A ‘community enterprise’ model for recreational cannabis: Lessons from alcohol licensing trusts in New Zealand

Cannabis Social Clubs in Contemporary Legalization Reforms: Talking Consumption Sites and Social Justice

There is ongoing debate about what policy approaches to cannabis use might best address health and social related harm. Profit-driven, adult-use cannabis markets have been introduced in the United States and Canada, where legalization reform has had mixed effects to date in terms of public health and has made limited progress in achieving social justice aims. Meanwhile, several jurisdictions have seen an organic evolution of alternative cannabis-supply regimes. Cannabis social clubs (CSCs), the focus of this commentary, are nonprofit cooperatives that supply cannabis to consumers with the goal of harm reduction. The peer and participatory aspects of CSCs may have positive effects on health-related outcomes of cannabis use, such as through encouraging the use of safer products and responsible use practices. The nonprofit objectives of CSCs may diminish the risk for increasing cannabis consumption in wider society. CSCs have recently made an important transition from grassroots organizations in Spain and elsewhere. In particular, they have become key players in top-down cannabis legalization reform in Uruguay and, most recently, Malta. The history of CSCs in reducing harm from cannabis use is an important advantage, but there might be concerns around the grassroots origins, low taxation opportunities, and capacity to sustain social objectives. Also, the CSC model might not seem unique, as contemporary cannabis entrepreneurs have absorbed some features of their community-based predecessors. CSCs can play an important role in future cannabis legalization reform due to their unique strengths as cannabis-consumption sites and can be effective in advancing social justice by giving people affected by cannabis prohibition agency and direct access to resources.

Assessing New Zealand's Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill: prospects and challenges

BACKGROUND

Few countries have developed detailed legislative proposals for legalizing cannabis. New Zealand recently released the Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill (CLCB) that will be the subject of a referendum in September 2020.

AIMS

To assess the CLCB, drawing on emerging evidence from cannabis legalization overseas, public health research on alcohol and tobacco and the attempt to establish a regulated market for 'legal highs' in New Zealand.

DISCUSSION

The CLCB proposes a strictly regulated commercial cannabis market that resembles the Canadian approach, but notably without on-line sales or regional heterogeneity in retail distribution. The objective of the CLCB of lowering cannabis use over time appears at odds with the largely commercial cannabis sector that will focus on expanding sales. The CLCB includes provision for home cultivation and social benefit operators, but it is not clear what priority these operators will receive. A potency cap of 15% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) for cannabis plants is included, and this is at the high end of black-market cannabis. The proposed progressive product tax based on THC will be challenging to implement. There is no formal minimum price, but rather discretionary powers to raise the excise if the price drops too much. The CLCB includes a comprehensive ban on advertising, but non-conventional on-line promotion will be difficult to suppress. The central government cannabis authority is tasked with developing local retail outlet policies. We caution against the temptation to employ an interim regulatory regime following a positive referendum result, because a partially regulated market will expose users to health risks and undermine public support.

CONCLUSIONS

New Zealand's Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill's objective of reducing cannabis use via a commercial market will be challenging to achieve. The bill could be strengthened with formal minimum pricing, lower potency cap and greater clarity concerning social benefit operators and the role of local government.

Facing the option for the legalisation of cannabis use and supply in New Zealand: An overview of relevant evidence, concepts and considerations

ISSUES

Non-medical cannabis policies are changing, including towards legalisation-with-regulation frameworks. New Zealand will hold a public referendum on cannabis legalisation in 2020. We reviewed data on cannabis use and health/social harms; policy reform options; experiences with and outcomes of reforms elsewhere; and other relevant considerations towards informing policy choices in the upcoming referendum.

APPROACH

Relevant epidemiological, health, social, criminal justice and policy studies and data were identified and comprehensively reviewed.

KEY FINDINGS

Cannabis use is common (including in New Zealand) and associated with risks for health and social harms, mainly concentrated in young users; key harms are attributable to criminalisation. 'Decriminalisation' reforms have produced ambivalent results. Existing cannabis legalisation frameworks vary considerably in main parameters. Legalisation offers some distinct advantages, for example regulated use, products and user education, yet outcomes depend on essential regulation parameters, including commercialisation, and policy ecologies. While major changes in use are not observed, legalisation experiences are inconclusive to date, including mixed health and social outcomes, with select harms increasing and resilient illegal markets. It is unclear whether legalisation reduces cannabis exposure or social harms (e.g. from enforcement) for youth.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

No conclusive overall evidence on the outcomes of legalisation elsewhere exists, nor is evidence easily transferable to other settings. Legalisation offers direct social justice benefits for adults, yet overall public health impacts are uncertain. Legalisation may not categorically improve health or social outcomes for youth. Legalisation remains a well-intended, while experimental policy option towards more measured and sensible cannabis control and overall greater policy coherence, requiring close monitoring and possible adjustments depending on setting-specific outcomes.

"You have to make some money before you can do some good": Balancing the commercial, social and public health objectives in a "community enterprise" regulatory model for alcohol and cannabis

INTRODUCTION

New Zealand's alcohol licensing trusts are social enterprises that operate retail alcohol outlets in their districts and distribute profits back to the community. There have been calls for a similar "social enterprise" approach to legal cannabis sales. However, social enterprises face unique challenges in balancing commercial and social objectives.

AIM

To explore mechanisms that support the balancing of commercial, social and public health objectives in alcohol trusts and identify learnings for cannabis reform.

METHOD

Thematic analysis of interviews with 16 internal and external key informants (trust board members, trust retail managers, community activists, law enforcement) from two alcohol trust districts.

RESULTS

Key informants overwhelmingly conceptualised alcohol trusts as business entities, but commercial success was also seen as a means to help the community. Interviewees' perceptions of trusts' social mission ranged from simple "corporate social responsibility" to a "genuine" community orientation. Despite a near-monopolistic market position, forces within and outside the trusts create pressures to conform to standard commercial behaviour, including strategic placement of alcohol outlets. Participants attributed the potential public health benefits of the trusts to reduced density of alcohol retail outlets and ease of enforcement. The pragmatic political goal of maintaining a favourable public image (to secure survival of the trust and re-election of individual trustees) was the key mechanism balancing commercial and social objectives. Ethical dilemmas related to the sale of alcohol and conflicts of interest in allocating community funds were evident. Discord was "negotiated" with the community via the public discussion and voting, providing opportunity to correct mission drift.

CONCLUSIONS

The need to maintain a positive public image (to ensure favourable electoral results) was a key mechanism helping to balance the commercial and social goals of alcohol trusts. A community trust model for retail cannabis sales could similarly provide constraints on commercial behaviour while funding community services.