[../../../../_private/schaffer_logo.htm][../../../../_private/sch_leg_op_cannabis_navbar.htm]
Chapter 2.
Given the importance which is assigned to setting clear goals
for any major social policy, it is surprising how infrequently
discussion of drug policy is preceded by a precise specification
of what the policy is intended to achieve. Too often, goals are
either global (to reduce drug use) or unattainable (to eliminate
drug use) and allow many interpretations. Similarly, goals are
often stated in such a way that they could be achieved through a
number of quite contradictory strategies and at vastly different
costs (economic, social, and personal). Only infrequently does
the discussion address the issue of the costs we are willing to
tolerate in order to achieve stated goals. Rarely is detailed
consideration given to how we might go about measuring the costs,
both of drug use itself and of attempts to control it.
In examining the range of potential regimes for the control of
cannabis use, it is important to have a clear idea of the
criteria against which we might evaluate their effects. Yet
unambiguous and meaningful statements of the objectives of
cannabis policies are difficult to find anywhere. Most official
statements about drug policy generally, and most discussions
about drug control strategies, suffer from one or more of a
number of limitations. They may fail to proffer specific goals.
They may state goals which are known to be unattainable. They may
fail to recognise the existence of multiple goals or, if they do,
they may fail to acknowledge contradictions between them or to
provide a means for assigning priorities when the goals clash.
All of these failings contribute to a policy debate which
lacks precision and intellectual rigour, and whose outcomes
depend more on rhetoric and emotion than on logical argument and
empirical data. This report starts from the proposition that it
is important to know what are the requirements for rational drug
policy in general and what are the objectives of cannabis policy
specifically. Only when these issues are articulated clearly and
can be subjected to full public scrutiny can it be said that the
cannabis policy debate has become a comprehensive and rational
one. The issues discussed in this chapter can be applied, with
suitable modifications as to specifics, to any area of drug
policy. In this chapter we do not take any position on particular
policy options. Our intention is to provide a comprehensive
framework within which any option can be evaluated.
We intend in this chapter, too, to address the issue of drug
policy, rather than drug legislation. As our discussion of
legislative options will show, similar-looking laws may have
quite different implications for cost and effectiveness depending
on the way in which they are administered. In other words, the
policy context may be more important than the legislation in
understanding the impact of a particular approach to cannabis
control. For example, in both the United States and The
Netherlands it is illegal to possess and sell personal-use
quantities of cannabis. The way in which the legislation is
interpreted and enforced, however, puts these two countries at
different ends of the cannabis policy spectrum (Wardlaw 1992).
In its turn, the policy framework adopted in any particular
country can only be understood fully if the observer is aware of
the social and political context within which social problems are
viewed, and with a knowledge of the nature and dimensions of the
drug problem in that country. Some conceptual clarifications
Kleiman and Saiger (1992) suggest that discussion of options for
drug control policy should be preceded by agreement on some basic
conceptual clarifications. These clarifications are intended to
define the nature of a satisfactory debate about drug control
options.
The following list is a modification and extension of Kleiman
and Saiger’s suggestions.
- Arguments that apply to the most appropriate control
regime for one drug need not – and often do not apply to
others. There has been considerable resistance to the
idea that use of different drugs may best be controlled
by different strategies. Certainly, a dominant theme in
the drug control policies of many countries is that it is
necessary to have consistent policies towards illicit
drug use. It is argued that treating different illicit
drugs differently, especially when ‚differently‘ implies
that one drug will attract less law enforcement attention
or less social disapproval than another, will undermine
the general authority and credibility of anti-drug
messages. This approach overlooks at least one important
consideration. That is that there are a number of
approaches to the notion of consistency. Consistency does
not necessarily imply that we have to have a monolithic
approach to drug problems. We can, for example, have the
goal of reducing the harm caused by illicit drug use, but
can achieve that goal by a number of avenues. There is no
logical reason why these avenues have to be the same for
all drugs, as long as we can justify why we are treating
different drugs differently, and as long as we can
articulate these reasons to the public. The belief that
we must maintain a rigid adherence to one set of
strategies for all illicit drugs ignores the reality that
we already quite successfully accept inconsistencies and
contradictions in drug policy across the board. The most
obvious example is the fact that we allow a number of
drugs, foremost amongst which are tobacco and alcohol, to
be used legally despite their causing the same types of
damage against which we try to protect individuals and
society by banning the use of other drugs. There is
general agreement that it is the goal of policy on licit
drugs to reduce the harm caused by their use. We seek to
achieve this by attempting to persuade people not to take
up drug use, to decrease their consumption of these
drugs, or to alter their manner or pattern of use.
Although the simplest way to reduce harm would be to
reduce the number of people using the drugs (assuming for
the argument here that remaining users continued their
existing consumption levels and patterns), we do not see
attempts to get others to move to less dangerous patterns
of use (rather than giving up use) as undermining the
message that use of drugs is not socially desirable.
Rather, we recognise that the overall goal of reducing
harm can be achieved by persuading some people not to
take up drugs, others to discontinue their use, and yet
others to moderate their use or to change to less
dangerous drugs or methods of administration. Strategies
aimed at moderation are not seen as undermining
strategies aimed at abstinence. We simply accept that
different strategies are appropriate for different groups
in the community and that they can all contribute to the
overall goal of harm minimisation. There is no logical
reason why we cannot adopt the same approach with illicit
drugs. - Drug policies should be crafted to take account of the
different patterns and types of harms caused by specific
drugs. Attempting to impose across-the-board strategies
for illicit drug control in the name of consistency
(ignoring for the moment the glaring inconsistency in not
treating licit drug use similarly) seems to assume that
all drug problems are, in fact, equally susceptible to
the same measures. We know, however, that this is not the
case. Each drug has its own consumption patterns; each
drug harms users and others in different ways and to
different degrees; and each has its own demand patterns,
supply systems and market characteristics (Kleiman &
Saiger 1992). Not only do drugs differ in these ways, but
the same drug may exhibit different characteristics in
different geographical, socioeconomic or cultural
contexts (Haaga & Reuter 1990). Accordingly, it is
not logical to expect that there will be uniform
solutions to drug problems. ‚Consistency for the sake of
it should not be able to stifle the ability of local
areas, states or nations to deal with drug problems in a
manner which is appropriate for their circumstances,
cultural context, dimensions of the problem and so forth‘
(Wardlaw 1992, p154). It follows that decisions about how
best to deal with problems in relation to a specific drug
should be made on the basis of the circumstances
surrounding use of that drug and the practical
possibilities for intervening in them. - The details of control regimes are crucial determinants
of their outcomes. Such details should not be left
undefined. Much of the confusion over what is the most
appropriate regime for the control of cannabis use stems
from poor definition of terms such as ‚decriminalisation‘
and ‚legalisation‘, and lack of specification of the
details of alternative control regimes being debated. As
the South Australian Royal Commission into the
Non-Medical Use of Drugs ([1]South Australia 1978)
commented, people use these terms in a variety of senses
and are often unaware of the significant differences that
exist between various methods of control that have been
proposed under them. We agree with the Commission that
these terms are not very helpful. The word
‚decriminalisation‘ sounds as though it refers to the
removal of cannabis control from the criminal law. In
practice, however, it usually refers to changes to the
law which either allow possession of specified amounts of
cannabis for personal consumption or reduce the penalties
for such possession to minor fines or administrative
sanctions involving no criminal record. As such,
decriminalisation refers to reducing penalties, rather
than removing them altogether ([2]Single 1989). Under
most so-called decriminalisation proposals, dealing in
cannabis would remain a serious criminal offence. The
term ‚legalisation‘ presents similar difficulties. It
covers proposals which would literally remove the drug
from the criminal law, to those which would limit
availability to adults (much as alcohol and tobacco are
now regulated), to more specific proposals which would
allow access through clinics or other health services
only to those with established habits. Discussing
‚decriminalisation‘ or ‚legalisation‘ without specifying
the details of the particular model being proposed is not
likely to be very productive (Kleiman & Saiger 1990).
No sensible discussion of any of the options can take
place without specification of such details as to whom
proposed changes would apply and under what
circumstances, rules about advertising, place and time of
consumption, whether or not the changes would apply to
all preparations and forms of cannabis (or, for example,
be restricted to those falling below a certain potency),
and the type of regulatory arrangements which would
replace the current law enforcement ones, together with
details of their methods of operation and costs. ‚Such
details should not be dismissed as easily determined or
postponed as a problem requiring future thought‘ (Kleiman
& Saiger 1992, p225). This report will discuss policy
options under the broad headings suggested by the South
Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of
Drugs, i.e. the total prohibition model; the
prohibition/’civil penalty‘ model; the partial
prohibition model; the regulatory model; and the free
availability model ([3]South Australia 1978). Any
analysis of control regimes should attempt to estimate
their effects on both consumption levels and patterns of
use. A major concern about any lessening of the current
controls on cannabis is that it might lead to increases
in consumption. While this is a serious concern, it is
not the only dimension which needs to be monitored. It is
also important to estimate how patterns of consumption
might change under different control options. For
example, if numbers of users rose slightly, but
consumption per person fell, or less dangerous forms of
the drug were used, or less harmful methods of use were
employed, the overall amount of harm occasioned might be
reduced and the policy might be judged more successful
than the status quo. Similarly, if under one option, it
seemed that numbers of users might fall, but that heavier
use patterns would emerge, or more potent forms of the
drug would become more popular, the option might be
judged less desirable, even though a decrease in numbers
of users had been achieved. - Control regimes should not be considered in isolation
from the problems of implementation and enforcement. In
attempting to predict the outcomes for users of various
alternatives to the current methods of cannabis control,
it is important to specify the costs and problems of
regulation that would accompany them. In all options
which have any political reality there remains the need
to licence, to tax or to regulate to ensure that
restrictions are observed on such things as sale to
minors, use in conjunction with the operation of vehicles
or machinery, potency levels, amounts purchased etc. The
costs and practical problems of implementation should be
included in any debate about control options. - Arguments about consequences of drug use should be
separated from arguments about morals. Much confusion has
been engendered in the drug policy debate because of a
failure to separate the negative consequences of drug use
from moral considerations. It is quite legitimate for a
community to invoke moral arguments in determining the
proper course of drug policy (Wilson 1990). But it must
be clear that the arguments are moral ones, not morality
disguised as concern over consequences. If opposition to
cannabis use is based on the view that it is illegitimate
to use a drug to alter one’s perception, to seek pleasure
or to become intoxicated (a moral argument), then it
should be clearly stated as such so that the proposition
can be debated in those terms. It confuses the issue and
injects unproductive emotion into the argument if that
concern is disguised by reference to the harms caused by
cannabis use. These need also to be debated separately.
We need to know whether there would still be opposition
to cannabis use on moral grounds even if we could
eliminate the health costs. - Options should be evaluated on the basis of evidence of
damage. We should require that policies that seek to
impose expensive control regimes on any drug be based on
evidence of harm occasioned by use of the drug. The cost
and restrictiveness of the control regime should be
clearly related to the damage caused by use of the drug,
and there should be empirical evidence of the type and
extent of the damage. - Any policy should recognise the changing nature of the
drug problem and be able to change with it. Additionally,
all policies should be reviewed periodically to ensure
that they are still relevant to current circumstances. A
major drawback to current approaches to drug policy is
that they are generally poor at adapting to changes in
the nature of the drug problem or to changes in our
levels of knowledge and understanding of drug use
processes and patterns and their interactions with
different control strategies. All policies should have
in-built capacity for evaluation to enable them to be
adjusted in a timely manner to emerging patterns of use
or changes in our understanding of the problem. - Policy should be made in the light of the costs of
control as well as the benefits. Discussion of any policy
option should clearly identify any costs associated with
it. An attempt should be made to inventory all of the
direct and indirect costs associated with the option,
including social costs. It is particularly important to
include any unintended consequences predicted or
discovered. For example, what are the substitution
effects of a particular policy (does enforcement success,
for example, result in fewer users or do the users turn
to other, more dangerous drugs)? - The goals of drug policy should be realistic. Enunciating
unrealistic goals for drug policy can have a number of
negative consequences. Foremost amongst these are the
undermining of the credibility of the policy and the
justification of extreme methods in their pursuit
(Wardlaw 1992). - Discussion of policy options should include a
specification of which harms they are intended to reduce.
Specifying the harms intended to be reduced by the
overall policy and the options within it clarifies
thinking about goals and provides a necessary basis for
evaluation. If possible, effects should also be discussed
according to the dimensions of time (short-, medium-, and
long-term effects), duration (temporary or permanent),
and scale (minor, moderate, or major). - Discussion of cannabis policy (and drug policy generally)
should recognise the existence of multiple and sometimes
contradictory goals. It may be necessary to choose
explicitly between goals, to assign them to a hierarchy,
or to accept that different goals (and, therefore,
different strategies and programs) may be appropriate for
different sub-populations or areas. Examples include
accepting that it is appropriate to teach established
users safer methods of use while trying to discourage
other groups from starting use, or police not arresting
cannabis users because it is considered to impose an
unwarranted burden on the court and corrections systems. - Policies to discourage cannabis use should be shown to be
effective or be changed. Sound social policy should be
robust enough to withstand critical scrutiny. The costs
of current approaches to cannabis control are
considerable and their continuation should be guaranteed
only if data can be provided which demonstrate their
effectiveness. The same criterion should be applied to
any alternative approach. - The harms caused by the control regimes themselves should
not outweigh the harms prevented by them. It is very
difficult to measure accurately the costs both of
cannabis use and of efforts to prevent it. Nevertheless,
it is not good enough merely to assert that a policy is
the correct one, or to fail to investigate alternatives
when there is evidence of ineffectiveness (the large
number of users) and cost (the cost of law enforcement,
the intrusions on civil liberties, violence and
corruption caused by forcing sales onto a black market,
and so on). Any social policy should be reviewed when
there is reason to believe that the costs of
administering it outweigh the harms reduced. The goals of
cannabis policy In deciding upon the appropriate model to
adopt to control cannabis use, it is necessary to specify
the goals of the policy, as they will constitute the
criteria against which selection will be made (and
against which eventual evaluation of performance will be
made). The following list comprises possible goals which
have been mentioned in the literature on cannabis policy.
It is intended as illustrative of the range of goals
which might be considered and is not a set of goals
proposed by this report:
- to reduce the total amount of cannabis consumed;
- to reduce use among young people;
- to reduce the supply of cannabis to the market;
- to increase the cost of cannabis to the buyer;
- to increase the probability of arrest for a cannabis
offence; - to promote safer methods of consumption of cannabis;
- to limit use of cannabis to smaller amounts;
- to limit sales of cannabis to specialist sellers (and not
to have it sold by dealers in other, more dangerous,
drugs, for example); - to limit progression from cannabis use to use of other
drugs; - to serve as a symbol of community disapproval of drug
use; - to limit the amount of violence in the cannabis
distribution system; and - to limit the substitution of other (more damaging) drugs
for cannabis.
This list is not intended to be comprehensive. It is merely
indicative of the range and detail which needs to be considered
when deciding on policy directions and on the resulting
legislation and implementation strategies. Examination of such a
list makes a number of things apparent. One of these is that to
make sense of it requires the assignment of priorities.
Priorities may be of two types. The first is simply to assign a
ranking in order of importance as judged by some defined
criteria. This is useful when attempting to assign resources to
different parts of a total strategy. A consideration which may
also play a part here is the impact that a particular strategy is
estimated to be capable of having. The second involves deciding
between two or more conflicting goals. Considerations here are
likely to include harms caused or prevented, as well as
considerations such as cost and effectiveness. Laying out goals
in this fashion also alerts us to the need for high quality data
for decision-making, and to the need for sound evaluation
methodologies to be able to measure the impact of our policies
and their resulting implementation strategies. Examination of the
list above makes it immediately apparent that extensive empirical
data are required to be able to assign priorities and measure
impacts. The list also provides a practical example of the sorts
of considerations which policy makers should include in their
deliberations as they attempt to apply the conceptual tools
discussed earlier in this chapter.
References
Haaga, J. & Reuter, P. 1990, ‚The limits of the Czar’s
ukase: drug policy at the local level‘, Yale Law and Policy
Review, vol. 8, no. 1, pp36-74.
Kleiman, M. & Saiger, A. 1992, ‚Taxes, regulations and
prohibitions: Reformulating the legalization debate‘, in Drug
Policy in the Americas, ed. P. Smith, Westview Press, Boulder.
Kleiman, M. & Saiger, A. 1990, ‚Drug legalization: the
importance of asking the right question‘, Hofstra Law Review,
vol. 18, pp527-565.
Single, E. 1989, ‚The impact of marijuana decriminalization:
an update‘, Journal of Public Health Policy, vol. 10, no. 4,
pp456-466.
South Australia. Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of
Drugs 1978, Cannabis: A Discussion Paper, South Australian
Government, Adelaide.
Wardlaw, G. 1992, ‚Discussion‘, in M. Bull, D. McDowell, J.
Norberry, H. Strang & G. Wardlaw, Comparative Analysis of
Drug Strategy, NCADA Monograph Series No. 18, AGPS, Canberra.
Wilson, J.Q. 1990, ‚Drugs and crime‘, in Drugs and Crime:
Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 13, eds M. Tonry
& J.Q. Wilson, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[../../../../_private/sch_leg_op_cannabis_navbar.htm]