that the current discussion, positing only two alternatives, i.e. either "decriminalization" or "prohibition," sets up a false forced choice.

Heale P; Hawks D; Lenton S. Public awareness, knowledge and attitudes regarding the CEN system in South Australia. Drug and Alcohol Review 19(3): 271-280, 2000. (16 refs.)

A sample of 605 South Australian residents was surveyed in 1997 regarding the Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) System. Thirty-nine per cent had ever used cannabis and 14.5% used cannabis at least once a year. While only 17% knew of the CEN scheme, 76% were familiar with the 'on-the-spot fine' scheme. There was confusion about the legal status of two expiable offences; 24% thought possession of less than 100g of cannabis was legal and 53% thought growing three plants was legal. Only 40% knew that the two expiable offences involved some legal sanction. Regarding attitudes to cannabis law, the majority thought that growing 15 plants, selling 25g for profit, possession of less than 100g by a juvenile and driving while affected by cannabis should remain illegal. Eighty per cent thought medical use of cannabis should be legal. Half of the sample thought that growing three plants and possession of less than 100g of cannabis should be legal and most of those who thought the two offences should be illegal said a fine was the appropriate penalty. Most people (57%) thought the cannabis laws should either remain as they are or become less strict, indicating general support for expiation.

Hendriks VM; Garretsen HF; Van de Good IA. A Parliamentary inquirey into alcohol and drugs: A survey of psychoactive substance use and gambling among members of the Dutch Parliament. Substance Use & Misuse 32(6): 679-697, 1997. (31 refs.)

In the fall of 1994 a survey was conducted on the use of alcohol and drugs and on gambling among members of the Dutch parliament. The survey indicated that almost two-thirds of the representatives sampled supported legalization of marijuana. A smaller majority (57%) was in favor of reducing the number of coffee shops selling marijuana. At least a quarter of the members of parliament had used marijuana themselves at one time or other. Alcohol consumption could be said to be "excessive" or "very excessive" for nearly 10% of the members of parliament. In general, the nature and extent of the parliamentarians' substance use was comparable to that in the Dutch general population.

Hollarnd J, ed. Ecstasy: The Complete Guide. A Comprehensive Look at the Risks and Benefits of MDMA. Rochester VT: Park Street Press, 2001. (Chapter refs.)

A comprehensive work, this volume discusses ecstasy (MDMA) from physiological, pharmacological, sociocultural, spiritual, and legal perspectives. Clearly in favor of relaxed regulation, various chapter authors make a strong case for the potential therapeutic utility of MDMA, while also pointing out the risks associated with unsupervised use. The book reviews the physiologic and psychological effects of MDMA. Readers with limited knowledge of chemistry and human physiology, however, will have difficulty comprehending the complex information presented throughout.

Jenny G. Is there truly no existing legal basis for heroin perscription. IN: Lewis D; Gear C; Laubli Loud M; Langenick-Cartwright D, eds. The Medical Prescription of Narcotics: Scientific Foundations and Practical Experiences. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, 1997. pp. 65-74. (30 refs.)

This example examines whether, and to what extent, one can justify the medical prescription of heroin within the framework of scientific experiments according to the existing laws. First, the relevant regulations of the Swiss narcotics laws and other international agreements will be presented. Secondly, a detailed analysis, which reaches the conclusion that there are no convincing reasons for the illegality of these experiments in spite of objections made up until now, will follow. A "subjective" desire by the legislature to prohibit such experiments cannot clearly be shown, so that an interpretation from point of view would even then be without foundation; however, this would only be relevant if one agreed with the minority opinion and considered the (clearly formulated) opinions of the historical legislator binding. On the contrary, all methods of legal interpretation support the legalization of the prescription of heroin, the only limitation being the need to respect "lex artis," which applies whenever medical research involves human beings.

Kassirer JP; Nahas GG; Sutin K; Manger W; Hyman G. The 1997 medical controversy over the legalization of marihuana for medicine in the United States. IN: Nahas GG; Sutin KM; Harvey DJ; Agurell S; Pace N; Cancro R, eds. Marihuana and Medicine. Totowa: Humana Press, Inc., 1999. pp. 59-62. (0 refs.)

This is one of several chapters in an introductory section, which consists of an historical overview of marijuana use and attitudes towards it, but also summarizes significant research and public policy landmarks of the past several decades. This chapter presents the major schools of thought on medical use of marijuana, especially in respect to referendum in Arizona and California to allow the use of marijuana for medical care. These different views are presented through editorials published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and another published in the Wall Street Journal. Once stance was that physicians should be able to prescribe marijuana without federal interference, whether smoked or in oral form. The other stance is that the active ingredients in marijuana are available as authorized medications; and thus there is no need to allow smoking of marijuana, and that indeed to do so, is to send the wrong message to adolescents.

Korf DJ. Dutch coffee shops and trends in cannabis use. Addictive Behaviors 27(6): 851-866, 2002. (51 refs.)

Conflicting predictions have been made to the influence of decriminalization on cannabis use. Prohibitionists forecast that decriminalization will lead to an increase in consumption of cannabis, while their opponents hypothesise that cannabis use will decline after decriminalization. Most probably cannabis use in the Netherlands so far evolved in two waves, with a first peak around 1970, a low during the late 1970s and early 1980s, and a second peak in the mid-1990s. It is striking that this trend in cannabis use among youth in the Netherlands rather parallels four identified stages in the availability of cannabis. The number of cannabis users peaked when the cannabis was distributed through an underground market (late 1960s and early 1970s). Then the number decreased as house dealers were superseding the underground market (1970s), and went up again after coffee shops took over the sale of cannabis (1980s), and stabilised or slightly decreased by the end of the 1990s when the number of coffee shops was reduced. Although changes in cannabis policy went along with changes in availability of cannabis and prevalence of cannabis use, it is questionable whether changes in cannabis policy were causally related to trends in cannabis use. Cannabis use also developed in waves in other European countries that did not decriminalize cannabis, as well as in the US. Consequently, trends in cannabis use seem to develop rather independently of cannabis policy.

Lenton S; Humeniuk R; Heale P; Christie P. Infringement versus conviction: The social impact of a minor cannabis offence in South Australia and Western Australia. Drug and Alcohol Review 19(3): 257-264, 2000. (14 refs.)

Quantitative data is reported from a study of 68 South Australians who had received an infringement notice or 'cannabis expiation notice' (CEN) and 68 West Australians who received a criminal conviction for a minor cannabis offence not more than 10 years ago to compare impact of the infringement notice and the conviction on their lives. The majority of both groups saw themselves as largely law- abiding, had respect for the law in general and had positive views regarding cannabis. However, more of the convicted group, compared to the infringement notice group, reported negative employment consequences (32% vs. 2%), further problems with the law (32% vs. 0%), negative relationship consequences (20% vs. 5%) and accommodation consequences (16% vs. 0%) as a result of their apprehension. While neither conviction nor infringement deterred subsequent cannabis use for the vast majority, the negative social impacts of conviction were far greater than those resulting from an infringement notice. The findings have implications for the legislative options for regulation of cannabis possession and use.

Lenton S; Ovenden C. Community attitudes to cannabis use in Western Australia. Journal of Drug Issues 26(4): 783-804, 1996. (19 refs.)

This paper presents results of a telephone survey of 400 Western Australians regarding attitudes to laws relating to possession of cannabis for personal use. Over a third of respondents believed cannabis should be made as legal as alcohol. Support for decriminalization increased from 64.0% to 71.5% when possible penalties associated with decriminalization were described. When penalties were described more women than men favored decriminalization but age, political affiliation, and city or country residency no longer predicted attitudes to decriminalization. Almost two-thirds of respondents believed that many people used cannabis without experiencing serious problems and that the court system war overburdened by minor cannabis offenses. Half the sample believed it would not be a bad thing for the community if people were legally able to grow cannabis for their personal use. Results suggest there is considerable community support for removing criminal penalties for simple cannabis offenses.

Lilja J. Harm reduction and decriminalization in the United States. Commentary. Substance Use & Misuse 31(14): 1971-1972, 1996. (0 refs.)

MacCoun RJ; Reuter P. Drug War Heresies: Learning from other Vices, Times, and Places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. (Chapter refs.)

This volume is part of the RAND studies series in policy analysis. It covers all aspect of the issues related to drug legalization in the United States. It also considers narcotics control efforts in the United Stats, the structure historically and at present, and the relationship to government policy in respect to drug abuse. These are also considered from the broader framework of efforts in other cultural contexts.

MacCoun R; Reuter P. Interpreting Dutch cannabis policy: Reasoning by analogy in the legalization debate. Science 278(5335): 47-52, 1997. (50 refs.)

The Dutch depenalization and subsequent de facto legalization of cannabis since 1976 is used here to highlight the strengths and limitations of reasoning by analogy as a guide for projecting the effects of relaxing drug prohibitions. While the Dutch case and other analogies have flaws, they appear to converge in suggesting that reductions in criminal penalties have limited effects on drug use-at least for marijuana-but that commercial access is associated with growth in the drug-using population.

MacCoun R; Reuter P. Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128, 2001. (26 refs.)

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 ex tend 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.

MacCoun R; Reuter P; Schelling T. Assessing alternative drug control regimes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15(3): 330-352, 1996. (48 refs.)

The debate over alternative regimes for currently illicit psychoactive substances focuses on polar alternatives: harsh prohibition and sweeping legalization. This study presents an away of alternatives that lies between these extremes. The current debate lacks an explicit and inclusive framework for making comparative judgments. In this study, we sketch out such a framework, as a reminder of possible policy levers and their costs and benefits that might otherwise be neglected or go unrecognized. The framework identifies a range of pharmacological and economic characteristics of substances, potential harms and their bearers, and the sources of those harms, including drug use, trafficking, law enforcement, and illegal status per se. The framework highlights the difficulty of making objective, rigorous comparisons among regimes, but we believe that it can serve a useful heuristic role in promoting more constructive debate and identifying fruitful questions for research.

Maddox S; Williams S. Cannabis-related experiences and rate of cultivation: Would they change under a policy of decriminalization? Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 5(1): 47-58, 1998. (36 refs.)

It has been argued by many involved in the treatment and prevention of drug-related problems that policies of prohibition have been largely ineffective, that they produce a range of health, social and economic harms, and may well have contributed to an increase in the use of some illicit drugs. Policy makers in some countries are considering the adoption of strategies which aim to reduce harm without necessarily eliminating drug use. One strategy has been to decriminalize some substances. In Australia, two States have decriminalized the use of cannabis, and other states are considering this move. Fifty-five cannabis users contacted through a Western Australian university completed an anonymous questionnaire which (i) explored their experiences as cannabis users under the current policy of prohibition where any use or possession is a criminal offence; and (ii) asked for their predictions about their cannabis-related behaviour under a theoretical system of cannabis policy based on the South Australian Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) system. Under a CEN system, personal use, possession and cultivation of cannabis for personal use is not a criminal offence and attracts a fine. Six key areas relating to cultivation of cannabis for personal use and minimizing harm associated with cannabis use were explored. The findings suggest that under a CEN-like system: cannabis users would probably cultivate significantly more of their personal-use cannabis; cannabis users' access to other illicit drugs, and use of other licit and illicit drugs, may be reduced; and use of the oral ingestion method of administration would probably increase. However, results suggest that under a CEN-like system: a black market for cannabis would probably still exist; consumption of cannabis by cannabis users, at least initially, may increase slightly; and the system would discriminate against the poorer segments of the population. This research provides some support for the introduction of an alternative model of cannabis policy to prohibition in States that operate like Western Australia. However, the CEN system is probably not the ideal system from a harm minimization perspective.

Miron JA. The economics of drug prohibition and drug legalization. Social Research, 68(3): 835-856, 2001. (27 refs.)

This volume is essentially the proceedings of the 8th Social Research conference. Sparked by the "War on Drugs" the conference considered the origin of current attitudes toward use of drugs that alter consciousness, patterns of use through history, and the origins and nature of government control policies, as well as alternatives to current policy. This paper is one of two major papers presented as part of the session on Legal and Economic Aspects.

Pacula RL; Chriqui JF; King J. Marijuna Decriminalization. What does it mean in the United States? National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. w9690. Cambridge MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2003. (21 refs.)

It is well known in the drug policy field that eleven states reduced the criminal sanctions associated with possession of small amounts of marijuana. In this paper we review the eleven original decriminalization statutes, documenting key dimensions of these laws and identifying their common denominator. We then examine state laws in effect as of December 31, 1999, along the same key dimensions and show that it is impossible to uniquely identify the so-called decriminalized states. We show the extent to which non-decriminalized states have also reduced penalties associated with possession of small amounts of marijuana as early as 1989, calling into question the interpretation of studies evaluating this policy during the past decade. We conclude by showing that the inclusion of legal dimensions of the policy does not diminish the association identified between decriminalization and recent use, raising questions about how researchers should interpret such findings.

Parry CDH. Critical issues in the debate on decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis in South Africa. (editorial). South African Medical Journal 92(9): 696-697, 2002. (8 refs.)

Room R; Rosenqvist P. Drugs in a global perspective: The international control system's best foot forward. Addiction Research 7(3): 177-192, 1999. (7 refs.)

With the World Drug Report, the United Nations Drug Control Programme offers a textbook on global trends and developments in drug use and in the illicit market, theories and interpretations of drug use, health and social harms from use, counterstrategies and programs, the drug control structure, and "regulation-legalization" debates. Country profiles for 8 countries summarize available data, making use also of two problematic comparative indices. Harms from alcohol and tobacco figure heavily in the arguments for maintaining drug prohibition, but these drugs are otherwise excluded from consideration. The report highlights deficiencies in available data, particularly on adverse consequences of drug use, though they are the premise for the drug control system. The report's picture of trends in drugs use and in the illicit market is realistically gloomy, and its presentation of the effectiveness of counterstrategies is usually appropriately cautious. The report is often internally inconsistent in its premises and arguments, but is true to its aim to "de-sensationalize the drugs issue". De-sensationalizing drugs may, however, undercut the justification for a drug control system of such extraordinary ambitions and scope.

Samet JH. Addressing drug abuse: Policy deliberations in the great south land. Public Health Reports 115(5): 476-479, 2000. (18 refs.)

This article focuses upon changes in drug abuse policy that occurred in New South Wales, Australia in 1999 in the wake of a "Drug Summit" which involved government officials, community members, those from the academic and treatment communities. The summit's goal was to review then current strategies to addressing substance use problems and consider alternative approaches.. [The Summitt was convened shortly after an election during which t major newspaper had published a page one story with an accompanying photo of a young man shooting up next to a the site of a needle exchange program and this in turn evoked widespread attention to the issue.] A harm reduction agenda was adopted, despite a "get tough on drugs" policy. This essay describes the public discussion that unfolded, the role of public health officials in this debate, and the event itself as a form of prevention.

Public Domain

Single E; Christie P; Ali R. The impact of cannabis decriminalisation in Australia and the United States. Journal of Public Health Policy 21(2): 157-186, 2000. (21 refs.)

This paper summarises and compares the impacts of cannabis decriminalisation measures in two countries. In Australia, an expiation model of decriminalisation succeeded in avoiding the imposition of criminal convictions for many offenders, but substantial numbers of offenders received criminal convictions because of a general "net-widening" in cannabis offence detections, and the failure of many offenders to pay expiation fees and thus avoid criminal prosecution. Despite these problems, the expiation approach has been cost-effective, reducing enforcement costs without leading to increased cannabis use. In the United States, cannabis decriminalisation similarly reduced enforcement costs, with enforcement resources generally redirected toward trafficking and other illicit drugs. There were no increases in cannabis use or substantial problems that could be ascribed to decriminalisation. The implications for other countries are discussed, with particular attention to the importance of implementation issues, monitoring, and evaluation. Although decriminalisation has succeeded in reducing enforcement and other costs without increasing the problems associated with cannabis use, the same impacts would not necessarily result from the legalisation of cannabis or the decriminalisation of other illicit drugs.

Sutton A; McMillan E. Criminal justice perspectives on South Australia's Cannabis Expiation Notice procedures. Drug and Alcohol Review 19(3): 281-286, 2000. (8 refs.)

South Australia's Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) scheme, introduced in 1987, enabled adults possessing, cultivating or using small amounts of cannabis in private to avoid formal prosecution and the possible conviction by paying an expiation fee. The system attracted considerable criticism when first introduced. Some in the criminal justice sector thought the approach would prove unworkable. The paper summarizes a 1997 study of criminal justice attitudes toward the CEN system. Data were collected from 50 people via one-to-one interviews and focus-group discussions. Most respondents were from South Australia Police, but members of the judiciary and representatives of other government departments were also interviewed. Overall, this research indicated that the criminal justice sector was satisfied with expiation and saw no need to revert to prosecution of minor cannabis offenders. Drug Task Force and other detectives were concerned, however, about the provision for up to 10 plants in cultivation being expiable. They produced evidence that individuals and groups were exploiting this provision in order to grow cannabis commercially. Shortly after the research was completed, South Australia's government closed the apparent loophole, by reducing the expiable number of plants to three. The authors argue that other approaches could also have been adopted by policymakers, to undermine organized crime's grip over cannabis production and distribution.

Trevino RA; Richard AJ. Attitudes towards drug legalization among drug users. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 28(1): 91-108, 2002. (22 refs.)

Research shows that support for legalization of drugs varies significantly among different sociodemographic and political groups. Yet there is little research examining the degree of support for legalization of drugs among drug users. This paper examines how frequency and type of drug use affect the support for legalization of drugs after adjusting for the effects of political affiliation and sociodemographic characteristics. A sample of 188 drug users and non- drug users were asked whether they would support the legalization of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. Respondents reported their use of marijuana, crack, cocaine, heroin, speedball, and/or methamphetamines during the previous 30 days. Support for legalization of drugs was analyzed by estimating three separate logistic regressions. The results showed that the support for the legalization of drugs depended on the definition of "drug user" and the type of drug. In general, however, the results showed that marijuana users were more likely to support legalizing marijuana, but they were less likely to support the legalization of cocaine and heroin. On the other hand, users of crack, cocaine, heroin, speedball, and/or methamphetamines were more likely to support legalizing all drugs including cocaine and heroin.

Voth EA. The war on drugs: Legislation would be likely to result in increased use. (letter). British Medical Journal 312(7031): 636, 1996. (5 refs.)

Waal H. To legalize or not to legalize: Is that the question? IN: Elster J; Skog OJ, eds. Getting Hooked: Rationality and Addiction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1999. pp. 137-172. (63 refs.)

This chapter discusses the issues of drug legalization. Sections of the chapter cover the drug policy debate (the three main positions of prohibition, partial or full decriminalization, and legalization); some neurobiological aspects of drug use (why some drugs are more dangerous than others, the biological basis of dependence); drug use as rational behavior (drugs as commodities, ambivalence and hyperbolic discounting); drug abuse as a social phenomenon (drug availability, total consumption and the paradox of prevention, drinking patterns as a social phenomenon, "wet" cultures of other drugs); drug use and individual rights (morality and individual rights, drug use as a moral category, the imperialistic action of drugs, autonomy and social regulation); drug policy and its instruments (variations in what is regulated by law, criminal law as a regulator of behavior, deterrence and drug abuse); the alternatives to warfare (Is the war on drugs lost? Does prohibition work? Are legal drugs more dangerous than illegal drugs? Does prohibition make drugs less available? What does the most damage - drugs or drug control?); and neither peace nor war. The author concludes that there are no simple answers in the debate on drug policy, and that the central question is not to decide whether to opt for legalization but to identify the policy and measures that will reduce total harm as much as possible. This is a harm reduction perspective, but without a one-sided focus on the harms caused by restrictive policies.

Weatherburn D; Jones C; Donnelly N. Prohibition and cannabis use in Australia: A survey of 18-to 29-year-olds. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 36(1): 77-93, 2003. (32 refs.)

The prevalence of cannabis use in Australia has increased in the last few years, prompting some to argue that the prohibition against cannabis is both costly and ineffective and should be lifted. Surveys designed to evaluate the effect of reducing or eliminating sanctions for cannabis use, however, have been more concerned about the effect of cannabis law reform on the number of new cannabis users than about its effect on cannabis consumption among existing users. This is a serious oversight because most of the risks associated with cannabis are associated with regular rather than occasional use of the drug. The present research was designed to assess some of the potential effects of lifting the prohibition against cannabis use. The study results suggest that, while the illegal status of cannabis does act to limit its use, it is not a major factor in decisions about whether to use cannabis or to cease using it. Prohibition does, however, appear to limit consumption among existing cannabis users and particularly among those who use the drug on a weekly basis or more frequently.

2003, The Australian & New Zealand Society of Criminology

Yacoubian GS Jr. Beyond the theoretical rhetoric: A proposal to study the consequences of drug legalization. Journal of Drug Education 31(4): 319-328, 2001. (41 refs.)

Drug legalization is a frequently-debated drug control policy alternative. It should come as little surprise, therefore, that the arguments in favor of both legalization and prohibition have resulted in a conceptual stalemate. While theoretical deliberations are unquestionably valuable, they seem to have propelled this particular issue to its limit. To date, no works have suggested any empirical studies that might test the framework and potential consequences of drug legalization. In the current study, the arguments surrounding the drug legalization debate are synthesized into a proposal for future research. Such a proposal illustrates that the core elements surrounding drug legalization are not only testable, but that the time may be right to consider such an empirical effort.

Zelvin E; Barber J; Coleman B; Guy P. (E Barber) Flinders U, School of Social Administration & Social Work, Adelaide, SA, Australia. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions 2(3/4): 137-144, 2002. (3 refs.)

America, Britain, and Australia are all nations with great commonality of language and political traditions, but each has dealt with the legal aspect of substance abuse in a way that reflects its particular culture. This article discusses perspectives on the legalization of drugs in the 3 countries.