Marijuana is still a pretty contentious, debated topic in Australia. The growing push to legalise is met with predictable resistance from the conservative crowd, and we never get to have a more nuanced discussion around the very real harms related to cannabis use. Is legalisation beyond decriminalisation necessary? What models are safest for individuals and society? Is Australia ready to legalise marijuana? Let’s take a comprehensive look at how this could (and should) work.
Australia’s relationship with marijuana right now
Australia’s legal stance on marijuana varies between each state and territory. Generally, medical cannabis is allowed under specific conditions but recreational use remains largely illegal across the country. In the ACT, adults are allowed to have up to 50g of dry material, 150g of wet material and grow up to two plants at home for personal use – but you can’t buy, sell or distribute.
Despite being mostly illegal, in 2019 an estimated 2.4 million Australians used cannabis. The Greens are the only major Australian party pushing for national legalisation of marijuana, calling specifically for: “legalisation of the production, sale and use of cannabis and cannabis products for recreational use, whilst regulating growth and possession for personal and medicinal use.” One of the party’s key points is the taxation on marijuana would generate more than $28 billion in government revenue in the first decade after legalisation.
Why not just decriminalisation?
Decriminalisation is another option offered as an alternative to legalisation. It means cannabis would remain illegal, but you wouldn’t actually be prosecuted for possession. The consequences of being caught will weed would range from fines, drug education, drug treatment or nothing at all.
For some, decriminalisation seems like a great ‘halfway’ option from a legal point of view, and it does address concerns about young people, people on low incomes, and Indigenous people being targeted by cops for ‘low level’ offences like cannabis possession. But from a harm reduction perspective, it doesn’t change much at all – people are using cannabis while it is illegal, and they will continue to do so when it’s decriminalised.
Decriminalisation also keeps the supply of cannabis controlled by the illicit market, which keeps cannabis prices high and inaccessible. It also makes it seem like it’s still something bad or forbidden, that you can only get on the black market. Wayne Hall, Emeritus Professor at the National Centre for Youth Substance Use Research (NCYSUR), says decriminalisation is not a great long term option. “If prevalence increases, as it often does, then the pressure is on [the government] to tolerate a large illicit market and all that goes with it or you just end up saying ‘To hell with it! We should legalize and regulate and tax it’.”
Legalising marijuana still raises real concerns
We can’t ignore the real harms of marijuana use in the legalisation debate. These must be acknowledged and understood so that the negative impacts can be minimised as much as possible in whatever model the government (eventually!) pursues to make cannabis legal.
HEALTH IMPACT: The main concern people have when it comes to legalisation is the health consequences – particularly the risk of respiratory problems and intense dependency issues. Simon Lenton, Director of the National Drug Research Institute, says: “We know roughly one in ten people who regularly use cannabis will become dependent. There’s an identified cannabis dependence withdrawal syndrome.” Heavy use is also connected with mental health and mental illness concerns. “There’s reasonably good evidence that heavy regular cannabis users, particularly starting early with people in their teens, can unmask underlying risk factors for things like psychosis, and people may precipitate a pre-existing risk factor for psychosis. There’s also some evidence that cannabis can exacerbate existing mental health issues like anxiety and depression, just like any other substance, use would.”
NEGATIVE IMPACT OF COMMERCIALISATION: Allowing marijuana to be commercialised on the free market could see cannabis retailers encourage customers to increase their usage – daily users account for 80% of cannabis consumption in Australia. Wayne is concerned that profit-motivated business competition will encourage suppliers and retailers to increase potency to potentially dangerous levels. He says some countries that have legalised marijuana have some retailers selling extracts with 70% THC or higher. “Right now, the THC content of herbal cannabis is 15 or 20% whereas under the illicit market is was typically less than 10%. In Canada we’re now seeing the sale of fortified joints where they’re adding to the herbal cannabis to increase the THC content, much like with alcohol barriers and fortified wines.” Turning cannabis into a legal business gives the industry more options to advertise and grow their customer base. “The cannabis industry is looking to basically do a lot of the same things the alcohol industry and the gambling industry has done,” Wayne warns. “It is difficult to predict how much that might happen, but I think the clearest consequences would be more cannabis dependence or addiction.”
SOCIAL INEQUITY: Wayne’s research also examines the inequities of cannabis use – who benefits, and who suffers most from the negative impacts. While legalisation is expected to reduce the unfair targeting of specific demographics with criminal charges – like teens, Black and Indigenous men – it must also be mindful of what impact increased use or stronger potency may have on these same groups. Some research shows daily use is more common in low socio-economic areas. Making cannabis products more readily available, stronger and encouraging use with advertising and other commercial tactics could increase the levels of addiction in these communities (similar to the negative impacts of cigarettes). Harm reduction resources must be used alongside legalisation to address these social inequities.
The public health approach to legalisation
It’s possible to design a legalisation model that works, so long as it prioritises public health. “Our goal should be on maximizing public health benefits and minimizing public health harms, rather than a focus on money that can be made out of regulating this substance now, in terms of tax benefits, and so on,” Simon says. The financial benefit of legalisation should not be a driving factor for reform – in the U.S., while taxes were a big selling point, cannabis amounts to about 1% of taxation revenue in many legal states.
Rather than shying away from the adverse public health concerns, we should approach them head-on. “We need to make sure people are provided with known dose and that there are limits on availability, harm reduction information provided, that we have adequate roadside drug testing in place, and that stigma is removed so that people can access treatment when they’re starting to get into difficulties.” Both experts stressed that the steps to legalisation must be based on evidence and carefully evaluated against how they impact consumption, supply and public health.
In August we spoke to Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, an advocate for medical cannabis, he pointed out that broader legalisation also help the medical side of things. “There’s a massive group of Australians out there that should be accessing it for medical reasons, that don’t know anything about it or have anxieties around cannabis. So I think the fact that you could more easily work with a GP and healthcare professionals will make a big difference.”
He also hopes that legal supply of cannabis would decrease medicinal costs. “Over time, [medicinal suppliers] won’t be able to charge as much which I personally think is a good thing. I can afford it, but a lot of Australians can’t.”
The most important thing to remember in this ‘debate’ is that any policy will always contain trade-offs. “You have to make some compromises in what you choose to prioritize as a policymaker,” Wayne says. “It’s eliminating the illicit market and maximizing government revenue. So if you create an unregulated legal market, you allow widespread promotion, people will sell it anywhere, and you allow the price to go as low as it can with competition. The obvious side effects of that is more use and probably more harm.” Australian policymakers will have to strike the balance as best they can… when they eventually come around to the idea.
Which, for the record, we think will happen eventually – just not in the immediate future. While the current set of politicians are still too attached to the idea of drug use as a criminal issue, as opposed to a health issue. It’s evident in the NSW government’s refusal to implement pill testing at festivals, even though health experts show how it would save lives. “The war on drugs has been a complete failure,” Senator Whish-Wilson says. “Policing effort and energy and money is tied up in this when it could be better spent elsewhere. And if the government controlled [marijuana], at least you know, you’re getting a safe product. Right now you might meet someone in the carpark when you’re buying oil… is that better than having it legalised? I think most sensible people would agree that it’s not.”
Marijuana legalisation models around the world
AMSTERDAM: Under this model of ‘regulated tolerance’, the sale and possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use are decriminalized and tolerated by authorities, primarily in licensed “coffee shops.” These establishments are permitted to sell cannabis products to adults over the age of 18. The idea is to divert people away from illegal dealers. Interestingly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Dutch government even provided financial aid during COVID to keep the shops open. However, Simon cautions that “the problem is supply to the coffee shops isn’t well regulated and isn’t legal.” Basically selling and consuming is legal, but growing and possessing more than half a kilo isn’t. How does a seller get their supply without participating in illegal activity? There have been proposals for greater regulation including limiting sales to locals and not tourists, as well as a pilot program launching in 2024 to investigate the supply chain in the hopes of replacing the tolerance policy with something that the authorities can have more control over.
SPAIN: Cannabis is illegal but decriminalised, however Spain country has legal Cannabis Social Clubs where people can partake. It’s similar to the coffee shop model, but supply is regulated. “If I’m a member of the club, I might have three plants which are mine but grown by the club on my behalf. And then at harvest time, I get the cannabis from my plants. There’s no promotion, there’s no advertising, there’s no sale to people outside of the club. So it’s a non-commercial, user-driven means of providing access to people who regularly use cannabis,” Simon explains. It’s a sort of middle-ground option that tries to avoid commercialisation of marijuana. “They’re often located in industrial areas with limited impact on the local community. And there’s a lot of regulations around control of growing practices, [including] use of chemicals, and pesticides.”
UNITED STATES: While some states have embraced full-blown legalisation for both medical and recreational use, others staunchly maintain the grip of prohibition. According to Wayne, legal states “regulate cannabis like alcohol use by licensing producers, processors, and retailers and allowing them to operate for profit.” He also points out there has been a drop in prices and an increase in cannabis use. “There has been a 50% decline in the cost of cannabis. There’s legal laws, and there’s people that like doing something and you cut its price in half… They are going to do more on it.”
URUGUAY: In 2013, Uruguay became the first country in the world to legalise cannabis. It uses a mixed model where consumers grow at home, join Cannabis Social Clubs, or purchase through pharmacies. The state controls and regulates the suppliers, the price and potency of the cannabis sold in the pharmacies. This type of control has received mixed reviews, but its aim is to displace illicit markets whilst maintaining public health practices. Simon’s view: “That kind of model is much better than having for-profit companies with a goal to maximize profit.”
Smart people read more:
New Zealand’s cannabis referendum results were defined by age – The Spinoff
“Brands Have A Type of Power That Individuals Don’t”: The Role of Business In Social Change
Cannabis in Canada: Debunking myths about the real impacts of legalization – The Conversation
Comments are closed.