Control of Cannabis in the Future

Cannabis is the most commonly used illegal drug in Britain (6.4% adults using in the last year. 2012-13 Crime Survey for England and Wales). It is made from the cannabis plant and the main active chemical is tetrahydrocannabinol. The common aim of all drug regulation across the world is to reduce drug misuse and associated harm. However there is wide variation in the ways countries seek to achieve this aim which reflect interesting cultural differences. To frame an evaluation of the current UK position and my advice, I have limited my examination of different systems of regulation of cannabis to key European countries to obtain a degree of geographic homogeneity. A key question is whether successful legislation in one country would have the same effect in the UK due to cultural differences. There is also a need to explore whether more liberal possession laws result in an increase in users in comparison to conservative laws as noted by Kilmer. REF? Significantly, a recent UK government study (HO Drugs: International Comparators 2014) found no evidence that strong enforcement laws on personal possession lead to lower levels of drug use.

Netherlands

The Dutch approach to the regulation of cannabis has always been viewed as pragmatic and ‘socially-led’. In the1960’s to early 1970’s, cannabis usage and distribution was primarily underground. The sale and consumption of cannabis was rooted in a subcultural environment known as a youth counterculture. In 1976 the Netherlands adopted a non-enforcement approach for cannabis, as it was deemed to be comparatively low-risk drug in comparison to other illegal drugs. This revised Opium Act also differentiated on the basis of the nature of the offence. The Act classified that personal cannabis use was not an offence, being in possession of up to 30 grams of Cannabis was a misdemeanour and possession of more than 30 grams was a criminal offence. In effect this decriminalised the personal use and possession of cannabis for adults. This more liberal stance was justified on an expediency principle. The Dutch argued that although it would be possible to prosecute individuals for the possession and/or consumption of small amounts of cannabis, the implementation of such repressive action would not be in the best interests of society.

However unlike other decriminalisation approaches, Dutch laws tolerate the sale of cannabis through the existence of outlets or “Coffee Shops” where low-volume cannabis sales can take place. These Coffee Shops are allowed to operate provided they follow strict licensing conditions. These conditions include minimum age-access restrictions, a ban on the sale of other drugs including alcohol and the outside appearance, marketing and signage are subject to strict guidelines. In addition, trade stock cannot exceed 500 grams and an individual can only buy up to 5 grams per day.

In 2011 the more conservative (VVD) government introduced a new range of restrictions on coffee shops. A key new initiative was the “Wietpas” or ‘Weed Pass’ to restrict the sale of cannabis. This effectively turned coffee shops into private clubs with a maximum of 2000 members who must be Dutch residents. However, local governments and public opinion in Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht, where the majority of coffee shops are situated, expressed concerns that such a move would not only have a negative impact on tourism but potentially lead to increased criminal activity with the return of street dealers. In 2013 polling revealed that 60% of the Dutch public believed the Wietpas system should be stopped and 80% believed that its continuation would increase illegal trade (9). This led to the new government abandoning the Wietpas in October 2012.

However, Dutch tolerance of the sale of cannabis for personal use in coffee shops has created what is known as the “backdoor problem”- namely the production and cultivation of the cannabis to supply the coffee shops remains illegal. De Kort and Cramer (1999) noted that although coffee shops in themselves are legal, they are completely dependent on an illegal market to supply them. This legal paradox has yet to be resolved and 41 municipalities have endorsed a manifesto calling for the production of cannabis to be regulated.

The progressive and liberal regulatory approach adopted by the Netherlands reflects public opinion. A poll in December 2013 found 65% of the population agreed the production, sale and consumption of cannabis should be further legalised.

Overall, the Dutch regulatory approach to personal cannabis usage reflects their aim to proportionally tackle drugs that do the most harm. I believe their legal differentiation between cannabis and other more harmful drugs reflects a cultural pragmatism. Rather than attempt to criminalise all drugs, they have adopted a legal compromise to tolerate personal cannabis