Overview of “Home” Cultivation Policies and the Case for Community-Based Cannabis Supply

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F48136841%3A_____%2F19%3AN0000015" target="_blank" >RIV/48136841:_____/19:N0000015 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395919301434?via%3Dihub" target="_blank" >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395919301434?via%3Dihub</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.05.021" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.05.021</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Overview of “Home” Cultivation Policies and the Case for Community-Based Cannabis Supply

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Cannabis policies should be relevant to communities most impacted by them. Home cultivation policies can engage people who grow cannabis and build on their motivation to supply a safe product. This paper aims to examine the laws pertaining to “home” (i.e. personal, small-scale) cannabis cultivation internationally and their different aspects, and to discuss the potential of these policies to be expanded into community-level cannabis supply models. We reviewed relevant laws and regulations in states/countries that legalised, decriminalised or applied other non-prohibitive approaches to home cannabis cultivation. Non-prohibitive approaches to home cannabis cultivation have been adopted in at least 27 jurisdictions. Twelve jurisdictions “de jure” legalised home cultivation (three U.S. states and Antigua and Barbuda legalised only home cultivation; six U.S. states, Uruguay and Canada legalised commercial sales as well). Eight states/countries “de facto” (Belgium, the Netherlands) or “de jure” decriminalised it (Czech Republic, Spain, Jamaica, and three Australian states). “De jure" depenalisation was in place in Chile and Brazil and recent court rulings yielded “de facto” depenalisation or “de facto” legalisation in five other jurisdictions (South Africa, Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica and Georgia). Varying number of plants (per person and per property) and the circumstances of cultivation were in place. The key limitations of the regulations included (i) possession thresholds for the produce from home cultivations, (ii) rules about sharing the produce, and (iii) potentially disproportionate sanctions for non-authorised behaviours. Despite currently being limited, home cultivation policies might have the capacity to engage cannabis networks that already exist in the community and like that, enhance their participation in legitimate policy schemes. Rules around pooled cultivation and sharing could be made fit for purpose to accommodate community supply of cannabis. Home cultivation policies could serve as a basis for community-level cannabis supply models and as such, for more inclusive cannabis policies.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Overview of “Home” Cultivation Policies and the Case for Community-Based Cannabis Supply

Popis výsledku anglicky

Cannabis policies should be relevant to communities most impacted by them. Home cultivation policies can engage people who grow cannabis and build on their motivation to supply a safe product. This paper aims to examine the laws pertaining to “home” (i.e. personal, small-scale) cannabis cultivation internationally and their different aspects, and to discuss the potential of these policies to be expanded into community-level cannabis supply models. We reviewed relevant laws and regulations in states/countries that legalised, decriminalised or applied other non-prohibitive approaches to home cannabis cultivation. Non-prohibitive approaches to home cannabis cultivation have been adopted in at least 27 jurisdictions. Twelve jurisdictions “de jure” legalised home cultivation (three U.S. states and Antigua and Barbuda legalised only home cultivation; six U.S. states, Uruguay and Canada legalised commercial sales as well). Eight states/countries “de facto” (Belgium, the Netherlands) or “de jure” decriminalised it (Czech Republic, Spain, Jamaica, and three Australian states). “De jure" depenalisation was in place in Chile and Brazil and recent court rulings yielded “de facto” depenalisation or “de facto” legalisation in five other jurisdictions (South Africa, Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica and Georgia). Varying number of plants (per person and per property) and the circumstances of cultivation were in place. The key limitations of the regulations included (i) possession thresholds for the produce from home cultivations, (ii) rules about sharing the produce, and (iii) potentially disproportionate sanctions for non-authorised behaviours. Despite currently being limited, home cultivation policies might have the capacity to engage cannabis networks that already exist in the community and like that, enhance their participation in legitimate policy schemes. Rules around pooled cultivation and sharing could be made fit for purpose to accommodate community supply of cannabis. Home cultivation policies could serve as a basis for community-level cannabis supply models and as such, for more inclusive cannabis policies.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

International Journal of Drug Policy

ISSN

0955-3959

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

2019

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

71

Stát vydavatele periodika

NL - Nizozemsko

Počet stran výsledku

11

Strana od-do

36-46

Kód UT WoS článku

000501405000006

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85067084033