Introduction to law reform options:
Clarifying
y g terminology
gy
Simon Lenton PhD MPsych(clin)
Room, R
R
R., Fi
Fischer,
h B
B., H
Hall,
ll W
W., L
Lenton,
t
S
S. and
d
Reuter, P. (2010) Cannabis policy - moving beyond
stalemate. New York: Oxford University Press.
www.ndri.curtin.edu.au
www.ndri.curtin.edu.au
Terms and ideas
ƒ
De-penalisation, decriminalisation, legalisation
ƒ
‘Law
Law on the books’
books ((‘de
de jure
jure’)) versus ‘law
law in action
action’ ((‘de
de facto
facto’))
ƒ
Country wide classifications are difficult
ƒ
Conceptual ‘ideal
ideal-types
types’ of reform models for purpose of analysis
analysis, yet
reality in national jurisdictions is messy or ‘non-ideal’
L i l ti options
Legislative
ti
1.Total Prohibition - illegal and strict criminal penalties
Legislative
g
Prohibition with an Expediency
p
y Principle
p - ‘defacto legalization’
g
2. Prohibition with Civil Penalties - ‘decriminalized’ – illegal but civil penalties
3 Partial Prohibition - ‘legalization’
3.
legalization of small amounts
4. Regulated availability - legal government controlled supply
5. Free Availability - full legalization – no controls
(McDonald et al., 1994)
Cannabis Control/Reform types
Room, Fischer, Hall, Lenton, Reuter (2010)
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Full prohibition (i
(i.e.,
e no reform)
Prohibition with cautioning or diversion (‘depenalization’)
Prohibition with civil penalties (‘decriminalization’)
( decriminalization )
Partial prohibition, based on
a) ‘de
de facto’ legalization (e
(e.g.,
g expediency principle)
b) ‘de jure’ legalization (including Medical Marijuana example of regulated availability)
Full Prohibition
ƒ Possession, use, manufacture, supply is illegal
ƒ Criminal, rather than civil, penalties apply
ƒ The status quo in many places
ƒ Issues:
ƒ Clearly consistent with the international drug treaties
ƒ Seen as giving an ‘unambiguous message’ against drugs
ƒ Evidence suggests deterrent effects are weak
ƒ Individual social costs of conviction are great
ƒ Economic costs of enforcement are considerable
ƒ Focus on use reduction doesn’t consider net harm
Prohibition with cautioning or
diversion (de-penalization)
ƒ Use of informal or formal diversion measures at various
stages of criminal justice process (e.g., arrest, pre-trial or
sentencing level)
ƒ Examples:
Diversion schemes in Australian states and territories
ƒ Issues:
ƒ Usually only apply to small number of offences - Use,
Use limited prior offences
ƒ Only selective reduction of punitive effects (e.g., conviction may remain)
p
can result in ‘net-widening’
g & decr. ‘warnings’
g
ƒ The wayy it is implemented
ƒ Best use of limited (and valuable) treatment resources?
ƒ Effectiveness?
Prohibition with civil
penalties (‘decriminalisation’)
ƒ Possession, use is illegal, but civil, rather than criminal,
penalties apply (Fine or suspension of MDL) to some
offences Criminal penalties to others
offences.
others.
ƒ Australia (SA, ACT, NT), Belgium, Italy, Portugal (some
aspects?)
ƒ Issues:
ƒ No worse than strict prohibition at deterring drug use
ƒ Social costs of infringement far less than conviction
ƒ Financial costs of far less than strict prohibition
ƒ The way it is implemented can result in ‘net-widening’
ƒ Can disadvantage those less able to pay fine – who may get criminalised
ƒ The
Th proportion
ti off fines
fi
paid
id can b
be llow
De facto Legalisation
ƒ Cannabis possession prohibited by law yet key principles of
justice (e.g., ‘expediency’) provide basis of non-enforcement
of given law in practice under specific circumstances
ƒ Parts of Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Spain
ƒ Issues:
ƒ Dutch experience is that cannabis supply has been separated by that for other
drugs by this model
ƒ Has been implemented despite the international drug treaties
ƒ Increased number cannabis coffeeshops may have increase use by youth
ƒ Pressure
P
ffrom other
th countries
t i and
d iinternational
t
ti
lb
bodies
di
ƒ If wholesale supply is not legal – the ‘backdoor’ problem
De jure Legalisation
ƒ Legality of cannabis possession/use implicitly or explicitly
enshrined
h i d iin standing
t di d
drug control
t l llaw
ƒ Alaska: Supreme Court (1975) barred criminalization of use
in privacy of home – spatial ‘legalisation’
legalisation - in state law
ƒ India – govt. controlled Bhang shops, Cannabis Social clubs
in Spain
ƒ ‘Medical Marijuana’ control systems in US states & Canada:
Licensed ‘medical
medical marjuana
marjuana’ users permitted by law to
obtain, possess & use cannabis products - Legalisation for
select population
ƒ Issues:
ƒ Probably in violation of International Treaties Except - for ‘treatment’ – ie MM
Cannabis Control/Reform types
Room, Fischer, Hall, Lenton, Reuter (2010)
ƒ
Full prohibition - Illegal and strict criminal penalties applied
ƒ
Prohibition with cautioning &/or diversion to treatment (‘depenalization’)
ƒ
Prohibition with civil penalties (‘decriminalization’) – illegal but civil penalties
ƒ
Partial prohibition, based on
a) ‘de facto’ legalization – illegal on books but not implemented uniformly
b) ‘de jure’ legalization - Legal on the books (includes ‘Medical Marijuana’)
Cannabis Law
Australia
ƒ 35% ever used cannabis (2010)
ƒ 10% used in last 12 mths (2010)
Cannabis Law
Prohibition
P
hibiti with
ith civil
i il penalties
lti
(infringement notices)
ƒ South Australia (1987)
ƒ Australian Capital Territory (1992)
ƒ Northern Territory (1996)
ƒ Western Australia ((2004-2011 ((07))))
Prohibition with cautioning
ƒ Tasmania (1998)
ƒ Victoria (1998)
ƒ New South Wales (2000)
ƒ Queensland (2001)
ƒ Western Australia (1998-2004, 2011)