Cannabis Regulation Research Articles

An interrupted time series evaluation of the effect of cannabis legalization on intentional self-harm in two Canadian provinces: Ontario and Alberta.

Despite the association between cannabis use and higher prevalence of suicidal ideation and attempt, the effect of cannabis legalization and regulation in Canada on intentional self-harm has not been determined. We used an interrupted time series of population-based rates of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations for intentional self-harm per 100 000 in Ontario and Alberta from January/April 2010 to February 2020. Aggregate monthly counts of ED visits and hospitalizations for intentional self-harm (ICD-10 codes X60-X84, R45.8) were obtained from the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System and Discharge Abstract Database, respectively. The legalization and regulation of cannabis in Canada was not significantly associated with a change in rates of ED visits for intentional self-harm in Ontario (level = 0.58, 95% CI: -1.14 to 2.31; trend = -0.17, 95% CI: -0.35 to 0.01) or Alberta (level = -0.06, 95% CI: -2.25 to 2.12; trend = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.13). Hospitalizations for intentional self-harm also remained unchanged in Ontario (level = -0.14, 95% CI: -0.48 to 0.20; trend = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.04) and Alberta (level = -0.41, 95% CI: -1.03 to 0.21; trend = -0.03, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.03). Legalization and regulation of cannabis in Canada has not increased rates of ED visits or hospitalizations for intentional self-harm in Ontario and Alberta. Individual-level analyses that account for demographic characteristics and include other provinces and territories are needed.

Current status of cannabis regulation in Morocco

Cannabis sativa L. is known for its psychotropic properties as well as therapeutic benefits, which have been exploited since ancient times. These are due to molecules synthesized within the plant known as cannabinoids, with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) being responsible for the main effects. These products have significant therapeutic advantages related to relieving nausea and vomiting, as well as stimulating appetite. Recent evidence clearly demonstrates analgesic and antispasmodic effects that will prove clinically significant. The global regulatory landscape regarding the medical use of cannabis is rapidly evolving, as seen in the case of Morocco, which has given the green light for cannabis use through the adoption of a new law, 13.21, that will regulate the entire production chain by establishing a national regulatory agency. It is within this context that our work is framed, with the primary objective is to providing an overview of the new cannabis regulation in Morocco. This regulatory framework will oversee all operations related to cannabis use, from production to commercialization

When prohibition works: Comparing fireworks and cannabis regulations, markets, and harms.

Nations wrestle with whether to prohibit products that can harm consumers and third parties but whose prohibition creates illegal markets. For example, cannabis is banned in most of the world, but supply for non-medical use has been legalized in Uruguay, Canada, and much of the United States and possession restrictions have been liberalized in other countries. Likewise, supply and possession of fireworks have been subject to varying degrees of prohibition in multiple countries, with those bans prompting significant evasion. Current and past history of fireworks regulations, sales, and harms are reviewed and contrasted with those for cannabis. The focus is on the United States, but literature from other countries is incorporated when possible and appropriate. This extends the insightful literature comparing drugs to other vices (such as gambling and prostitution) by comparing a drug to a risky pleasure that is not seen as a vice but which has been subject to prohibition. There are many parallels between fireworks and cannabis in legal approaches, harms to "users", harms to others, and other externalities. In the U.S. the timing of prohibitions were similar, with prohibitions on fireworks being imposed a little later and repealed a little sooner. Internationally, the countries that are strictest with fireworks are not always those that are strictest with drugs. By some measures, harms are of roughly similar magnitude. During the last years of U.S. cannabis prohibition, there were about 10 emergency department (ED) events per million dollars spent on both fireworks and illegal cannabis, but fireworks generated very roughly three times as many ED events per hour of use/enjoyment. There are also differences, e.g., punishments were less harsh for violating fireworks prohibitions, fireworks consumption is heavily concentrated in just a few days or weeks per year, and illegal distribution is primarily of diverted legal products, not of illegally produced materials. The absence of hysteria over fireworks problems and policies suggests that societies can address complex tradeoffs involving risky pleasures without excessive acrimony or divisiveness when that product or activity is not construed as a vice. However, the conflicted and time-varying history of fireworks bans also show that difficulty balancing freedoms and pleasure with harms to users and others is not restricted to drugs or other vices. Use-related harms fell when fireworks were banned and rose when those bans were repealed, so fireworks prohibitions can be seen as "working" from a public health perspective, but not well enough for bans to be employed in all times or places.

Perceptions of cannabis use risk to mental health among youth in Canada, England and the United States from 2017 to 2021

BackgroundThere is little research examining perceptions of cannabis use risk to mental health in countries with differing cannabis regulations. This study therefore examines such perceptions among youth between 2017 and 2021 in Canada (non-medical cannabis legalized in October 2018), England (highly-restricted medical cannabis legalized November 2018), and the US (non-medical cannabis legal in some states). MethodsSeven repeat cross-sectional online surveys were conducted between July 2017 to August 2021 among youth aged 16–19 in Canada (N=29,420), England (N=28,155), and the US (N=32,974). Logistic regression models, stratified by country, were used to examine perceptions of cannabis use risk to mental health over time, adjusting for age group, sex, race/ethnicity, cannabis use and, for the US only, state-level cannabis legalization. ResultsPerceptions that cannabis use posed “no risk” to mental health decreased between July 2017 and August 2021 in Canada (6.1–4.4%; AOR=0.64, 95% CI=0.52–0.78) and the US (14.0–11.3%; AOR=0.74, 0.65–0.84) but not England (3.7–4.5%; AOR=1.21, 0.97–1.52). No significant changes were observed from immediately before (August 2018) to after (August 2019) legalization of non-medical cannabis in Canada (AOR=0.99, 0.83–1.20) or highly-restricted medical cannabis in England (AOR=0.90, 0.70–1.17). In the US, perceptions of “no risk” were more likely in states where cannabis use was illegal (15.0%) compared with legal non-medical (12.2%) (AOR=0.68, 0.63–0.74). ConclusionThere were modest decreases in perceptions that cannabis use poses no risk to mental health in Canada and the US between 2017 and 2021 but no clear association with cannabis legalization status.

Cannabis: Drug of Abuse and Therapeutic Agent, Two Sides of the Same Coin.

The consumption of Cannabis sativa plant, known as marijuana in the Western world, for different purposes (therapeutic, intoxicating, and spiritual) due to its psychoactive effects, can be traced back to ancient times. Cannabis is the most used illicit drug worldwide; however, its legal status is changing rapidly. Cannabis regulation will allow a better understanding of its effects as a misused drug, including new challenges, such as the availability of highly potent Cannabis extracts. Furthermore, scientific research is making significant efforts to take advantage of the potential therapeutic uses of Cannabis active compounds. The science of Cannabis derivatives started with the identification of the phytocannabinoids Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), allowing the formal study of the complex set of effects triggered by Cannabis consumption and the deciphering of its pharmacology. Δ9-THC is recognized as the compound responsible for the psychoactive and intoxicating effects of Cannabis. Its study led to the discovery of the endocannabinoid system, a neuromodulatory system widespread in the human body. CBD does not induce intoxication and for that reason, it is the focus of the search for cannabinoid potential clinical applications. This review examines the current state of knowledge about contrasting perspectives on the effects of Cannabis, Δ9-THC, and CBD: their abuse liability and potential therapeutic use; two sides of the same coin.

Conflicting forces in the implementation of medicinal cannabis regulation in Uruguay

BackgroundUruguay is widely known as a pioneer country regarding cannabis regulation policies, as it was the first state to regulate the cannabis market for both recreational and medicinal purposes in 2013. However, not all aspects of the regulation have moved forward at the same speed. Medicinal uses keep facing several challenges that undermine patients’ effective access to treatments and products. What are those persistent challenges for the medicinal cannabis policy in Uruguay? This paper aims to describe and understand the current state of medicinal cannabis in the country and identify the most critical challenges and conflicting forces for its proper implementation.MethodsTo do so, we conduct twelve in-depth interviews with key informants, including governments officials, activists, entrepreneurs, researchers, and doctors. These interviews are complemented with information from the congressional committees’ public records and other documentary sources.ResultsThis research shows that the legal framework was thought to assure quality products over access. The main challenges of medicinal cannabis in Uruguay are related to three issues: (i) the timid development of the industry, (ii) a limited and expensive supply, and (iii) the emergence of an informal productive sector.ConclusionsThe political decisions regarding medicinal cannabis made in the last seven years have derived from a halfway policy that fails to guarantee patient access or promote the growth of a vibrant national industry. Positively, the several actors involved are aware of the extent of these challenges and new decisions have been made to overcome them, meaning that monitoring the future of the policy is very much needed.

Location and home rules of cannabis use – Findings from marijuana use and environmental survey 2020, a nationally representative survey in the United States

Cannabis combustion and aerosolization may be associated with adverse health for users and nonusers through secondhand and thirdhand exposure. As cannabis regulation becomes more lenient, understanding where cannabis is used and whether homes have rules restricting use is needed. This study aimed to identify locations, presence of other people, and in-home rules of cannabis use in the United States (U.S.). This secondary analysis of 3,464 inhalation-based (smoking, vaping, dabbing) cannabis users in past 12 months drew from a cross-sectional probability-based online panel of 21,903 U.S. adults in early 2020, providing nationally representative estimates. We describe presence of other people and location at most recent use (smoking, vaping, dabbing, respectively). We also describe household restrictions on in-home cannabis smoking by cannabis smokers vs non-smokers, and by presence of children in home. Cannabis smoking, vaping, and dabbing most often occurred at users’ own homes (65.7%, 56.8%, and 46.9%, respectively). More than 60% of smoking, vaping, and dabbing occurred with someone else present. About 68% of inhalation-based cannabis users (70% and 55%, smokers and non-smokers, respectively) did not have complete restrictions on in-home cannabis smoking; among them, over a quarter lived with children under 18. In the U.S., inhalation-based cannabis use most commonly occurs at home, with others present and a substantial proportion of users lacking complete in-home cannabis smoking restrictions, raising risks of secondhand and thirdhand smoke exposure. These circumstances demand residential interventions for developing bans on indoor cannabis smoking, especially around vulnerable children.

Reasonable access: important characteristics and perceived quality of legal and illegal sources of cannabis for medical purposes in Canada

BackgroundThroughout the past two decades of legal medical cannabis in Canada, individuals have experienced challenges related to accessing legal sources of cannabis for medical purposes. The objective of our study was to examine the sources of cannabis accessed by individuals authorized to use medical cannabis and to identify possible reasons for their use of illegal sources.MethodsIndividuals who participated in the Cannabis Access Regulations Study (CANARY), a national cross-sectional survey launched in 2014, and indicated they were currently authorized to use cannabis for medical purposes in Canada were included in this study. We assessed differences between participants accessing cannabis from only legal sources versus from illegal sources in relation to sociodemographic characteristics, health-related factors, and characteristics of medical cannabis they considered important. A secondary analysis assessed differences in satisfaction with various dimensions of cannabis products and services provided by legal versus illegal sources.ResultsHalf of the 237 study participants accessed cannabis from illegal sources. Individuals accessing cannabis from illegal sources were significantly more likely to value pesticide-free products, access to a variety of strains, ability to select strain and dosage, ability to observe and smell cannabis, availability in a dispensary, and availability in small quantities than did individuals accessing cannabis from only legal sources (all p < 0.05). Additionally, participants gave significantly higher satisfaction scores to illegal sources than to legal sources on service-related dimensions of cannabis access (all p < 0.05).ConclusionOur findings contribute to an understanding of reasonable access to medical cannabis from a patient perspective and how to assess whether it has been achieved. Characteristics of cannabis products and services valued by patients and appropriate to their needs should be incorporated into legal medical cannabis programs to promote the use of legal medical sources. While pertaining specifically to medical use of cannabis in Canada, the findings of this study may also be instructive for understanding the use of illegal cannabis sources for non-medical purposes in Canada and provide insight for other jurisdictions implementing cannabis regulations for both medical and non-medical purposes.

Analysis of a Professional Development Event on Cannabis Education for Cannabis Educators

Cannabis is one of the fastest growing industries in the US. The unprecedented expansion of the industry has been influenced by the changing regulatory landscape on industrial hemp, medical cannabis and adult-use cannabis. The wide variety of cannabis- and hemp-related jobs, from agricultural production to product sales, require a skilled workforce. Post-secondary institutions have recognized the gap in workforce training and have begun to offer educational credentials in cannabis ranging from certificates to graduate degrees. As the cannabis education sector is built, professional development on cannabis education for post-secondary educators can assist in the creation and teaching of high-quality academic programs. A survey was used to evaluate the inaugural Cannabis Curriculum Convening, a pioneering professional development event on cannabis education. Our findings show the professional development positively impacted educators’ knowledge and confidence toward integrating cannabis curriculum. Educators’ future needs for professional development (curriculum/program development and pedagogical content knowledge) were assessed. Findings show that educators desire professional development on forming cannabis industry partnerships and providing non-formal cannabis education. The most in-demand pedagogical content knowledge topics were medical cannabis, cannabis history, and cannabis regulation, testing, and compliance. We hope that our recommendations will inform current and future professional development in cannabis education.

A Research Agenda to Inform Cannabis Regulation: How Science Can Shape Policy

In the United States, changes to cannabis policy have outpaced scientific knowledge about cannabis, its effects, and the impacts of different policy approaches. Research barriers stem from key federal policies, including strict drug scheduling of cannabis, which comprehensively hinder the ability to conduct cannabis research, affecting state markets, evidence-based regulation, and scientific gains that could more effectively shape policy moving forward. The Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA) is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that convenes and supports government agencies to facilitate information exchange and learning from existing cannabis regulations across US states and territories and other governmental jurisdictions. This commentary outlines a research agenda that, if implemented, would address critical gaps in the science that cannabis regulators have identified in terms of knowledge regarding: (1) medicinal use of cannabis; (2) cannabis product safety; (3) cannabis consumer behaviors; (4) policies to promote equity and reduce disparities, both in the industry and more broadly in communities affected by the past criminalization of cannabis; (5) policies to prevent youth consumption and promote public health and safety; and (6) policies to reduce the illicit market and associated harms. The research agenda outlined here is the result of both formal discussions through CANNRA-wide meetings and informal discussions cannabis regulators have had as part of CANNRA committees. This research agenda is not all encompassing but rather highlights areas of research that have vital importance for cannabis regulation and policy implementation. Although many organizations weigh in on research needs related to cannabis, cannabis regulators (ie, the individuals implementing policies legalizing cannabis in states and territories) have generally not had a voice at the table advocating for specific research to be conducted. Their perspective representing the government agencies closest to the ground in terms of experiencing the impacts of current cannabis policy is essential to furthering quality, practical research that can advance informed and effective policy.

History of Cannabis Regulation and Medicinal Therapeutics: It's Complicated

The genus Cannabis has a complex history, with great variations in the genus itself, as well as in its current uses worldwide. Today, it is the most commonly used psychoactive substance, with 209 million users in 2020. The legalization of cannabis for medicinal or adult use is complex. From its origins as a therapeutic agent in 2800 bc China, to the current knowledge on cannabinoids and the cannabinoid system, to the complex status of cannabis regulation across continents—knowledge gained from the history of cannabis use can inform research on cannabis-based treatments for patients with medical conditions that remain challenging in 21st century medicine, warranting research and evidence-based policy options. Changes in cannabis-related policymaking, scientific advances, and perceptions may result in increasing patient inquiries about its medicinal usage, regardless of personal opinions, thus meriting education and training of clinicians. This commentary outlines the long history of cannabis use, its current therapeutic potential from a regulatory research perspective, and the continued challenges in research and regulation in the ever-changing era of modern cannabis use. It is crucial to understand the history and complexity of cannabis use as medicine to better understand its potential for clinical therapeutics and the effects of modern-day legalization on other health- and society-related issues.

Changes in Arkansans’ attitudes toward pharmacist involvement and regulation of medical cannabis following its availability in Arkansas

BackgroundPharmacists are likely to encounter questions from patients regarding medical cannabis (MC). This serves as an opportunity for pharmacists to provide reliable medical information about MC dosing, drug interactions, and impact on preexisting health conditions. ObjectivesThis study examined changes in perceptions of the Arkansan community toward MC regulation and pharmacist involvement in MC dispensing after MC products became available in Arkansas. MethodsA longitudinal, self-administered online survey was conducted in February 2018 (baseline) and September 2019 (follow-up). Baseline participants were recruited through Facebook posts, emails, and printed flyers. Participants from the baseline survey (N = 1526) were invited to participate in the follow-up survey. Paired t tests were used to determine changes in responses, and multivariable regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with follow-up perceptions. ResultsParticipants (n = 607, response rate 39.8%) started the follow-up survey, resulting in 555 usable surveys. The largest group of participants was 40-64 year old (40.9%). The majority were female (67.9%), white (90.6%), and reported past 30-day cannabis use (83.1%). Compared to baseline, participants preferred less regulatory control of MC. They were also less likely to agree that pharmacists helped improve MC-related patient safety. Participants favoring less MC regulation were more likely to report 30-day cannabis use and perceived cannabis to have low health risk. Past 30-day cannabis use was also significantly associated with disagreement that pharmacists improve patient safety and are well-trained to provide MC counseling. ConclusionAfter MC product availability, Arkansans’ attitudes changed toward less MC regulation and less agreement with the pharmacist’s role in improving MC safety. These findings call for pharmacists to better promote their role in public health safety and demonstrate their knowledge concerning MC. Pharmacists should advocate for an expanded, active consultant role in dispensaries to improve safety of MC use.

Impacts to health equity from changes in ontario, Canada’s regulation of alcohol, cannabis, and vaping product sales

Impacts to health equity from changes in ontario, Canada’s regulation of alcohol, cannabis, and vaping product sales

Do not let the ideal be the enemy of good enough regulation.

Research on the effectiveness and efficiency of different methods of regulating cannabis potency should be a high priority for public health research that will inform the design of cannabis regulations that minimize public health harms. Our article [1] was intended to alert the addictions field to the critical issue of increased cannabis potency as a public health concern, counter the cannabis industry argument that such regulation is unnecessary and canvas some regulatory options. We thank our commentators for their thoughtful responses, which reveal that regulating tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) potency is more complex than it seems at first sight. Freeman & Lorenzetti highlight consumers’ need for simpler advice on labels, much as standard drinks of alcohol [2]. They have led consensus projects to define standard doses of THC that could be used in this way. They also make the useful point that regulators need to consider setting minimum unit prices for cannabis, much as those that have been implemented to reduce heavy alcohol consumption in some countries. Pardal & Wadsworth highlight the fact that the US model of cannabis legalization—a commercialized for-profit market, with minimal regulation of potency and promotion—is not the only model on offer [3]. Uruguay has limited sales to herbal cannabis and capped the THC content of cannabis sold in pharmacies. The Canadian province of Quebec has banned sales of cannabis extracts, limited the sale of edibles and imposed a cap on the THC content of herbal cannabis. The effectiveness of these policies is well worth investigation. The major empirical question is whether the policies will succeed in the longer term, when neighbouring jurisdictions allow the sale of banned products that can be easily transported across borders. Caulkins points out the economic drivers of increasing cannabis potency in the United States; namely, cannabis producers’ need to make maximum use of whole cannabis plants to compete in a market in which cannabis prices are declining [4]. He argues that bans on the sale of high-potency cannabis products would be simpler and easier to implement than attempting to regulate the potency of the many different cannabis products in US legal cannabis markets. He cites evidence that bans need not generate large-scale illicit markets. We agree that banning high-potency products could be the most effective measure to protect public health in countries contemplating cannabis legalization. We doubt its feasibility, however, in mature US markets that already sell high-potency products and in which cannabis retailers will strenuously oppose the policy. Governments regulating these markets may also prefer the revenue from taxing cannabis products on the basis of their THC content. The regulation of cannabis potency is nowhere near as straightforward as regulating alcohol, but we should not allow the cannabis industry to use this as a reason for failing to regulate cannabis potency. In cannabis regulation, as in any area of public health, we should not allow the ideal to be the enemy of the good enough. Research on the effectiveness and efficiency of different methods of regulating cannabis potency should be a high priority for public health research that will inform the design of cannabis regulations which minimize public health harms. Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Queensland, as part of the Wiley - The University of Queensland agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians. None.

The evolving culture of medical cannabis in Canada for the management of chronic pain.

Although used therapeutically for millennia, cannabis has been a prohibited substance worldwide for most of the 20th Century. With revision of prohibitive regulations in many jurisdictions during the past 2decades, cannabis is increasingly available to patients as a potential treatment option for various symptoms. Pain relief, sleep promotion and alleviation of distress, depression and anxiety are the most common reasons for cannabis use. Canada has been at the forefront of medical cannabis (MC) legislation revisions to enable and facilitate access for therapeutic use. Although initially viewed with caution and stigma, attitudes to cannabis in general have changed. Medical cannabis is identified as the herbal plant product sourced from a grower/producer and is not at present a regulated pharmaceutical product. Medical cannabis use is currently prevalent in Canada but has bypassed the rigorous study required for usual drug approval. Although uptake has been enthusiastic by patients, the medical community has voiced cautions and concerns. Access to medical cannabis is fairly easy once an approval document is obtained from a healthcare professional, but without obligation for medical or pharmacy oversight. The greatest concern is a dearth of sound clinical evidence for effects and harms. Emerging concerns include prevalent patient self-management with information based on personal research, an abundance of on-line information which may not always be accurate, the emergence of designated "cannabis clinics," potential risks to society due to accidents, and high cost of the legal medical product leading to access via the recreational market. With cannabis now entrenched in Canadian healthcare, physicians must be sufficiently knowledgeable to provide guidance that is evidence-based and will ensure personal and societal harm reduction. Examination of the changing culture of medical cannabis in Canada will provide insight for countries that may be anticipating similar revisions of cannabis regulations to allow cannabis access for their patient population and learn from the issues created by recreational legalization.

Age, period and cohort effects on time trends in monthly cannabis use in adult population: 1996-2019.

With changes in norms related to cannabis use and in the regulation of cannabis, understanding trends in cannabis use is important, especially differentiating between trends that affect cohorts of all ages similarly, versus trends that disproportionately affect a younger generation. The present study examined the age-period-cohort (APC) effects on monthly cannabis use among adults in Ontario, Canada over a 24-year period. Data were utilised from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Monitor Survey, an annual repeated cross-sectional survey of adults 18 years of age and older. The present analyses focused on the 1996 to 2019 surveys, which employed a regionally stratified sampling design using computer-assisted telephone interviews (N = 60,171). Monthly use of cannabis stratified by sex were examined. There was about a five-fold increase in monthly cannabis use from 1996 (3.1%) to 2019 (16.6%). The youngest adults use cannabis monthly more, but the patterns of monthly cannabis use appeared to be increasing among older adults. Adults born in the 1950s had higher prevalence of cannabis use (1.25 times more likely to use) compared to those born in 1964, with strongest period effect in 2019. The subgroup analysis of monthly cannabis use by sex showed little variation in APC effects. There is a change in patterns of cannabis use among older adults and inclusion of birth cohort dimension improves the explanation of cannabis use trends. Adults in the 1950s birth cohort and increases in the normalisation of cannabis use could also be the key to explaining increasing monthly cannabis use.

Effects of cannabis regulation in Switzerland: Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

Cannabis is the most widely used illicit substance. Various countries have legalized cannabis for recreational use. Evidence on the health effects of cannabis regulation remains unclear and is mainly based on observational studies. To date, there is no randomized controlled study evaluating the impact of cannabis regulation for recreational use compared to the illicit market on relevant health indicators. The present study ("Weed Care") is the first to evaluate the impact of regulated cannabis access in pharmacies versus a waiting list control group representing the illicit market on problematic cannabis use as well as on mental and physical health. The study is divided into two parts-a randomized controlled study of 6 months followed by an observational study of 2 years. Participants (N = 374) are randomly assigned to either the experimental group with access to legal cannabis in pharmacies or to the waiting list control group representing the current legal framework in Switzerland, namely the illicit market. After 6 months, all participants will have access to legal cannabis for the following 2 years (observational study). The primary outcome is problematic cannabis use as measured with the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test-Revised (CUDIT-R). Secondary outcomes are cannabis use patterns, mental disorders (e.g., depression, anxiety, and psychosis) and physical health (e.g., respiratory symptoms). Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed online every 6 months. The study is approved by the responsible ethics committee as well as by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. Findings from this study may provide a scientific basis for future discussions about addiction medicine and cannabis policy in Switzerland. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05522205). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05522205.

Cannabis Regulation Through the “Without Right” Clause in Article 2(1) of EU Framework Decision 2004/757/jha on Illicit Drug Trafficking

Abstract Several EU states have shown initiatives towards a more lenient approach to the regulation of cannabis cultivation and trade for recreational use. One possibility that is being investigated is whether a national regulatory system for controlled trade of recreational cannabis can be developed in accordance of the EU Framework Decision 2004/757/jha. The ‘without right’ -clause in Article 2(1) of this decision, from a linguistic point of view, does seem to allow the introduction of such a licensing system. In fact, such a system would not cross the system or the purpose of the Framework Decision, if such licensing system does not result in cross-border effects or the hindering of transnational cooperation in combatting cross-border drug trafficking. However, this possibility is only of theoretical nature considering the clear and strict obligations ensuing from the UN narcotic drugs conventions. In order to regulate recreational cannabis within the boundaries of public international law, states can: (1) denounce the UN narcotic drugs conventions; (2) deviate from the obligations of the UN conventions on the basis of positive human rights obligations; (3) create an inter se agreement between like-minded states that deviates from the UN conventions; and (4) denounce the UN drugs conventions and re-access subsequently with a reservation allowing for regulation of recreational cannabis. We argue that these options can have a combined strengthening effect and indeed present a legally sound and politically viable opportunity to regulate recreational cannabis without denouncing the whole UN drug control system.

Evolution of cannabis regulations and their overlooked link with money laundering: Australia as a critical case study

PurposeThe 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.Design/methodology/approachThis 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.FindingsThis study finds support for the argument that prohibitive measures toward cannabis use contribute to increases in the need to launder generated proceeds.Research limitations/implicationsThe 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.Originality/valueTo 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.

Cannabis Regulation: A Comparative Study in Indonesia, Turkey, and Morocco

The purpose of this comparative study is to analyze the differences in legal and policy approaches between the three countries in dealing with the issue of cannabis use and distribution. This research uses a comparative descriptive approach by collecting data from various sources such as legal regulations, government reports, and related literature. The results of the analysis show that Indonesia, Turkey, and Morocco have different approaches to regulating Cannabis. Indonesia adopts a very strict approach by imposing heavy penalties for cannabis-related offenses. On the other hand, Turkey allows the medical use of cannabis under certain conditions and has reduced legal sanctions against offenses of using small amounts of cannabis. This was also done by Morocco in 2021. In Morocco, it has relaxed some aspects of cannabis regulation and directed efforts more towards rehabilitation than punishment. The comparative study in this article provides a deeper understanding of the variations in legal and policy approaches to the regulation of cannabis drugs in Indonesia, Turkey, and Morocco. The implications of these different approaches may provide valuable insights for other countries facing similar challenges in regulating cannabis. Keywords: Medical Cannabis, Comparative Law, Legality of Cannabis