Search results

This paper considers the findings of the Beckley Foundation's Global Cannabis Commission Report (Room et al, 2008), an overview of the scientific literature on cannabis, detailing its potential harms and those caused by its prohibition. It moves on to consider the various strategies that different jurisdictions have adopted to deal with cannabis use, before moving beyond the Conventions, arguing that countries should have more autonomy to develop policy best suited to their individual circumstances.Cannabis was incorporated into the global prohibitive regime via the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 (United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, 1961), and is further affected by two later drug Conventions, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1972 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 1972) and the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychoactive Substances 1988 (United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, 1988). Together, these require that all signatories make production, commerce and possession of cannabis criminal offences under domestic law: in the UK, this expectation is effected via the inclusion of cannabis in Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (HM Government, 1971). In the half century since the initial Convention was drafted, patterns of cannabis consumption have altered fundamentally; smoking cannabis has transformed from a relatively rare behaviour confined to a scattering of countries and cultures, to almost a rite of passage among young people in many nations. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2009) estimates that there is a global population of 190 million cannabis users, rendering it by far the most widely used illicit drug, yet, paradoxically, one that is rarely mentioned in international drug control policy discussions.

The COVID-19 pandemic likely impacted cannabis distribution, access and usage worldwide. This study aims to describe self-reported changes in cannabis use and related outcomes following COVID-19-related restrictions among an international sample of people who use drugs.

Using data from the Global Drug Survey COVID-19 Special Edition, the authors identified 20,417 respondents from 13 countries who reported whether the number of THC-containing cannabis usage days changed compared with February 2020 (before COVID-19 restrictions). Using descriptive statistics and a multinomial multivariable logistic regression, the authors investigated the impact of changes in cannabis use on respondents’ mental health, physical health, relationships, finances, work/study performance and cannabis-related pleasure/enjoyment.

Similar proportions of respondents reported that their cannabis use had stayed the same (38.2%) or increased (38.3%) compared with February 2020, while 21.9% of respondents reported a decrease. The most common reason for increased use was having more time (68.4%), while decreased use was associated with having less contact with people they use cannabis with (58.4%). The likelihood of reporting worse mental and physical health, finances, and work/study performance following COVID-19 restrictions was highest among those who reported increased cannabis use.

These findings provide a unique understanding of the short-term international impact of initial COVID-19 restrictions on cannabis use, and highlight the need for policy to address the ongoing and improved provision of evidence-based mental health and other support for people who frequently use cannabis.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the world’s largest international study exploring the impacts of these changes in cannabis use following initial COVID-19 restrictions on individuals’ mental health, physical health, relationships, finances, work/study performance and cannabis-related pleasure. This study is also unique in comparing these changes across multiple continents.

“Cannabis” and “cannabis resin” are derived from the Cannabis plant, used as herbal medications, in traditional medicine and as active pharmaceutical ingredients. Since 1961, they have been listed in Schedule IV, the most restrictive category of the single convention on narcotic drugs. The process to scientifically review and reschedule them was launched by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 2 December 2016; it survived a number of hindrances until finally being submitted to a delayed and sui generis vote by the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs on 2 December 2020, withdrawing “cannabis” and “cannabis resin” from Schedule IV.

To evaluate WHO’s scheduling recommendations, the process leading to the Commission vote and subsequent implications at global, national and patient/clinician levels. Narrative account of the four-year proceedings; review of the practical implications of both rejected and accepted recommendations.

The process was historically unprecedented, of political relevance to both medical Cannabis and evidence-based scheduling generally. Procedural barriers hampered the appropriate involvement of civil society stakeholders. The landscape resulting from accepted and rejected recommendations allow countries to continue creating decentralised, non-uniform systems for access to and availability of “cannabis” and “cannabis resin” for medical purposes.

Perspective of accredited observers; highlight of institutional issues and the lay of the land; contrast of stakeholders’ interpretations and engagement.

The purpose of this paper is to inform readers of developments in drug policy debate in Australia following the publication of the Global Commission Report. To explain the activities, discussions and findings of events organised by the Australian NGO Australia21. To provide some key contextual information and references.

Overview of international situation following publication of Global Commission Report. Summary of current Australian national policy and its origins. Summary of recent national reports and their impact on policy. Account of NGO reports and recommendations.

Civil society agencies have entered national debate on drug policy and recommended an abandonment of prohibition-based approaches, using the Global Commission Report as a catalyst. First steps have been taken to introduce this debate into the Australian parliament.

Incomplete knowledge of relevant national documentation.

Probable delay in government developing debate and acting on recommendations in an election year.

Case study of developments and debate in one jurisdiction resulting from Global Commission Report. Aligns with similar debate and moves in other nations. Adds to knowledge of developments which challenge existing international policy debate and practical approaches which reject prohibition.

Public support for various policy options for managing cannabis in the Caribbean and the characteristics of those most likely to support specific policy options remains largely unknown. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of age, sex and employment status on the public attitudes towards the full legalisation of cannabis, partial legalisation (that is for medical or religious purposes) or its continued prohibition.

Using secondary data collected from nationally representative public opinion polls conducted by Caribbean Research and Development Services from 2016–2018, this paper compares the public attitudes towards cannabis in Barbados, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica using a multinomial logistic model.

Support for the continued prohibition, legalisation or partial legalisation of cannabis varied significantly by age, employment status and country of residence. Women, people over 51 years of age and the employed were more likely to support full prohibition. Attitudes towards cannabis policy in the Caribbean are by no means homogenous, neither are the policy shifts occurring across the region, with some of these changes occurring slowly and not necessarily reflective of cultural dynamics.

This study is unique in its cross-country analysis in the Caribbean and providing valuable insight into the levels public support for cannabis legalisation. Its findings can help shape targeted public education in these countries.

The purpose of this paper is to interrogate if the legal status of a cannabis affects money laundering activity. The legal status of cannabis continues to evolve globally; at the same time, its market remains enormous. Much of this market represents dirty money from criminal acts, which often requires laundering. In the context of changing cannabis regulations, legislation, and policies, the authors propose the possible implications such changes may have on the extent of money laundering.

This paper proposes the implications of the evolution of cannabis regulations on money laundering activities, using the theoretical underpinning of rational choice. Using Australia as a replicable critical case study, the paper, using the Walker gravity model and using United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime-reported prices of cannabis from 2003 to 2017 and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission reports empirically validates the effects of cannabis regulations on the proceeds available for laundering.

This study finds support for the argument that prohibitive measures toward cannabis use contribute to increases in the need to launder generated proceeds.

The findings can be replicated in other countries and may contribute to novel propositions within the debate on the legalization of cannabis use, which has, thus, far primarily focused on the areas of health, crime, taxation and education.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no study has yet attempted to provide an economic analysis of the effects of cannabis policy changes on money laundering.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the effects of legislative amendments to the Dangerous Drugs Act in 2015 and the establishment of a Cannabis Licensing Authority (CLA) in Jamaica as the first Caribbean country to decriminalize cannabis and attempt to establish a medical cannabis industry. The research also attempts to understand the perception of key industry players and interest groups to the existing regulatory framework in Jamaica.

The research reviews local and global trends, the developments in cannabis legislation and conducts questionnaires as well as semi-structured interviews to get feedback from key industry stakeholders and interest groups.

The findings suggest that there is a lack of confidence in the CLA in Jamaica, who are faced with the task of balancing the emerging medical cannabis industry and formalizing the existing illegal cannabis trade. There appears to be inconsistencies and lack of coordination between the associated ministries, departments and agencies. The CLA in Jamaica has established two separate cannabis models that appear to be incoherent in their approach to policy. On the one hand they are regulating cultivation, processing and supply, and on the other hand, the law remains unclear about the purchase or consumption of cannabis and its by-products.

Countries must learn from Jamaica’s experience if they wish to effectively establish a medical cannabis industry and legitimize existing illegal cannabis economic activities. These countries must ensure they tailor fit the approach of their CLAs to minimize any negative perception from industry players. Laws established to facilitate linkages from the cultivation to processing to packaging to transportation to retail must also include clear laws surrounding the purchase and consumption of cannabis. Jamaica has a far way to go and must continue to learn from other countries and states, for example, Holland, Spain and Uruguay, while at the same time learning from itself.

This paper is novel as it addresses the transition of the legislative process in Jamaica. It also serves as lesson for other countries that seek to engage in the development of their cannabis industries.