Drugs and Crime

Bewley-Taylor, David; Jelsma, Martin

doi:10.1093/law/9780190947842.003.0016

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The C61 treaty is a delicate equilibrium between the labour of merging several previous international legal instruments into a new, single text, and the geopolitical developments of the postwar era (Jelsma et al., 2014; Krawitz et al., 2018: 6–11; Riboulet-Zemouli, 2018). The limited knowledge of the active constituents of the plant at the time contributed such imprecise language.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Cannabis’ ontologies I: Conceptual issues with Cannabis and cannabinoids terminology

Riboulet-Zemouli¹

2020

Drug Science, Policy and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Identify a coherent nomenclature for Cannabis sativa L. derived products and their analogues. Design Research undertaken in parallel to the three-year assessment of Cannabis derivatives by the World Health Organisation. The scope is limited to Cannabis products intended for human incorporation (internal and topical consumption). Primarily embedded in pharmacognosy, the study incorporates a wide range of scholarly and grey literature, folk knowledge, archives, pharmacopœias, international law, field pharmacy, clinical and herbal medicine data, under a philosophical scrutiny. Generic and Cannabis-specific nomenclatural frames are compared to determine the extent to which they coincide or conflict. Results All lexica reviewed use weak, ambiguous, or inconsistent terms. There is insufficient scientific basis for terms and concepts related to Cannabis at all levels. No sound classification exists: current models conflict by adopting idiosyncratic, partial, outdated, or utilitarian schemes to arrange the extraordinarily numerous and diverse derivatives of the C. sativa plant. In law and policy, no clear or unequivocal boundary between herbal and non-herbal drugs, nor natural and synthetic cannabinoids was found; current nomenclatures need updates. In science, the botanical Cannabis lexicon overlooks parthenocarpy, and wide disagreement remains as to the taxonomy and systematics of the plant; chemical research should address differences in kinds between synthetic cannabinoids; pharmacopœias include little information related to Cannabis, and disagree on broader classes of herbal medicines, virtually failing to embrace many known Cannabis medicines. Since existing products and compounds fail to be categorised in an evidence-based manner, confusions will likely increase as novel cannabinoid compounds, genetic and biotechnological modifications surge. Conclusions The lack of clarity is comprehensive: for patients, physicians, and regulators. This study proposes an update of terms at several levels. It points at gaps in morphological descriptions in botany and pharmacognosy and a need for a metaphysical address of cannabinoids. Methods of obtention are identified as a common criterion to distinguish products; the way forward suggests a mutually exclusive nomenclatural pattern based on the smallest common denominator of obtention methods. In the context of a swelling number of Cannabis products being consumed (be it via medical prescription, adult-use, ‘hemp’ foodstuff and cosmetics, or other purposes), this study can assist research, contribute to transparent labelling of products, consumer safety and awareness, pharmacovigilance, medical standards of care, and an update of prevention and harm reduction approaches. It can also better inform regulatory policies surrounding C. sativa, its derivatives, and other cannabinoid-containing products.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Cannabis’ ontologies I: Conceptual issues with Cannabis and cannabinoids terminology

Riboulet-Zemouli¹

2020

Drug Science, Policy and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2020, the UN re-scheduled cannabis ( 4 ) from Schedule IV (drugs considered to be the most dangerous, with limited medicinal or therapeutic value, e.g., heroin) to a Schedule I narcotic (drugs with addictive properties but with identified potential for medicinal or therapeutic uses). This places cannabis in the same scheduling as methadone, morphine, and oxycodone ( 5 – 7 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some of the basis for its re-classification was partly due to the growing evidence on the significant health benefits for children, particularly with certain forms of epilepsy and autism ( 6 ), as well as easing the symptoms and side effects in those undergoing cancer treatment ( 7 ). Part of this re-classification was done in the hope to give scientists and authorities more freedom in investigating its potential benefits, whilst also allowing more strict control on how it is produced and distributed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cannabis and children: risk mitigation strategies for edibles

Conerney,

Steinmetz,

Wakefield

et al. 2024

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the era of (re)legalisation of medicinal and recreational cannabis, accidental and intentional exposure to edibles, cannabis-infused food products, has increased substantially. However, there is particular concern regarding younger age groups. Most concerning is the increase in hospitalisations. According to a study by Myran et al. (1), provinces in Canada, where the sale of edibles is permitted, saw an increase in paediatric poisonings due to unintentional consumption of edibles. Similar trends have been observed in “legalised states” in the US, such as Colorado (2). The impact of using cannabis at an early age, but particularly the impact of accidental exposure to high THC quantities, may have negative mental or physical health outcomes. Whilst regulatory restrictions vary significantly from one legalised region to another, it is difficult to identify a best practice. The aim of this study is to identify and discuss new and existing risk mitigation strategies to give guidance to policymakers. Furthermore, practical aspects, such as compliance (e.g. audits by authorities), are discussed. It is noted that edibles have been around much longer than recent political attempts to regulate them.

show abstract

“…Three incentives have contributed to treaty violations: first, the insistence on unrealistic "one-size-fits-all" arrangements, applying universal rules to an asymmetrical international context and placing a disproportionate burden on more vulnerable state parties and social groups; second, the acknowledgment of the "unintended consequences" of drug prohibition (Costa, 2008); and third, the failure to modify the conventions' principles, norms, and rules in light of new scientific evidence of its flaws and harmful consequences (Babor et al, 2010;Jelsma et al, 2018).…”

Section: Conventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay

Mena¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Palavras-chave: Cânabis. Política de drogas. Teoria de regimes internacionais. Movimentos sociais. Comunidades epistêmicas. Ciclo de políticas públicas. SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 A brief overview of the argument 1.2. Challenging the international law 2. INTERNATIONAL DRUG CONTROL REGIME: HISTORY, INSTITUTIONS AND THEORETICAL APPROACHES 2.1 Drugs: from commodities to evildoers 2.1.1 Transnational moral entrepreneurs and US foreign policy 2.1.2 The Versailles Treaty as a coercive tool for adherence 2.1.3 US hegemony and cannabis criminalization 2.1.2.1 Cannabis in the US before the IDCR 2.2 Treaties, institutions and norms 2.2.1 The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 2.2.2 The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances 2.2.3 The 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychoactive Substances 2.3 Quasi-universal ratification: how "vice would pay homage to virtue" 2.3.1 The lack of a sanction system and the US unilateral certification 3. REGIME'S INTRUSIVENESS AND DOMESTIC IMPACT: EXTERNALITIES COLLECTIVE ACTION AND DEFECTION 3.1 Cost-Effectiveness 3.2 Epistemic communities, social movements organizations and transnational advocacy networks 3.2.1 Social movement organizations and drugs political problems 3.2.2 Cannabis legalization movements in the US and legalization and regulation of medical marijuana 3.2.2.1 Medical marijuana regulation in the US 9 3.2.2 Transnational advocacy networks and the legitimacy of drug policy debate 107 3.3 Collective action, media and public opinion 3.2.1 Information framing, acceptance and public support 3.4 Flexibility, defection and breach 3.4.1 Golden straightjacket or normative flexibility: the issue of interpretation 4. CANNABIS LEGALIZATION EXPERIMENTS: HOW POLICY WAS CHANGED? 4.1. Policy cycles and local cannabis laws shifts 4.2 Driving forces in cannabis legalization agenda-setting 4.3 A causal model for the advent of legal adult-use cannabis markets 5. CASE STUDIES 5.1 The United States: federal dilemma 5.1.1 Colorado 5.1.2 Washington 5.2 Uruguay 6. CONCLUSION: DOMESTIC CHOICES OVER INTERNATIONAL RULING167 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

show abstract

Drugs and Crime

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

‘Cannabis’ ontologies I: Conceptual issues with Cannabis and cannabinoids terminology

‘Cannabis’ ontologies I: Conceptual issues with Cannabis and cannabinoids terminology

Cannabis and children: risk mitigation strategies for edibles

Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About