|Titre :||Overview of "home" cultivation policies and the case for community-based cannabis supply (2019)|
|Auteurs :||V. BELACKOVA ; M. ROUBALOVA ; K. VAN DE VEN|
|Type de document :||Article : Périodique|
|Dans :||International Journal of Drug Policy (Vol.71, September 2019)|
|Article en page(s) :||36-46|
|Discipline :||LOI (Loi et son application / Law enforcement)|
Thésaurus TOXIBASECANNABIS ; POLITIQUE ; CULTURE PRIVEE ; LEGALISATION ; REGULATION ; DIFFUSION DES PRODUITS ; DECRIMINALISATION ; SANCTION PENALE
Background: 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.
Methods: We reviewed relevant laws and regulations in states/countries that legalised, decriminalised or applied other non-prohibitive approaches to home cannabis cultivation.
Findings: 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.
Conclusions: 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.
|Domaine :||Drogues illicites / Illicit drugs|
|Affiliation :||ResAd - Research and Development, Ltd., Prague, Czech Republic|