Lawful Access to Cannabis: Gains, Losses and Design Criteria

<div>"Legalisation" does not specify a policy. Cannabis could be made available for use by adults under a wide variety of conditions: cheap or expensive, offered by for-profit enterprises, by not-for-profits (including consumer co-operatives), as a state monopoly (for production or s...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mark A. R. Kleiman, Jeremy Ziskind
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: LSE Press 2019-11-01
Series:Journal of Illicit Economies and Development
Subjects:
Online Access:https://jied.lse.ac.uk/articles/41
id doaj-ed03afa4e99c44748b57ac25ef40598a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ed03afa4e99c44748b57ac25ef40598a2021-10-08T13:41:01ZengLSE PressJournal of Illicit Economies and Development2516-72272019-11-011327227810.31389/jied.4132Lawful Access to Cannabis: Gains, Losses and Design CriteriaMark A. R. Kleiman0Jeremy Ziskind1NYU Marron Institute of Urban ManagementFaith in Action Network<div>"Legalisation" does not specify a policy. Cannabis could be made available for use by adults under a wide variety of conditions: cheap or expensive, offered by for-profit enterprises, by not-for-profits (including consumer co-operatives), as a state monopoly (for production or sales or both), or even on a "grow-your-own" basis. It could be cheap (as it would be in a free market) or expensive (due to taxes or minimum pricing). Marketing efforts could be free or restrained.  Users could be "nudged" toward temperate use - for example, through a system of user-set but enforceable periodic purchase limits - or left to their own devices.</div><div> </div><div>Policy-makers should keep in mind Pareto's Law, which applies to cannabis consumption: about four-fifths of consumption is accounted for by about one-fifth of consumers.  That fact will drive the commercial strategies of for-profit producers and sellers, and should focus the attention of public agencies on the risks and harms to the heavy-using minority.</div><div> </div><div>Uncertainties abound, and consequently policies should be designed to allow the system to learn from experience. But it is possible to try to predict and evaluate – albeit imperfectly – the  likely consequences of proposed policy changes and to use those predictions to choose systems of legal availability that would result in better, rather than worse, combinations of gain and loss from the change.</div>https://jied.lse.ac.uk/articles/41cannabis legalisationcannabis consumptionnudge strategiesdrug use preventiondrug treatmentillicit drug marketscannabis use disorderdrug law enforcementbehavioral economicspublic policyincarceration
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Mark A. R. Kleiman
Jeremy Ziskind
spellingShingle Mark A. R. Kleiman
Jeremy Ziskind
Lawful Access to Cannabis: Gains, Losses and Design Criteria
Journal of Illicit Economies and Development
cannabis legalisation
cannabis consumption
nudge strategies
drug use prevention
drug treatment
illicit drug markets
cannabis use disorder
drug law enforcement
behavioral economics
public policy
incarceration
author_facet Mark A. R. Kleiman
Jeremy Ziskind
author_sort Mark A. R. Kleiman
title Lawful Access to Cannabis: Gains, Losses and Design Criteria
title_short Lawful Access to Cannabis: Gains, Losses and Design Criteria
title_full Lawful Access to Cannabis: Gains, Losses and Design Criteria
title_fullStr Lawful Access to Cannabis: Gains, Losses and Design Criteria
title_full_unstemmed Lawful Access to Cannabis: Gains, Losses and Design Criteria
title_sort lawful access to cannabis: gains, losses and design criteria
publisher LSE Press
series Journal of Illicit Economies and Development
issn 2516-7227
publishDate 2019-11-01
description <div>"Legalisation" does not specify a policy. Cannabis could be made available for use by adults under a wide variety of conditions: cheap or expensive, offered by for-profit enterprises, by not-for-profits (including consumer co-operatives), as a state monopoly (for production or sales or both), or even on a "grow-your-own" basis. It could be cheap (as it would be in a free market) or expensive (due to taxes or minimum pricing). Marketing efforts could be free or restrained.  Users could be "nudged" toward temperate use - for example, through a system of user-set but enforceable periodic purchase limits - or left to their own devices.</div><div> </div><div>Policy-makers should keep in mind Pareto's Law, which applies to cannabis consumption: about four-fifths of consumption is accounted for by about one-fifth of consumers.  That fact will drive the commercial strategies of for-profit producers and sellers, and should focus the attention of public agencies on the risks and harms to the heavy-using minority.</div><div> </div><div>Uncertainties abound, and consequently policies should be designed to allow the system to learn from experience. But it is possible to try to predict and evaluate – albeit imperfectly – the  likely consequences of proposed policy changes and to use those predictions to choose systems of legal availability that would result in better, rather than worse, combinations of gain and loss from the change.</div>
topic cannabis legalisation
cannabis consumption
nudge strategies
drug use prevention
drug treatment
illicit drug markets
cannabis use disorder
drug law enforcement
behavioral economics
public policy
incarceration
url https://jied.lse.ac.uk/articles/41
work_keys_str_mv AT markarkleiman lawfulaccesstocannabisgainslossesanddesigncriteria
AT jeremyziskind lawfulaccesstocannabisgainslossesanddesigncriteria
_version_ 1716838314314563584