Search results

This paper examines the believability of strong warnings about the negative consequences of drug use among young adults in Australia who have never tried, currently use, or have tried and rejected cannabis. It finds that the strong warnings about cannabis are generally believed by never‐triers. The same warnings are perceived by current users as only slightly believable. Surprisingly, but also consistent with cognitive dissonance, trier‐rejecters of cannabis are the most likely, more so even than never‐triers, to believe the warnings about cannabis. The paper also examines warnings about cocaine and heroin by cannabis usage status. Current users of cannabis, compared with non‐users, perceive the warnings about the harmful effects of cocaine as less believable, suggesting possible “gateway” susceptibility to trial of this drug. But for heroin, all groups perceive the warnings very believable. The beliefs about particular negative consequences that are most likely to lead to discontinuation of use of cannabis, and those that should discourage uptake of cocaine and heroin, are identified.

Despite being the most common illicit drug in the Western world, treatment for cannabis use is not readily available. Primary health care and even specialist drug treatment services have often under‐recognised, and undertreated, cannabis‐related problems. Australian researcher Jan Copeland is one of the few people to test cannabis treatment models. Here she outlines the most effective models for treating cannabis and how they can be applied to other services.

This article is based on a study of 100 young people who were regular marijuana users, which aimed to discover the impact of their drug use on key life transitions. The article identifies the implications for practitioners who work with these young people.

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 purpose of this paper is to present evidence of the therapeutic value of cannabis as a harm reduction intervention with people who smoke crack cocaine.

A desk study of published peer-reviewed material supporting the use of cannabis as therapeutic in mitigating some of the harms associated with crack cocaine smoking.

The use of cannabis as a harm reduction strategy for crack cocaine use has been commented on in the scientific literature since the 1980s. The officially scheduling of cannabis as having no medicinal value hampered further study despite the reporting of positive findings and numerous calls for more research.

There are currently no approved pharmaceutical substitutions for crack cocaine. Cannabis has shown itself effective in mitigating harms for 30–40 per cent of people. Cannabis is inexpensive and readily available and should be allowed for those people who want to use it.

Poly drug use is often framed in a negative context. In this paper, the author shows that with cannabis and crack, the poly drug use is actually a valid harm reduction strategy.

The purpose of this paper is to give a review on the developments leading to the 2017 law on the medical use of cannabis and cannabinoids in Germany, and to present the major advances arising from this law for the supply of patients with cannabis-based drugs and its major limitations.

This paper used an Analysis of the major political statements and documents as well as court decisions of the past 20 years, which can be regarded as the major steps of this development.

Since 1998, when dronabinol/THC was made available in Germany on prescription there have been continuous improvements of the access to cannabis-based medicines. The law of 2017, which made cannabis flowers available to patients on a doctor’s prescription and forced health insurers to pay for a treatment under certain circumstances was a major step. However, many patients, who profit from a treatment with cannabis still do not get access.

The German law on the medical use of cannabis and cannabinoids of 2017 is unique in its kind in the world. Compared to the legal framework in other countries it has several disadvantages, for example with regard to the high prices of cannabis flowers (€20-€25 per gram), and several advantages, for example with regard to the role of health insurers.

In the first study of its kind, researchers from King's College expose the consequences of reclassifying cannabis. Just how much time have the police saved, what does the Bobby on the beat think about the change, and what would be the consequences if it were put back to Class B?

The Swiss drug policy once was very progressive in the 1990s when the harm related to drug use was most visible to the public. Failure of repression opened the room for more innovative harm reduction approaches. In 2008, the four-pillar model including the legal basis for substitution and heroin-assisted treatment of opioid use disorders as well as for other harm reduction facilities was approved by the population that had learned about the success of these measures. Less violence, better health outcomes among people who use drugs and less stigma supported the change of attitudes in the population towards a public health-based approach when dealing with drug use. Switzerland first received heavy criticism for the autonomous policy change at the international level while it is nowadays often cited as best practice example for dealing with people with an opioid use disorder. Otherwise, the country has usually been quiet in drug policy discussions at the UN level. Nevertheless, Switzerland’s reappointment to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the central drug policy-making body within the United Nations for a period of four years starting in 2018 is promising, given their unblemished recommendation for human rights-based drug policies including the abolition of the death penalty for drug offences, among other things. Alongside cannabis policy changes at the international level, Switzerland witnessed an unexpected development in cannabis availability and sales. However, the country is still rather conservative with regard to current cannabis policies, although cannabis with less than 1% of THC can be sold legally and the possession of up to 10 g will be followed by a fine only, if at all. Switzerland is open to experiment with new regulations but only if the law allows for that. To conclude, the strong sense of connectedness with the international community may support Switzerland’s next steps towards public health and evidence-based harm reduction.