Historique
Rapport
Cannabis policy, implementation and outcomes : Prepared for the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports
Auteur(s) :
VAN HET LOO, M. ;
HOORENS, S. ;
VAN'T HOF, C. ;
KAHAN, J. P.
Année
2003
Page(s) :
92 p.
Sous-type de document :
Revue de la littérature / Literature review
Langue(s) :
Anglais
Éditeur(s) :
Santa Monica, CA : Rand Corporation
, MR-1805-VWS
Collection :
Monograph/Reports
ISBN :
978-0-8330-3533-9
Domaine :
Drogues illicites / Illicit drugs
Discipline :
SAN (Santé publique / Public health)
Thésaurus géographique
EUROPE
Thésaurus mots-clés
CANNABIS
;
POLITIQUE
;
PREVALENCE
;
RECOMMANDATION
Résumé :
Background. The political debate on cannabis policy is often more based on opinions than on evidence. However, evidence-based knowledge is required to design effective cannabis policy.
Method. A review of the scientific literature on cannabis policy and its consequences was conducted, focusing on three issues: (1) the difference between formal policy and actual implementation; (2) the effect of policy on prevalence of cannabis use; and (3) the consequences of cannabis policy for users and society.
Results. (1) Local authorities, police departments and regional courts differ in how they implement cannabis policy, and implementation typically deviates considerably from the formal policy; (2) The limited available evidence favors the hypothesis that policy and prevalence of cannabis use are not strongly connected. However, there is hardly any literature focusing on the consequences of cannabis policy as implemented; (3) Although in-depth studies are scarce, cannabis policy seems to have negative side-effects for cannabis arrestees well beyond the direct consequences of their arrest. They have, for example, more difficulties finding a job because they have a criminal record.
Conclusions. The evidentiary basis for cannabis policy is rather narrow. The study includes an agenda for further research on cannabis policy.
Method. A review of the scientific literature on cannabis policy and its consequences was conducted, focusing on three issues: (1) the difference between formal policy and actual implementation; (2) the effect of policy on prevalence of cannabis use; and (3) the consequences of cannabis policy for users and society.
Results. (1) Local authorities, police departments and regional courts differ in how they implement cannabis policy, and implementation typically deviates considerably from the formal policy; (2) The limited available evidence favors the hypothesis that policy and prevalence of cannabis use are not strongly connected. However, there is hardly any literature focusing on the consequences of cannabis policy as implemented; (3) Although in-depth studies are scarce, cannabis policy seems to have negative side-effects for cannabis arrestees well beyond the direct consequences of their arrest. They have, for example, more difficulties finding a job because they have a criminal record.
Conclusions. The evidentiary basis for cannabis policy is rather narrow. The study includes an agenda for further research on cannabis policy.