Upload
kory-hoover
View
217
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Our Relationship with Recreational Cannabis
Law Reform
It’s complicated…
AMHO 3rd Annual Conference
May 26 2015
Introduction
Mike DeVillaer
CAMH & McMaster University
Suzanne Witt-Foley
MakingConnections4Health
Disclosure
We have never accepted funding from any of the following drug industries:
• Tobacco• Alcohol• Pharma• Illegal drug cartels
This Session
• about questions as much as answers • not just a presentation • facilitated discussion • active participation is essential
Objectives
• increase awareness of complexity• understand various reasons for change• explore key logistical issues• explore some potential models for reform
Getting Oriented to Recreational Cannabis Law Reform
<< Youare here.
Current Statusof Cannabis Law Reform
• criminal justice approach not working • what to do?• reform experiences elsewhere• no assured results• lessons from current legal drug industries
Ontario Quick Stats
• 14.1% of adults used in past yr • 7.5% of adults report some harm• 23.0% of youth used in past yr• 3.0% gr. 7-12 report daily use • 3.0% gr. 9-12 criteria for dependence• 30,000+ admissions to addiction treatment
annually stating a problem with cannabis
Given that some people in particular circumstances
experience harm, why are various groups interested in liberalizing
cannabis laws?
Why liberalize?
• access to medicine• use without legal or financial risk• address social justice issues• economic opportunity for business sector• cost savings for govn’t from reduced
enforcement costs• tax revenue for government• increased revenue for drug education,
treatment & research
Competing Pressures
• address injustice • protect public health• provide new revenue for industry,
government & services• satisfy public preference
Impact of liberalization on prevalence of use, problems
• decriminalization does not lead to increases in use or problems
• Amsterdam (hybrid of decriminalization & legalization): initial increase in use; then flattened
• Grow Your Own (GYO) provisions in Alaska did not increase use
• most sites with legalization are too recent to have adequate data
Holy Trinity of Drug Epidemiology
• increased access of a population to a drug will increase use in that population
• increased use will lead to increased problems in that population
Logistical Issues
Types of Issues
• Power & Control • Legal• Industry Models• Manufacturing• Retail• Product Promotion• Taxation• Health Care
Power & Control
Who Calls the Shots?
• who develops the regulations?• flexibility of the regulations (ease of
changing)• centralized/decentralized • opt-out?
Legal Issues
Minimum Age
• Colorado & Washington: 21
• Ontario for alcohol: 19
• rationale for a higher or lower minimum age?
Driving & THC Levels
• can’t be zero-tolerance• detectable several
weeks after use• Colorado: 5 nanograms
per milliliter of blood
Other Legal Issues
• adult buys for under-age user• use in public• amount possessed • possession of contraband • host liability for conduct of impaired guests• impairment at work • grow your own
Industry Models
Possible Industry Models
• monopoly vs competitive• all phases ‘from seed to vape’ operated by
a monopoly• cannabis only vs combined with other
(tobacco, alcohol or pharma)
Manufacturing
Issues
Packaging
Loose-leaf product
vs. cigarettes, joints branding vs plain
packaging marketing research:
branded packaging important
warning labels
Product Innovation• potency, concentrated product (oil)• edibles a safety risk for children • flavourings popular among young
for tobacco & alcohol• Nova Scotia recently banned all
tobacco flavourings • Ontario too?
Retail Issues
Specialized/Diversified Retail Outlets
• sell cannabis only• same store as alcohol, tobacco, pharma• popular with consumers for convenience• convenience increases consumption
Pot
Drugs
Us
Us
On-premises Use (Bars & Restaurants)
• not in Colorado• coffee shops in Amsterdam
Other Retail
• days & hours of operation• limit amount purchased • minimum age for servers• liable for customers who become impaired• smart serve training required
Other Retail (cont’d)
• outlet density – per population or geographic area
• proximity to schools, playgrounds, recreation, drug treatment facilities
Other Retail (cont’d)
• vending machines; home delivery services • pricing controls: minimum pricing; bulk
discounts• sales to non-Canada residents (cannabis
tourism)
Product Promotion
Advertising, Marketing, Sponsorships
• should promotion be allowed at all ?• restrict content: no cartoon characters,
animals, or celebrities or other images attractive to children
• restrictions on location: eg. not near schools, playgrounds, drug treatment
• fund counter-promotion campaigns• promotion already widespread on internet;
cannot be contained
Taxation
As certain as death, the taxman cometh…
• major draw for government• taxes collected at federal or provincial
level • by price or by weight• black market implications
Impact on Health Care System
General Impact
• decriminalization has no impact on use of social and health services
• legalization is uncertain
Impact of legal recreational cannabis on medical marijuana policy
• does medical marijuana become irrelevant?• unless covered by health plan• how likely is that ?
Impact on A&MH Treatment Programs
• if legalization increases # users, then more people with problems
• increased demand for service• increase in cases & complexity of cases
Models for Reform
PublicHealth
SocialJustice
Some Context
“Legalization, combined with strict health-focused regulation, provides an opportunity to reduce the harms” [from prohibition].
- CAMH Cannabis Policy Framework (2014)
“…there is a lot of policy space between traditional prohibition and such commercial legalization.”
- Rand Corporation: Considering Marijuana Legalization (2015)
Models
Punitive Decriminalization (CAMH & Rand)
Non-punitive Decriminalization (Rand)
For-profit Legalization (CAMH & Rand)
Not-for-profit Legalization (Rand)
Punitive Decriminalization Model
• retain all prohibitions• reduce or stop enforcement• decrease penalties for minor offences• eliminate criminal records• charge a fine
Punitive Decriminalization
Advantages & Disadvantages
• ends most social injustice• might still enable some discrimination &
harassment• might deter people from accessing
treatment, harm reduction & education • fines have no public health or social justice
purpose
Non-punitive Decriminalization Model
• similar to punitive, but … • no fines or other penalties for minor
cannabis-related offences• eg. possession of small amounts
Non-punitive Decriminalization Advantages & Disadvantages
• ends harassment & discrimination of users• removes deterrence to use treatment, harm
reduction & education programs• reduces resource draw on enforcement;
maybe on justice bureaucracy• response to public use could be an
opportunity for education, harm reduction & encouraging voluntary counseling
Legal For-profit Model
• private industry provides agriculture, manufacturing, distribution, retail (seed to ‘vape’)
• government regulates: develops legislation, provides licenses, monitors compliance, punishes violators
• legal drugs (tobacco, alcohol, pharma) are regulated now in Ontario & Canada
Legal Private For-profit Context of Current Legal Drug Industries
• tobacco & alcohol biggest drug problems• pharma is becoming increasingly serious• 3 legal drug industries: tobacco, alcohol,
pharma (TAP)• legacy of indiscriminate pursuit of profit• disregard for public health & the law
Legal Private For-profit Advantages & Disadvantages
• familiar model• regulation protects public health, but…• regulations not always evidence-based • lobbying: The National Cannabis Industry
Association (NCIA)• government reluctant to compromise
industry revenue or tax revenue
Legal Private For-profit Advantages & Disadvantages (cont’d)
• regulators not transparent• regulations not meaningfully enforced • small fines, small out-of-court settlements• little accountability
A 4th legal for-profit drug industry?
Legal Not-for-profit Model
• operated by a government-appointed authority holding a monopoly
• all components of the supply chain• agriculture, manufacturing, distribution, retail• seed-to-vape
Legal Not-for-profit Advantages & Disadvantages
• alcohol monopolies protect public health better than less-regulated models
• Board consists primarily of people with expertise in public health
• mandate: meet existing demand within public health framework
• priority: providing education & harm reduction
Legal Not-for-profit Advantages & Disadvantages (cont’d)
• surpluses fund new innovative ideas in education, treatment, research
• not to govn’t general accounts• reversibility – easier to go from monopoly
to commercial competitive than the reverse
Some Final Thoughts
• TAP industries value revenue over rule of law & public health
• regulation inadequate; public health compromised
• TAP too powerful to convert to public health model
• cannabis provides opportunity to try a different kind of model
• will entrepreneurs & government forgo the revenue opportunity?
More final thoughts…
The models that we find acceptable will depend upon our values–policy based upon public health & social
justice –balanced with revenue for industry &
govn’t– Is latter a level playing field?
And another one…
• major advantage of legalization over decriminalization is revenue
• more transparency on societal merits of private interests trumping social welfare
• private wealth vs public health
Rand Report
“What kinds of organizations do we want selling these intoxicants? Those concerned only with profit, or those with a greater goal of producing social benefit or minimizing social harm?”
CAMH Framework
“It is critical that legal reform of cannabis control be conducted with public health as its primary objective and that the resulting regulatory framework be carefully protected from commercial and fiscal interests.”
What Next?
Contact Us
Mike:porticonetwork.ca/web/drug-ppp
Suzanne:suzannewittfoley.com