Cannabis legalisation here and abroad: How is it being done? What would be ideal?

A place to discuss the legalisation moves in the US. How is their experience relevant to what happens in the UK. What might we do differently? Do please try to consider what people might actually support at the ballot box.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Leon Keith Greenwell on January 16, 2010 at 16:01

A.B.390 - the proposed bill to create a legal supply of 'erb in California (at last!) is being introduced by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano - http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a13/

Further infomation can be found on the MPP (Marijuana Policy Project) site at - http://www.mpp.org/states/california/information-about-ab-390.html

From my point of view, in the UK, this would remove marijuana from its association with Class 'A' substances, and the sort of individuals who find the 'war against drugs' an economic opportunity the legitimate economy usually denies them, with good taste

As to the rest of the problem, I think the proposal you've put forward is a very good start - I'm not sure that the marijuana market in the UK, which seems to be estimated as between £1-2 bn/pa, is wreaking quite so much havoc as in the Americas, but the sooner supply is brought back to the 'butcher's boy' level, which is natural, the better

My wife used to run a bar on the Gold Coast, she says "The police came in I bar, they smoke a lot of dat wee', the army
came in I bar, they smoke a lot more!"

See! In-built career guidance!

Permalink Reply by Leon Keith Greenwell on January 17, 2010 at 11:30

This is from the 'Independent on Sunday' 17/01/10

US waves white flag in disastrous 'war on drugs'

After 40 years, Washington is quietly giving up on a futile battle that has spread corruption and destroyed thousands of lives

By Hugh O'Shaughnessy

Sunday, 17 January 2010

After 40 years of defeat and failure, America's "war on drugs" is being buried in the same fashion as it was born – amid bloodshed, confusion, corruption and scandal. US agents are being pulled from South America; Washington is putting its narcotics policy under review, and a newly confident region is no longer prepared to swallow its fatal Prohibition error. Indeed, after the expenditure of billions of dollars and the violent deaths of tens of thousands of people, a suitable epitaph for America's longest "war" may well be the plan, in Bolivia, for every family to be given the right to grow coca in its own backyard.

The "war", declared unilaterally throughout the world by Richard Nixon in 1969, is expiring as its strategists start discarding plans that have proved futile over four decades: they are preparing to withdraw their agents from narcotics battlefields from Colombia to Afghanistan and beginning to coach them in the art of trumpeting victory and melting away into anonymous defeat. Not surprisingly, the new strategy is being gingerly aired in the media of the US establishment, from The Wall Street Journal to the Miami Herald.

Prospects in the new decade are thus opening up for vast amounts of useless government expenditure being reassigned to the treatment of addicts instead of their capture and imprisonment. And, no less important, the ever-expanding balloon of corruption that the "war" has brought to heads of government, armies and police forces wherever it has been waged may slowly start to deflate.

Permalink Reply by Ewan Hoyle on January 18, 2010 at 15:12

My position on this issue is very much one of "better safe than sorry". It is glaringly obvious that the classification of cannabis at Class B or Class C does nothing to increase public safety. The economics and practicalities of the illegal trade in cannabis incentivises the distribution of stronger "skunk" varieties at the expense of the milder, more traditional varieties. This phenomenon arises for the same reason as the expansion of hard liquor in America under alcohol prohibition. It might be debated by some in the drug policy reform movement, but I believe it quite reasonable to assume from the evidence available that skunk brings a higher risk of mental illness than traditional strains (remember it is better to be safe than sorry). Ensuring milder strains are available for sale, and ensuring professional advice is available to guide choices made, should reduce consumption of "skunk" and reduce mental health risks.

More important evidence to consider is the evidence suggesting that there is a sensitive period of brain development in which risk of later psychosis is dramatically increased by cannabis use. If risk of psychosis is massively increased if you are exposed to cannabis regularly before you are 15 and only slightly increased if you smoke before 18, then surely we need to identify ways of restricting cannabis consumption in young teenagers. Currently cannabis use is totally unregulated and rife in teenage culture. Under a controlled and regulated market it would be possible to restrict access to cannabis to those over 18 (or other specified age), and to introduce licensing and taggant technology to improve our ability to deter provision of drugs to children and prosecute those who defy the law.

I have serious concerns about the lack of awareness about the links between cannabis and mental illness in America and other countries where legalisation is being considered. I am keen for any moves in this direction in the UK to reject the Dutch coffee-shop model in favour of strictly regulated sales from pharmacists. I am also hopeful that a licensing scheme could be adopted that would necessitate customers receive drug-specific education on mental health, general health, financial, behavioural and other issues that may arise as a result of drug use. Education on the early warning signs of psychosis in particular would not only allow early intervention in cannabis-induced psychosis, but would increase public knowledge of the condition and allow early intervention in cases of psychosis not related to drug use. Schizophrenia is a cause of not only massive suffering for patients and families, but massive economic costs to the country as a whole. Properly controlling illegal drugs presents an excellent opportunity to alleviate future suffering and reduce these costs.

The great danger in the use of any drug is ignorance, and I hope that a commitment to tackle ignorance will reduce both use of drugs and the harms that drug use and the prohibition of that use currently causes.

Permalink Reply by Leon Keith Greenwell on January 18, 2010 at 19:06

My own observations, over the last forty year or so, have been that what was basically a benign 'coastal trade' culture, basically legitimate, (just outside of the law!), was replaced with something much more sinister

What had been a few merchant sailors, fleshing out their wages by bringing in a relatively small quantity of hashish, was replaced by an organised trade of marijuana (hashish), of an inferior quality, imported in large amounts to fund the Lebanese Civil War

'Street' supply now is in the same hands as the supply of crack cocaine, heroin, and crystal meth, etc

This seems to me to be a much more likely source of dangers to mental health than anything else

The problem is that we are in the hands here of 'moralists'(?) , who don't know what they are talking about, and won't listen to people who do

Nature seems to be unusually fond of marijuana! In areas where it grows naturally it is, apparently, possible to watch insects and small animals gravitating towards the stuff. There is a movie out currently entitled 'Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll' - one is cautioned in Holy Scripture not to get in the way of such phenomenon!

I think A.B.390 appears to have got the measure of "reefer madness"

Class 'A' drugs are aother kettle of stinking fish altogether - I have previously suggested, elsewhere, the provision of 'off-street' premises, similar to the 'sanctuaries' provided for street drinkers, but for people who smoke crack cocaine

Whatever breaks the crime gang underworld has got to be seen as the major priority of the law

Permalink Reply by Aaron Trevena on January 19, 2010 at 10:59

Ewan,

Please don't fall into the "Skunk gives you mental illness" trap, it's pure bunkem.

The only medical evidence of the effects on brain development in adolescents is that impairs some memory function, the same as alcohol.. it's a MASSIVE leap from there to schizophrenia.

The only "links" between cannabis and Schizophrenia is that "more people with some mental illnesses smoke weed", that's a correlative link, NOT causative, and that the symptoms of schizophrenia and other psychosis are made worse (in the very short term) by using the drug.

There is plenty of evidence showing the link between cannabis and mental illness isn't causative - Prof Nutt managed to summarise it in a nutshell when he said "Schizophrenia cases did not increase while Skunk use increases", and to back that up. Schizophrenia cases have not followed the ups and downs of cannabis use or strength.

Talking of ignorance, I've never heard anybody linking cannabis with mental illness talking about the very real and proven causative link between Alchohol abuse and psychosis and other mental illness.

Permalink Reply by Ewan Hoyle on January 19, 2010 at 14:37

I've just read the article "Role of cannabis and endocannabinoids in the genesis of schiophrenia" published in Psychopharmacology in 2009, and it presents multiple examples of epidemiological evidence pointing to increased risk of schizophrenia in people who have smoked cannabis. It also presents a highly plausible biological theory of how this relationship could be explained. I accept that you believe the relationship not to be causative, but I'm sure you will excuse me if I reassert my belief that it is better to be safe than sorry, and that it is better to regulate cannabis in such a way that adolescents are not exposed to it during a vulnerable period in their brain development.

There will be many scientists who share my view who might contribute to the debate when it occurs and a great many voters will believe their expert scientific opinion and the horror stories people like Julie Myerson relate about kids going off the rails. The best policy solution is surely one that takes the anticipated concerns of the voters into consideration and ensures children finder it harder to get hold of drugs than at present, and that cannabis strength and potency options are more varied than skunk, skunk or skunk.

Permalink Reply by Aaron Trevena on January 19, 2010 at 14:53

Care to enlighten us on just how exactly it showed an increased risk *beyond* correlation?

Any actual evidence of causation, because that hasn't been found yet, and given the headline figures of cannabis usage vs schizophrenia cases it never will.

It's not a matter of belief, there has been absolutely no evidence of causation, in *any* research - as I've said before only leaping to conclusions based on a) "it makes symptoms worse" b) "memory function affected in adolescent mouse usage" and c) "more people with mental health problems smoke weed (and drink, smoke cigarettes, gamble, etc etc)"

I would avoid mentioning Julie Myerson and the harm she did to her kids both by writing about their personal adolescent life in a national newspaper and massively over-reacting to soft drug use.. have you heard the other side to the story, put's it in a whole different perspective.. more importantly, stuff anecdotes.. it's science and liberal principles we should base policy on not what some second rate journo whines about in their column

Ewan Hoyle said:

The best policy solution is surely one that takes the anticipated concerns of the voters into consideration and ensures children finder it harder to get hold of drugs than at present, and that cannabis strength and potency options are more varied than skunk, skunk or skunk.

True, but it's best to formulate good policy based on scientific evidence and liberal principles. and only *then* look at how you resolve voters concerns.

I fully support the restriction of sale to children, for the same reasons as for cigarettes and alcohol, it *will* impair brain development, affect their performance at school and many other things they won't get a second chance at, and they are still minor's and therefore owed some duty of care by the state.

Just don't try to justify licensing users on "better safe than sorry", any strict user licensing is like a little prohibition - it's an obstacle that will be counter-productive and turn people towards blackmarket alternatives which would increase harm rather than decrease it.

"better safe than sorry" is why I can't carry liquids through airport security (it's not safe, just sorry), and why new labour re-classified cannabis to class B because of a few headlines..

I'll counter your "better safe than sorry" with "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".. I would wager the later is considerably more true than the former.

Permalink Reply by Leon Keith Greenwell on January 19, 2010 at 15:04

I remember some-one telling me, back in the mid-70's, that "Afghan Black" was infinitely to be preferred to "Paki Black"(sic), owing to the adulterations in the latter not being too eufunctional for cerebral activity

I, personally, am not particularly fond of "skunk", rarely wishing to get totally comatose. I infinitely prefer a good quality natural weed, and to get on with my net-mending etc

The answer is of course, to establish a natural and legal supply, on the basis of A.B.390 - I don't think it is necessary to restrict supply to pharmacists, though obviously the same does not go for "hard" drugs

Permalink Reply by Ewan Hoyle on January 19, 2010 at 16:21

There is no ethical study that can be done that can establish causality unless you think it is ok to take a cohort of teenagers, make them smoke cannabis, and then see what happens. Scientists can't investigate causality on this issue. They can study the effects of cannabinoids in adolescent model organisms, they can study endocannabinoid production in schizophrenics and cannabis smokers, they can study evidence from genetics, epidemiology, pharmacology and many other fields of biology, and they can (and often do) conclude that cannabis is likely to increase your risk of developing a psychotic illness. I shall side with the majority of scientific experts on cannabis and schizophrenia. You side with whoever you like.

You continue to consider my licensing proposals as more prohibitive than they are. All I want is for people to go through an education process that ensures they know how to use cannabis safely, and how to avoid becoming seriously mentally ill. If you're over 18 (or whatever age it is set at) and you've had the education, you can have the licence. This is hardly very prohibitive.

Permalink Reply by Leon Keith Greenwell on January 19, 2010 at 18:18

Although I see where you are coming from with your licensing proposals, I think they will prove unwieldy in the real market situation

I think that AB390 already has checks on retailers - by all means push your message as part of a general education - but ID showing you're 18 is enough

Look at the problems we are already having with this in regards of alcohol and off-licenses

As a law-abider (basically!) I find it infuriating to be in a position of being sneered at by people who, lets face it, really ought to be put down by the vet

I accept the classical distinction between liberty and license

Permalink Reply by Rupert Higgins on January 19, 2010 at 21:21

You say that you side with the majority of scientists opinion. Where did you get the information regarding scientists opinion on whether they believe that cannabis causes schizophrenia? For example Professor David Nutt has founded the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs which will publish a table showing the relative danger of many of the most popular drugs in Britain today. Be sure to look into when they publish it because it will give a balanced scientific opinion on the danger of drugs including cannabis based on all the available scientific evidence. Professor Nutt and some of his colleagues have already published a paper in The Lancet http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60464-4/fulltext. This graph specifically shows the relative harms of drugs in Britain today http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS01406736076046.... Alcohol and tobacco both score higher than cannabis in their mean harm score. This is based on all the scientific evidence and is the agreed opinion of well respected academics. Of course this one paper doesn't prove that cannabis causes schizophrenia but it is a good indication of its relative harm compared to other drugs.

You've read one study which may show a correlation between cannabis use and schizophrenia but when you look at all the scientific evidence (like all scientists should) it shows that cannabis is only a problem for people who already possess some sort of psychiatric condition. Three million people in the UK are users of cannabis, so where are the millions of people with schizophrenia? Cannabis certainly will not make the VAST majority of its users "seriously mentally ill" as you bluntly put it. The risks of smoking cannabis are lower than drinking large amounts of alcohol or smoking tobacco for a long period of time.

If cannabis was to become legalized it certainly should be controlled in a similar way to tobacco and alcohol as it's probably the most efficient way to control it. Just some factoids which show that cannabis is not as harmful as tobacco and alcohol. Just to put it into perspective...

Number of people who regularly drink alcohol = 40 million
Number of deaths per year caused by alcohol = 40,000

Number of people who smoke tobacco = 10 million
Number of deaths caused by tobacco = 114, 000

Number of people who use cannabis in the UK = 3 milion
Number of deaths related to the use of cannabis = 1

Ewan Hoyle said:

There is no ethical study that can be done that can establish causality unless you think it is ok to take a cohort of teenagers, make them smoke cannabis, and then see what happens. Scientists can't investigate causality on this issue. They can study the effects of cannabinoids in adolescent model organisms, they can study endocannabinoid production in schizophrenics and cannabis smokers, they can study evidence from genetics, epidemiology, pharmacology and many other fields of biology, and they can (and often do) conclude that cannabis is likely to increase your risk of developing a psychotic illness. I shall side with the majority of scientific experts on cannabis and schizophrenia. You side with whoever you like.
You continue to consider my licensing proposals as more prohibitive than they are. All I want is for people to go through an education process that ensures they know how to use cannabis safely, and how to avoid becoming seriously mentally ill. If you're over 18 (or whatever age it is set at) and you've had the education, you can have the licence. This is hardly very prohibitive.

Permalink Reply by Ewan Hoyle on January 20, 2010 at 0:23

The paper I read was not one study. It was a review article citing probably over a hundred studies that built up (to me and my Masters degree in Neuroscience educated brain) a fairly clear picture of likely causation. Professor David Nutt is not an expert on cannabis and schizophrenia. He is developing an "alcohol alternative". He clearly has the potential to benefit from inflating the harms of alcohol. I am not saying this is what he is doing, but it seems to me that there is a potential conflict of interest there.

At no point have I said that the vast majority of cannabis users will become seriously mentally ill. Nor have I said that cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. They won't and it isn't. But if 5, 10, 20% of schizophrenia cases are attributable to cannabis - and this is the kind of range scientists are talking about - then I'm going to make sure that any proposals I put forward contain mental health education that will help appropriate actions be taken at an early stage to prevent these early warning signs being missed and the occurence of the harrowing consequences that schizophrenia brings to individuals, their families and friends.

There are too many people hearing what they want to hear on both sides of this argument. I believe cannabis is a risk factor for psychosis, and I also believe that the reality of legal, regulated cannabis is far more likely to happen if any regulatory proposals accept that risk is real, at least in the minds of a large proportion of the population.

Drug policy reform has to be founded on the principle that drugs are harmful so we need to control them. Policy created on the back of an assumption that cannabis is pretty harmless will not get anywhere.