Policy analysisCannabis policy reforms in the Americas: A comparative analysis of Colorado, Washington, and Uruguay☆
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)
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)Ganja green light this year
(2014)Cannabis social clubs in Spain: A normalizing alternative underway
Transnational Institute series on legislative reform of drug policies, Nr. 9
(2011)- et al.
The rise and decline of cannabis in the UN drug control system and options for reform
(2014) Call to legalise ganja resonates with CARICOM leaders
(2013)Nonprofit motive: How to avoid a likely and dangerous corporate takeover of the legal marijuana market
(2014 March)- et al.
How much will the 25/25/25 tax scheme actually impact the price of cannabis? I-502 Project #430-8a
(2013) - et al.
Marijuana legalization what everyone needs to know
(2012) Los Uruguayos y la Regulación de la Producción, la Venta y el Consumo de Marihuana
(2013 September)Permanent rules related to the colorado retail marijuana code
(2013)
Guidance regarding marijuana enforcement
Compradores y cultivadores deberán declarar dónde viven
The case for the plain packaging of tobacco products
Addiction
State legalization of recreational marijuana: Selected legal issues, R43034, Congressional research services report
Uruguay sets price of legalised cannabis at $1 a gram
Regulating availability: How access to alcohol affects drinking and problems in youth and adults
Alcohol Research and Health
The true story of the great marijuana crash of 2011
High times, Westword sue Colorado over marijuana ad restrictions
Multinational overview of cannabis production regimes
Cited by (0)
- ☆
The analysis and statements made in this document are of the author's alone and not of the OAS.