Policy analysis
Cannabis policy reforms in the Americas: A comparative analysis of Colorado, Washington, and Uruguay

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.05.010Get rights and content

Abstract

Legal reforms in the Americas are influencing the public debate on cannabis policy. Uruguay and the two US states of Colorado and Washington have taken steps to regulate and legitimize the production, distribution, and use of cannabis and its derivatives. Earlier experiences with medical cannabis in the United States and limited access and production models in Europe have been insightful. However, these reforms are going further still, venturing into a new area of cannabis policy. A lack of empirical evidence regarding the effects of such reforms poses a challenge for policymakers. These examples will inform the design and implementation of any future cannabis policies. Therefore, a clear understanding of the details of each jurisdiction is necessary in developing future legal changes. Literature comparing the models of Uruguay, Colorado, and Washington is thin. This paper is based on an exhaustive examination of the laws, regulations, and discussions with regulators and functionaries of each jurisdiction. The research and analysis herein will provide policymakers with a greater understanding of the laws and regulations relevant to legal cannabis in these three jurisdictions, as well as draw to their attention some potential impacts and challenges of cannabis reform that require additional consideration to ensure public safety and health.

Introduction

Legal reforms in the Americas are influencing the current global debate on cannabis policy. Existing evidence on cannabis regulation from Europe and the US has been instructive in advancing the policy debate. In some parts of the world public opinion has shifted this debate toward how to regulate cannabis. Uruguay and the two US states of Colorado and Washington are regulating and legitimizing the production, distribution, and use of cannabis and its derivatives for non-medical or non-scientific purposes. Earlier reforms, including de facto legalization in Europe or medical access in the US, sought to stay within the confines of the international drug control treaties, never regulating the entire non-medical cannabis market. Deviating from earlier reforms, Uruguay, Colorado, and Washington are seeking to regulate the entire cannabis market. Their experience will contribute to a base of evidence and will serve as legal models. This paper further enhances the debate by providing research into the intricacies of the rules that regulate cannabis in each of the three aforementioned jurisdictions.

Policymakers should be cognizant of the details in designing broad reforms, learning from the successes and failures of previous cannabis-related initiatives while taking into account other theoretical models. The literature on regulating cannabis has been constructive in describing actual and theoretical regimes, including new international accords (Caulkins et al., 2012, Kilmer et al., 2013, Rolles and Murkin, 2013, Room et al., 2010). A granular examination of regulations in Uruguay, Colorado, and Washington will serve as a useful guide for policymakers. Today, the literature comparing these three regulatory models is thin; one notable exception is Rolles and Murkin (2013). Additionally, articles by Room (2013) and Caulkins (2014) provide comparative analysis and important conclusions regarding public health, eschewing commercialization in favor of more restrictive models. This paper advances the research of the three aforementioned jurisdictions, providing a comparative table of the regulations while examining, in short, some of the broader possible policy challenges posed by these recent reforms.

Section snippets

Background

Prohibitions on cannabis have deterred many policymakers from considering sweeping policy changes. Yet, cannabis control policies have undergone several waves of reform, moving away from the criminal penalties dictated by the international drug control framework (Blickman, Bewley-Taylor, & Jelsma, 2014, pp. 27–31). Reforms in the US were first limited to reducing sanctions for use, but later included medical access to cannabis. European policy reforms experimented with some means of permitted,

Comparative analysis

The analysis below is based on the research of recent laws and regulations, as well as in-person and virtual discussions with regulators and policymakers from each of the three jurisdictions, including on-site visits to Denver, Colorado in October of 2013 and Seattle, Washington in May of 2014.

Conclusions

As the debate on cannabis evolves, legislators, policymakers, and regulators considering changes to cannabis policy should be aware of ongoing reforms, monitor changes, and make incremental adjustments based on new evidence. This is especially true as the debate continues in other parts of the Americas, as witnessed by initiatives in other states in the US, and countries in the Western Hemisphere (Allen, 2014, Braveboy, 2013, La Nacion, 2013).

Earlier reforms from Europe and the United States

References (38)

  • AGO, 2014 No. 2

    Statutes—Initiative and referendum—Ordinances—Counties—Cities and towns—Preemption—Police powers—Whether statewide initiative establishing system for licensing marijuana producers, processors and retailers preempts local ordinances. Memorandum from Attorney General Robert Ferguson, January 16, 2014

    (2014)
  • D. Allen

    Ganja green light this year

    (2014)
  • M. Barriuso Alonso

    Cannabis social clubs in Spain: A normalizing alternative underway

    Transnational Institute series on legislative reform of drug policies, Nr. 9

    (2011)
  • T. Blickman et al.

    The rise and decline of cannabis in the UN drug control system and options for reform

    (2014)
  • M. Braveboy

    Call to legalise ganja resonates with CARICOM leaders

    (2013)
  • J. Caulkins

    Nonprofit motive: How to avoid a likely and dangerous corporate takeover of the legal marijuana market

    (2014 March)
  • J. Caulkins et al.

    How much will the 25/25/25 tax scheme actually impact the price of cannabis? I-502 Project #430-8a

    (2013)
  • J. Caulkins et al.

    Marijuana legalization what everyone needs to know

    (2012)
  • Cifra

    Los Uruguayos y la Regulación de la Producción, la Venta y el Consumo de Marihuana

    (2013 September)
  • Colorado Department of Revenue

    Permanent rules related to the colorado retail marijuana code

    (2013)
  • Department of Justice

    Guidance regarding marijuana enforcement

    (2013)
  • El Observador

    Compradores y cultivadores deberán declarar dónde viven

    (2014 May)
  • B. Freeman et al.

    The case for the plain packaging of tobacco products

    Addiction

    (2008)
  • T. Garvey et al.

    State legalization of recreational marijuana: Selected legal issues, R43034, Congressional research services report

    (2013 April)
  • U. Goni

    Uruguay sets price of legalised cannabis at $1 a gram

    (2013 October)
  • P.J. Gruenewald

    Regulating availability: How access to alcohol affects drinking and problems in youth and adults

    Alcohol Research and Health

    (2011)
  • W. Hickey

    The true story of the great marijuana crash of 2011

    (2013 September)
  • J. Ingold

    High times, Westword sue Colorado over marijuana ad restrictions

    (2014 February)
  • B. Kilmer et al.

    Multinational overview of cannabis production regimes

    (2013)
  • Cited by (0)

    The analysis and statements made in this document are of the author's alone and not of the OAS.

    View full text