In the second of a two-part series, Cannabiz editor-at-large Rhys Cohen examines the models around the world for legalising recreational cannabis and what they might mean if applied in Australia.

Let’s assume you’re someone who believes we should legalise cannabis for recreational use. Or you might prefer the terms ‘social use’ or ‘adult use’.

You might already have a clear idea about what legalisation looks like. And if you do, that’s probably based on what you’ve heard about or seen in other places that have already legalised cannabis, like California or Canada.

The idea of walking into a swanky, upmarket venue where you’re greeted by a smiling employee ready to inform you of today’s specials might appeal to you. Or maybe you’ve always dreamed of turning your family farm into a high-tech cultivation facility.

On the other hand, you might not have a pre-conceived notion of what legalisation looks like. You might simply believe – as do 78% of Australians – that the possession of cannabis should not be a criminal offence. Or you might support people’s right to use cannabis in principle, but have reservations about commercialising it.

Complex options

The point I’m making here is that ‘legalisation’ is not a generic, well-established, pre-made policy that can be turned on like a light switch. Legalisation does not automatically mean party bus tours or billboard advertisements.

There are a whole bunch of different ways to regulate cannabis. One useful way to think about these approaches comes from a publication by John Caulkins and colleagues. In this diagram, broad categories of cannabis regulation are shown on a spectrum. On the left is one extreme – the status quo, but with more people going to jail. On the right is the other extreme – commercial legalisation without regulation.

In between are a bunch of viable alternatives, each of which could be implemented in any number of different ways. The approach most pro-legalisation Australians would be familiar with is the second from the right – the ‘standard commercial model’. Hardly ‘standard’ as it includes a bunch of US States and Canada, each with their own unique features and quirks, but moving on…

The variety of these options can make legalisation debates confusing. But it is important to remember that what ‘legalisation’ looks like is not set in stone. In terms of a potential Australian cannabis framework, everything is on the table. Theoretically speaking, at least.

Plausible scenarios

Theory is great but, in practice, what type of cannabis framework is most likely to be implemented in Australia? Looking at that diagram, I reckon we can discount the models that would require the government to get their hands dirty cultivating or dispensing cannabis themselves.

In some places in the US and Canada, State/Province governments already ran liquor stores, so they ended up running cannabis stores. But direct public ownership is, to put it mildly, unfashionable in Australian political circles. We don’t do it with alcohol, we didn’t really end up doing it with medicinal cannabis (that’s another story), and I don’t think it’s likely with recreational cannabis either.

We can also probably rule out the Dutch model, where illegally grown cannabis sold through store fronts is tolerated by the police. That was a compromise born out of necessity, and unlikely to be repeated.

For-profit legalisation

One plausible scenario is that, should cannabis be legalised, a strongly regulated private sector dominated by a few, large companies would do the heavy lifting in terms of cultivation, manufacture/packaging, distribution and retail. That could occur in combination with strictly limited personal cultivation, but that’s not guaranteed.

This might include limited, specialist store fronts; no public consumption; age restrictions; a ban on advertising; plain packaging; potency controls; daily purchase limits… I’m basically just imagining the New Zealand framework but more conservative, probably without consumption venues, and complicated by State/Territory variations.

The Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill failed to win majority support in the New Zealand referendum last year.

The upside of this approach is that it facilitates easy retail access to a wide variety of products, and potentially generates a lot of economic value. Store fronts, employees, businesses etc. The downside is the commercialisation of cannabis, and all the potentially nasty stuff that brings. Cannabis companies – like all for-profit companies – have a vested interest in selling more products to more consumers, which isn’t always a good thing.

For medicinal cannabis patients, the commercial legalisation of recreational cannabis might have additional drawbacks. In Canada, many companies threw their time and energy into the recreational sector at the expense of patients. And lingering issues such as the unfair taxation of medicinal cannabis products are still unaddressed.

The New Zealand model (if it had been implemented) might have navigated some of those issues. But there are other possibilities that don’t require massive countervailing regulations to keep a recreational cannabis industry in check.

Non-commercial legalisation

Legalising the consumption, possession, and personal cultivation of cannabis is one alternative. And the ACT has shown us that, so far, this is a modest step with no obvious downsides.

In the 12 months since the ACT decriminalised cannabis, we have not yet seen any increase in hospital admissions, drug-driving offences, rates of cannabis use, or organised crime. Police and the courts have saved time pursuing low-level cannabis offences. And people have been able to grow and use their own cannabis.

But not everyone has access to an appropriately sized plot of land. And I for one can’t even grow dirt. So clearly this framework can be improved on. We could also legalise the non-commercial sharing of cannabis. Or even allow people to form not-for-profit organisations that cultivate on behalf of their members.

“In the 12 months since the ACT decriminalised cannabis, we have not yet seen any increase in hospital admissions, drug-driving offences, rates of cannabis use, or organised crime.”

These kinds of cannabis ‘social clubs’ are widespread in some parts of the world, most notably in Spain. The advantage of this approach is that it facilitates access to the kinds of cannabis products and services most appropriate for members without introducing commercial incentives.

A club comprised mostly of members living in the middle of the city could cultivate somewhere rural and send cannabis to members through the post (this already happens with medicinal cannabis shipped to patients from pharmacies, so it’s not as wild as it sounds). Another club based out of Mullumbimby, for example, might prefer to not only cultivate closer to home, but have a community space for members to socialise and use cannabis together.

Cannabis social clubs tend to do a surprisingly good job of regulating themselves in the absence of a formal legal framework because they are comprised of people who are accountable to each other. You wouldn’t spray harmful pesticides on your neighbour’s veggie patch, and you rely on your fellow club members to behave in a similarly supportive fashion. But we could also build as much wrap-around regulation as we want or need. It’s all up for debate.

The verdict?

I’m not necessarily saying that cannabis social clubs, or the New Zealand approach, or whatever’s going on in Colorado, are better or worse than each other. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of NZ. And I’ve thoroughly enjoyed visiting the US and Canada and can totally see the attraction of various North American models.

The bottom line for me is this: commercial legalisation can appear (to the public, politicians etc) quite risky. There are some potential downsides for medicinal cannabis patients. Designing and implementing a commercial framework is time consuming and difficult. And it would probably be impossible without both Commonwealth and State/Territory support.

On the other hand, non-commercial legalisation of some kind is already in place in the ACT. Building on that model would be comparatively easy. And there’s nothing stopping the other States and Territories from following suit. It’s a quicker, simpler, less contentious approach. And who knows, down the track, we might commercialise cannabis as well. That’s not off the table.

But this is all just my opinion. What do you think?

Join the Conversation

10 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. As an Australian for tax paying purposes I’d like tax to be collected from the product I buy. Overseas people are paying less then half the price for superior quality and their governments collect tax. Wake up Australia, you’re getting ripped off.

  2. Great post and thanks for sharing. I think a halfway point between outright prohibition and a free market would be a great outcome from the review currently underway in Victoria. Perversely however, I wouldn’t underestimate industry attempts to block changes that aim to loosen laws around home cultivation. It would be naive to think multi-million dollar investments would be made without assurances at a state and federal level that provide some protection to this relatively new industry. Sadly, my outlook is pessimistic overall and legal cannabis will continue to be available to those that can afford the extortionate product and consultation fees involved with going the medical option. I hope to be proven wrong, but neither of the major parties have any appetite to relax laws around recreational use, not now and not ever it seems. For the rest of us, there is little option but to continue to access cannabis through tried and sort of trusted black market sources.

  3. Thought-provoking – thanks Rhys. It’s likely to be slow and steady, that’s for sure. I’d predict state-by-state legalisation will happen long before a national change. We still need at least 5 years before the conservative forces in politics will allow any of these options nationally. With the USA about to make federal changes, I’m sure that will inspire state-based changes soon enough.

  4. Legalisation might potentially increase smoking the product. Irrespective of other consequences this may well have potential health implications. Australia has been doing well in reducing the smoking of tobacco. Do we really want to increase the smoking risks again?

  5. Non-commercial legalisation should be the model we follow, it’ll allow for those types of clubs to form to enable access to those without it. There’s always going to be those who can’t afford it and the ability for people to share home-grown cannabis and do with it what they please will enable so many people access to a medicine they’ve been denied for so long.

  6. Here’s a fun fact: alcohol kills an Australian every 90 minutes.
    I live in inner-north Melbourne and I could name at least 10 different sports clubs and pubs where I could gamble and drink almost 24/7 right now. This is on top of the abundance of liquor stores, bars, cocktail lounges, breweries, inner-city micro wineries, and all the other “essential service” places that sell alcohol.
    I think you see the point I’m trying to make.
    I don’t want to stop anyone’s fun but just let me smoke and buy my herb in peace already.

  7. The thing is Lynnette (and it is a reasonable concern to have), this has not happened anywhere where legalisation efforts have been made. The studies have been done, the results are in and they’re consistently quite clear, irrespective of the location (ACT, Canada, USA, etc). Rampant use doesn’t exist, driving offences don’t increase significantly and medical users are actually better catered to due to ease of access and much lower prices. The fear mongering that is exacerbated by politicians, the police and issue motivated groups such as the ACL are all profiting from cannabis remaining illegal and they therefore have a vested interest in constantly drumming up disinformation and fear on the subject; problem is that their studies are biased and their figures are either disingenuous or completely fabricated.

    Due to the way cannabis is currently scheduled as a medication in Australia, coupled with the way the PBS and the TGA operate, cannabis as it exists right now won’t ever be covered by the PBS.

    If I can recommend a couple of documentaries as they outline perfectly the nonsense dictating cannabis policies and the way they’re spread in society:

    The Union: The Business Behind Getting High

    The Culture High

    The Grass Is Greener (Netflix)

  8. I have read this article and am concerned it would make cannabis readily legal for dispatching in any store. My concern is [people] using for recreation and drinking alcohol, then jumping into a car and driving. Not a good mix.

    I believe it should be on a PBS script for those suffering with chronic illness such as chronic pain, cancer and other diseases which it may help and bring relief to.

    Lynne

    1. Lynette, cannabis will never get a PBS jersey within the existing system. Medications only get listed after extensive research demonstrating both clinical efficacy and utility.

  9. Hey Rhys

    I like the ACT model: decriminalise, allow possession use cultivation with no legal implications … Governments are missing the boat on the tax revenue potential … foolish given they are more than happy to tax the heck out of alcohol and tobacco (these will kill you … fact) the stigma of cannabis as a drug is the problem, it influences the community… the same community that condemns its use while sitting round discussing it over drinks and smokes … I would love to say education is the key but I am finding as a health practitioner that people continue to be ignorant.