Multinational overview of cannabis production regimes

Abstract

is an independent, not-for-prof it policy research orga nisation t hat a ims to improve polic y a nd decisionma k ing for t he public interest t hough resea rch a nd a na lysis. R A ND's publications do not necessarily ref lect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R ® is a registered trademark © 2013 WODC, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. Auteursrechten voorbehouden. Niets uit dit rapport mag worden verveelvuldigd en/of openbaar gemaakt door middel van druk, fotokopie, microfilm, digitale verwerking of anderszins, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van het WODC.

The Supply of Cannabis for Medical Use Through Cannabis Social Clubs in Belgium

“…Nevertheless, they continue to operate in a vulnerable legal context (Pardal, 2016a). Despite the Belgian prohibition on cannabis supply, CSCs have based their actions on their interpretation of a policy guideline issued in 2005 by the Minister of Justice and the College of Public Prosecutors (Kilmer et al, 2013; Pardal, 2016a, 2018a). This Ministerial Guideline assigned the lowest priority to the prosecution of cases involving the possession of a maximum of 3 g of cannabis or one cannabis plant (in the absence of aggravating circumstances or disturbance to the public order).…”

“…Cannabis Social Clubs (CSCs) emerged as a result of grassroots initiatives of groups of adult cannabis users who sought to create a model of (collective) self-supply, by ensuring the cultivation and distribution of cannabis among themselves, on a closed and nonprofit basis (Bewley-Taylor, Blickman, & Jelsma, 2014; Blickman, 2014; Kilmer, Kruithof, Pardal, Caulkins, & Rubin, 2013; Pardal, 2016b). The first such initiatives emerged in Spain during the 1990s (Arana & Montañés, 2011; Barriuso, 2011, 2012; Marín, 2008, 2009; Montañés, 2017; Parés & Bouso, 2015).…”

Determinants of Public Support for Marijuana Legalization in Uruguay, the United States, and El Salvador

“…Between 2010 and 2011, different groups of lawmakers sponsored a number of proposals to regulate individual cultivation of cannabis plants and the amount allowed for personal use. These bills were ultimately unsuccessful (Kilmer et al, 2013). At the same time, several civil society organizations mobilized in favor of more comprehensive legalization law (Garat, 2015).…”

“…Despite the role that pro-legalization activists played in pushing for policy change, it is doubtful that the regulation of cannabis would have been approved if it had depended on the type of popular referendum used to advance legalization in the United States. In fact, surveys conducted throughout 2013 showed that more than 61% of Uruguayans did not support the bill (Garat, 2015; Kilmer et al, 2013).…”

“…Actually, the processes in Uruguay and the United States have been very different. In Uruguay, marijuana legalization followed a top-down course in which the president and the national legislature agreed, with little initial public support, to pass the most comprehensive regulatory bill on marijuana in the Western Hemisphere (Kilmer, Kruithof, Pardal, Caulkins, & Rubin, 2013). Uruguay’s marijuana legalization law resulted not from growing popular demand, but rather from a strategy drawn up in the office of the president (Garat, 2015).…”