|Titre :||The diverging trajectories of cannabis and tobacco policies in the United States: reasons and possible implications [Addiction debate] (2018)|
|Auteurs :||W. HALL ; L. T. KOZLOWSKI|
|Type de document :||Article : Périodique|
|Dans :||Addiction (Vol.113, n°4, April 2018)|
|Article en page(s) :||595-601|
|Note générale :||
- American exceptionalism and the failure to learn from mistakes of the past. Pardo B., p. 602-603.
- The trajectories of cannabis and tobacco policies in the United States, Uruguay, Canada and Portugal: is more cross-substance learning possible outside the United States? Hughes C.E., p. 603-605.
- The impact diverging public opinion on cannabis and tobacco regulation has on constructive engagement between advocates. Arnott D., p. 605-606.
- The different outcomes of legislative- versus advocacy-led development of cannabis policy. Rolles S., p. 606-607.
- Formulating more consistent public health policies towards cannabis and tobacco. Hall W., Kozlowski L., p. 608-609.
|Discipline :||SAN (Santé publique / Public health)|
Thésaurus TOXIBASETABAC ; CANNABIS ; POLITIQUE ; EVOLUTION ; LEGALISATION ; COMPARAISON ; SANTE PUBLIQUE ; TRAJECTOIRE
AIM: To examine briefly the (i) rationales for two policy proposals in the United States to make it mandatory for cigarettes to contain very low levels of nicotine and to legalize cannabis for recreational use by adults; and (ii) possible lessons that participants in each policy debate may learn from each other.
METHOD: We briefly describe the diverging policies towards cannabis and tobacco in the United States, explain and critically analyse their rationales and discuss possible policy lessons.
RESULTS: Advocates of cannabis legalization have argued that prohibition has been an ineffective and expensive policy that penalizes ethnic minority users unjustly of a drug that is far less harmful than alcohol. The prohibition of traditional tobacco cigarettes has been advocated as a way to eliminate cigarette smoking. These proposals embody very different attitudes towards the harms of recreational adult drug use. Advocates of nicotine prohibition demand that alternative methods of nicotine delivery must be shown to be completely safe before adults are allowed to use them. Advocates of tobacco prohibition ignore evidence that smokers may not use these products and the likelihood of expanding the illicit tobacco market. Advocates of legalizing and regulating recreational cannabis ignore the need to tax and regulate sales in order to minimize the harms of heavy use.
CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear that the prohibition of adult use has a useful role to play in the regulation of either cannabis or tobacco. If both products remain legal, the goals of regulating tobacco and cannabis products should be to restrict youth access, promote the use of the least harmful products, provide users with evidence-based information on both absolute and differential product risks of use and use differential taxes and marketing controls to promote ways of using these products that cause the least harm to their users.
|Domaine :||Drogues illicites / Illicit drugs ; Tabac / Tobacco|
|Refs biblio. :||65|
|Affiliation :||The Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, University of Queensland, Australia|