Emerging prospects for non-medical cannabis legalisation in New Zealand: An initial view and contextualization

Legalization of recreational cannabis: Facilitators and barriers to switching from an illegal to a legal source

•

Limiting surveillance, quantity limits, and preserving anonymity is a facilitator.

•

Competitive pricing from the illicit market and heavy regulation are barriers.

•

Loyalty to current illicit suppliers is a barrier to switching to a licit market.

Illicit markets persist in places where recreational cannabis has been legalized. This study aimed to identify perceived facilitators/barriers of switching from an illicit to a licit cannabis source. Using a cross-sectional qualitative approach, 529 students, from one New Zealand university, completed a survey investigating the facilitators/barriers to switching through two open-ended questions. Perceived facilitators for switching included: safety (63.1%); price (42.7%); legal, no risk of convictions (35.3%); increased accessibility (32.3%); product diversity (14.2%). Perceived barriers included: price (66.4%); judgement (36%); regulation (28.9%); loyalty to current supplier (27.2%); reduced accessibility (13.2%). The findings provide recommendations for policies aimed at tipping people in favor of a licit over an illicit source. Avoiding arrest/convictions, and easier access, were not primary facilitators for switching. Thus, providing a licit market might be insufficient in the absence of other competitive factors, such as communicating improved product safety. Competitive pricing and regulation (tetrahydrocannabinol strength/quantity limits) were also barriers. Given legal markets aimed at minimizing harm are constrained with competing in these areas, it is significant that our findings identified other barriers which could be overcome, including limiting surveillance and quantity limits and positioning stores to preserve anonymity. The findings also highlight that loyalty to current illicit suppliers will be a significant barrier.

Assessing New Zealand's Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill: prospects and challenges

BACKGROUND

Few countries have developed detailed legislative proposals for legalizing cannabis. New Zealand recently released the Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill (CLCB) that will be the subject of a referendum in September 2020.

AIMS

To assess the CLCB, drawing on emerging evidence from cannabis legalization overseas, public health research on alcohol and tobacco and the attempt to establish a regulated market for 'legal highs' in New Zealand.

DISCUSSION

The CLCB proposes a strictly regulated commercial cannabis market that resembles the Canadian approach, but notably without on-line sales or regional heterogeneity in retail distribution. The objective of the CLCB of lowering cannabis use over time appears at odds with the largely commercial cannabis sector that will focus on expanding sales. The CLCB includes provision for home cultivation and social benefit operators, but it is not clear what priority these operators will receive. A potency cap of 15% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) for cannabis plants is included, and this is at the high end of black-market cannabis. The proposed progressive product tax based on THC will be challenging to implement. There is no formal minimum price, but rather discretionary powers to raise the excise if the price drops too much. The CLCB includes a comprehensive ban on advertising, but non-conventional on-line promotion will be difficult to suppress. The central government cannabis authority is tasked with developing local retail outlet policies. We caution against the temptation to employ an interim regulatory regime following a positive referendum result, because a partially regulated market will expose users to health risks and undermine public support.

CONCLUSIONS

New Zealand's Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill's objective of reducing cannabis use via a commercial market will be challenging to achieve. The bill could be strengthened with formal minimum pricing, lower potency cap and greater clarity concerning social benefit operators and the role of local government.

The Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines (LRCUG): A ready-made targeted prevention tool for cannabis in New Zealand

Cannabis use is common, especially among young people, and associated with risks for select acute and chronic adverse health and social outcomes. New Zealand features overall high cannabis use levels, yet may soon follow other jurisdictions and implement legalization of non-medical cannabis use and supply towards public health objectives. While existing cannabis-oriented interventions mainly focus on primary prevention and treatment (e.g., for dependence), key harms from use are crucially influenced by risk factors that can be modified by the user. On this basis, and similar to other health behavior-oriented interventions, ‘Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines’ (LRCUG), consisting of 10 recommendation clusters for lower-risk use, were systematically developed in Canada as an evidence-based, targeted prevention tool towards reducing adverse outcomes among cannabis users. We briefly summarize the concept of and experiences with implementation of the LRCUG elsewhere, and describe how their adoption as a population health intervention may serve public health goals of possible cannabis legalization in New Zealand and elsewhere.

•

Cannabis is common, but involves risks for acute and chronic adverse outcomes.

•

Many adverse outcomes are influenced by user-modifiable risk factors.

•

Cannabis use and supply legalization may be implemented in New Zealand.

•

Evidence-based ‘Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines’ are a targeted prevention tool.

•

LRCUG may serve a valuable intervention towards legalization’s public health outcomes.

Facing the option for the legalisation of cannabis use and supply in New Zealand: An overview of relevant evidence, concepts and considerations

ISSUES

Non-medical cannabis policies are changing, including towards legalisation-with-regulation frameworks. New Zealand will hold a public referendum on cannabis legalisation in 2020. We reviewed data on cannabis use and health/social harms; policy reform options; experiences with and outcomes of reforms elsewhere; and other relevant considerations towards informing policy choices in the upcoming referendum.

APPROACH

Relevant epidemiological, health, social, criminal justice and policy studies and data were identified and comprehensively reviewed.

KEY FINDINGS

Cannabis use is common (including in New Zealand) and associated with risks for health and social harms, mainly concentrated in young users; key harms are attributable to criminalisation. 'Decriminalisation' reforms have produced ambivalent results. Existing cannabis legalisation frameworks vary considerably in main parameters. Legalisation offers some distinct advantages, for example regulated use, products and user education, yet outcomes depend on essential regulation parameters, including commercialisation, and policy ecologies. While major changes in use are not observed, legalisation experiences are inconclusive to date, including mixed health and social outcomes, with select harms increasing and resilient illegal markets. It is unclear whether legalisation reduces cannabis exposure or social harms (e.g. from enforcement) for youth.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

No conclusive overall evidence on the outcomes of legalisation elsewhere exists, nor is evidence easily transferable to other settings. Legalisation offers direct social justice benefits for adults, yet overall public health impacts are uncertain. Legalisation may not categorically improve health or social outcomes for youth. Legalisation remains a well-intended, while experimental policy option towards more measured and sensible cannabis control and overall greater policy coherence, requiring close monitoring and possible adjustments depending on setting-specific outcomes.

Substance Abuse and Public Health: A Multilevel Perspective and Multiple Responses

Substance abuse has been a thorny public health concern throughout human history. Manifestly, prevention and treatment are the two main strategies commonly adopted to tackle the problem of substance abuse. They are in fact cross-disciplinary, and they relate to the various domains of heredity, biology, psychology, cognitive science, family, social development and cultural structures. This special issue, "Substance Abuse, Environment and Public Health," has published empirical studies from different regions and countries globally to enhance the international exchange of latest views and findings on the etiology, processes and influences of substance abuse across different domains, through which a multilevel perspective is considered more helpful for analyzing its complex nature, courses and consequences. This in turn suggests the possible need to employ multiple responses dynamically and integratively in the prevention and treatment of substance abuse.