兰德-Multinational-overview-of-cannabis-production-regimes_82页_886kb

Summary of "Multinational Overview of Cannabis Production Regimes"

Core Content

This report provides an analysis of cannabis production regimes in several countries, focusing on non-medical and non-scientific (recreational) use. It examines how these regimes have developed, the legal and policy decisions that shaped them, and the relationship between these domestic policies and the international legal framework governing cannabis.

The research was commissioned by the Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) of the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice and conducted by RAND Europe. The report includes case studies of Spain, Belgium, the United States, and Uruguay, as well as an overview of other production regimes in ten additional jurisdictions.

Main Case Studies

1. Spain

• Legal Status: Possession and consumption of cannabis are no longer criminal offenses following Supreme Court rulings.
• Regime: The jurisprudence allows "shared consumption" and personal cultivation in private spaces.
• CSC Movement: The Cannabis Social Club (CSC) movement has emerged, advocating for collective cultivation. Over 15 years, hundreds of CSCs have been established.
• Legal Uncertainty: Despite the legal space, there remains ambiguity around cannabis production, leading to seizures and arrests of CSC members.

2. Belgium

• CSC Initiative: The "Trekrt Uw Plant" organization was established in 2006 based on a joint guideline that assigned low priority to prosecuting possession of up to three grams or one plant.
• Collective Cultivation: Members can cultivate one plant each in private, non-public spaces in Antwerp, Liège, Brussels, and Hasselt.
• Court Cases: Two major legal cases were brought against the organization. In 2006, members were charged with being part of a criminal organization, but were acquitted for the latter. In 2010, the Court of Appeal acquitted them again for organizing provocative but not illegal demonstrations.
• Current Status: As of August 2013, the organization had 304 members, and three more CSCs were recently established. No legal actions have been taken against these CSCs since 2010.

3. United States

• Legalisation in 2012: Colorado and Washington state legalised cannabis through direct voter initiatives.
• Federal Law: Despite state laws, cannabis remains illegal under federal law (Controlled Substances Act).
• Regime Changes: Both states now allow adults over 21 to possess up to one ounce of cannabis and cannabis-infused products, and permit home cultivation (up to 6 plants in Colorado).
• Commercial Licensing: The most significant change is the licensing of commercial cannabis businesses.
• Federal Guidance: In August 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice issued guidance stating that compliance with state laws would be less likely to conflict with federal priorities.
• Future Outlook: Retail stores are scheduled to open in 2014 in both states.

4. Uruguay

• Legalisation Bill: In July 2013, the House of Representatives passed a bill to legalise cannabis production, distribution, and possession.
• Expected Senate Vote: The Senate is expected to vote on the bill in November 2013.
• New Agency: If passed, the law will create a new public agency, the Instituto de Regulación y Control del Cannabis, to regulate cannabis production and maintain user registries.
• Regulations: The law allows home cultivation (up to 6 plants), participation in collectives (up to 45 members, 99 plants), and legal purchase at pharmacies (up to 40 grams per month).

Key Distinctions

• Scope of Activity: Some countries (Spain, Belgium) allow cannabis use within clubs, while others (Colorado, Washington, Uruguay) permit larger-scale, for-profit production and distribution.
• Government Level: In some cases, subnational jurisdictions (e.g., states in the U.S.) have taken action, while in Uruguay, the national government is legalising cannabis despite international treaties.
• Role of Government: In Spain and Belgium, government employees do not participate in cannabis production or distribution. In the U.S., the role is indirect through licensing and regulation.
• Tolerance Level: In Belgium, cannabis clubs may be subject to legal action if they are visible. In Uruguay and the U.S., cannabis businesses operate openly and are registered with the government.

Official Statements and International Legal Framework

• INCB Response: The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) has stated that cannabis legalisation in the U.S. and Uruguay violates international law and urges authorities to align with existing treaties.
• U.S. Response: The U.S. Attorney General initially mentioned international obligations, but subsequent memos and testimony did not reference them.
• Belgium and Spain: No official statements were found regarding how their CSCs fit within international drug conventions.
• Uruguay: Officials have expressed reservations about international treaties, suggesting a need for revision based on human rights and national conditions.

Other Production Regimes

• The report also covers ten other jurisdictions where medical or scientific cannabis production is allowed or under discussion.
• Some proposals include allowing home cultivation for personal use (Chile, Portugal, Switzerland), creating Cannabis Social Clubs (Portugal), and state-regulated production and distribution (Copenhagen City Council).
• Some of these proposals have been rejected, while others are still under consideration.

Conclusion

This report outlines the varied approaches to cannabis production across different countries, highlighting the tension between national policies and international treaties. It emphasizes the lack of official statements from governments about compliance with international law, as well as the different levels of tolerance and regulation for cannabis-related activities.