Search

Issues: Non-medical cannabis policies are changing, including towards legalisation-with-regulation frameworks. New Zealand will hold a public referendum on cannabis legalisation in 2020. We reviewed data on cannabis use and health/social harms; policy reform options; experiences with and outcomes of reforms elsewhere; and other relevant considerations towards informing policy choices in the upcoming referendum., Approach: Relevant epidemiological, health, social, criminal justice and policy studies and data were identified and comprehensively reviewed., Key Findings: Cannabis use is common (including in New Zealand) and associated with risks for health and social harms, mainly concentrated in young users; key harms are attributable to criminalisation. 'Decriminalisation' reforms have produced ambivalent results. Existing cannabis legalisation frameworks vary considerably in main parameters. Legalisation offers some distinct advantages, for example regulated use, products and user education, yet outcomes depend on essential regulation parameters, including commercialisation, and policy ecologies. While major changes in use are not observed, legalisation experiences are inconclusive to date, including mixed health and social outcomes, with select harms increasing and resilient illegal markets. It is unclear whether legalisation reduces cannabis exposure or social harms (e.g. from enforcement) for youth., Implications/conclusions: No conclusive overall evidence on the outcomes of legalisation elsewhere exists, nor is evidence easily transferable to other settings. Legalisation offers direct social justice benefits for adults, yet overall public health impacts are uncertain. Legalisation may not categorically improve health or social outcomes for youth. Legalisation remains a well-intended, while experimental policy option towards more measured and sensible cannabis control and overall greater policy coherence, requiring close monitoring and possible adjustments depending on setting-specific outcomes., (© 2020 The Authors. Drug and Alcohol Review published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

A dozen or more regulatory frameworks have been proposed for legal cannabis but many of the "not-for-profit" options have yet to be developed in any detail, reducing the likelihood they will be seriously considered by policy makers. New Zealand's innovative "not-for-profit" regulatory regime for gaming machine gambling (i.e. "slot machines") has reversed the previous increase in gambling expenditure, empowered local councils to cap the number of gambling venues, and is unique in requiring the societies operating gaming machines to distribution 40% of the gross expenditure from machines (i.e. $NZ 262 million in 2015) to community purposes (e.g. sports). However, the regime has been criticised for not addressing the concentration of gaming outlets in poorer communities, and not requiring grants to be allocated in the disadvantaged communities where outlets are located. There have also been cases of gaming societies providing community grants in exchange for direct or indirect benefits. In this paper we adapt this regulatory approach to a legal cannabis market. Under the proposed regime, licensed "not-for-profit" cannabis societies will be required to distribute 20% of cannabis sales to drug treatment and 20% to community purposes, including drug prevention. Grants must be allocated in the regions where cannabis sales are made and grant committees must be independent from cannabis societies. A 20% levy will be used to cover the wider health costs of cannabis use. A further 10% levy will be used to fund the regulator and evaluate the new regime. Local councils will have the power to decide how many, and where, cannabis retail outlets are located. Other important elements include a minimum price for cannabis, effective taxation of cannabis products, regulating CBD in cannabis products, higher taxation of traditional smoking products, advertising restricted to place-of-sale, no internet sales, and restrictions on industry involvement in regulation making and research., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.)