DOCSLIB.ORG

The Law of Prohibition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Country/Territory Possession Sale Transport Cultivation Notes [5] The law of prohibition exists but however with high availability of cannabis plants Albania Illegal Illegal Illegal Illegal throughout the country, this law is often unenforced.[6][7][8] Algeria Illegal Illegal Illegal Illegal Possession is illegal.[9] Legal for Legal for personal use in small amounts and for consumption in private locations. Public personal use consumption is generally accepted among young adults. Consumption for medical purposes is Argentina in small Illegal Illegal Illegal accepted but not legislated (only in private locations). Cultivating, selling and transporting large amounts (in amounts is illegal and punishable by present laws.[10] private) One or two plants may be privately grown for Main article: Cannabis in Australia personal use in the Decriminalized for personal use in small amounts in the Australian Capital Territory, South Australian Australia and the Northern Territory. It is a criminal offence in New South Wales, Queensland, Capital Western Australia, Victoria and Tasmania. In SA a person can legally grow 1 non-hydroponic Illegal Territory plant, and in the ACT 2 non-hydroponic plants may be grown on their own property for (decriminali Australia Illegal Illegal and South personal use, and in the N.T two non-hydroponic plants can be fined $200 with 28 days to pay zed in some [11] Australia. rather than face criminal charge. Enforcement varies from state to state, though a criminal states) Personal conviction for possession of a small amount is unlikely and diversion programs in these states [12] grows of up aim to divert offenders into education, assessment and treatment programs. With the rapid to two expansion in hydroponically grown cannabis cultivation, the Australian Drug Misuse and plants are Trafficking Act (1985) was amended in 2006, reducing the amount of cannabis grown indoors [12] decriminali under hydroponic conditions that qualifies as a 'commercial quantity' or as a 'large quantity' zed in the Northern Territory. Illegal (In Posession, cultivation, sale and transport of small quantities (< 200 g) are punishable by up to 1 case of year imprisonment, or up to 6 months when for personal use only (option of alternative therapy "small and subsequent waiving of sentence). Sale is punishable by up to 3 years imprisonment, or up to Austria quantities" Illegal Illegal Illegal 1 year if the perpetrator is addicted. Sale, transport and cultivation of larger quantities (> 200 g) (20 grams are punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment, or up to 3 years if the perpetrator is addicted. of pure Higher penalties for organized crime.[13] Regardless of a criminal conviction, anyone caught THC or with cannabis by the police may have their driving license revoked (often illegally), unless they Country/Territory Possession Sale Transport Cultivation Notes less), legal show prolonged abstinence from cannabis in several supervised urine tests.[14] Cannabis is proceedings considered a drug if it contains more than 0.3% of THC, if less, it's legal. are always dropped by the procuratoria l if the offender is caught for the first time.) Since 2003, adults over the age of 18 had been allowed to possess up to 3 grams, but on October Belgium Illegal Illegal Illegal Illegal 10, 2014, it was made illegal again.[15][16] Illegal Bolivia has recently passed laws regarding set personal limit use, but has not completely Bolivia (decriminali Illegal Illegal Illegal legalized it. zed) Illegal The possession of illegal drugs like cannabis (for personal consumption) entails a warning, (entail a community service and education on the effects of drug use. The same measures applie to the warning and planting and/or preparation of small amounts of any illegal drug. Brazil Illegal Illegal Illegal education on the Selling and transportation of any illegal drugs, as well as the possession or cultivation of larger effect of amounts is characterized as drug trafficking, a criminal act punished with 5 to 15 years in prison use) and a significant fine.[21] Bosnia and Illegal Illegal Illegal Illegal Herzegovina Belarus Illegal Illegal Illegal Illegal Cannabis is classified as a class A (High-risk) drug, together with Heroin, Cocaine, Amphetamines and MDMA (ecstasy). Until 2004, a loosely defined "personal dose" existed. Since 2006, after the last amendment of the Penal Code, the penalty for possession is 1 to 6 years in prison and a fine between 1,000 and 5,000 euros. For possession with an aim of Bulgaria Illegal Illegal Illegal Illegal distribution (drug-dealing), the sentence can range from 2 to 8 years for small amounts, to 3 to 12 years for large amounts, up to 5 to 15 years when executed by an organized criminal group. In these cases, the maximum fine to be determined together with the prison time is 50,000 euros. Growing is punishable by 2 to 5 years and a fine up to 5,000 euros. The organizer of a Country/Territory Possession Sale Transport Cultivation Notes growers group can receive a jail sentence of 10 to 20 years and has to pay a fine of up to 100,000 euros, a participant 3 to 10 years in prison and a fine of 2,500 to 5,000 euros.[22] Bulgarian Penal Code (translation requested) Illegal Illegal (but (Legali Illegal Legal with government issued licence for medical or industrial purposes. Widely used and mostly zed & (Small tolerated in some bigger cities. See Legislation: "Controlled Drugs and Substances Act"[25] Canada tolerated regulat Illegal amounts of and legal in ed by plants Main article: Legal history of cannabis in Canada some cities) some tolerated) cities) Legal (up to Personal consumption, possession and cultivation (of any drug) is decriminalized when in Legal (up to Legal (up to 6 plants for private locations. Chilean authorities permit the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes only. In Chile Illegal 10 grams) 10 grams) personal 2014, the Chilean authorities have given a local woman permission to import drugs made from use)[26] cannabis. In 2015, the possession up to 10 grams and cultivation up to 6 plants was legalized.[27] People's Illegal Illegal Illegal Illegal Republic of China Legal (up to 20 plants Since 1994, cannabis has been legalized for possession of small amounts up to 22 grams for Legal (up to Colombia Illegal Illegal for personal personal consumption. However, sale remains illegal.[28] It is legal to possess up to 20 plants for 22 grams) consumptio personal consumption [29] n) Cannabis is illegal, but there is a high tolerance of smoking marijuana throughout the country. Illegal Illegal A decriminalization system is de facto implemented, since police officers do not detain people Costa Rica (decriminali Illegal Illegal (decriminali carrying enough for only personal consumption, yet no amount has been defined as a minimum zed)[32] zed) for possession. The usage of cannabis in Costa Rica is very high.[32] From 2013, there is distinction in the Croatian penal code between various illegal substances, they are now separated on heavy drugs and light drugs like Marijuana. According to the law, Illegal growing or selling cannabis is considered a felony punishable by a mandatory prison sentence Croatia (decriminali Illegal Illegal Illegal (three years minimum), and from 2013, the possession of small amount of marijuana and other zed)[33] light drugs is a misdemeanor which leads to a fine of 5000–20000kn ($800–3500) depending on the case in question.[33] In all cases the cannabis must be confiscated.[33] Illegal Illegal Class B substance – life imprisonment is possible for use and maximum 8 years for possession Cyprus (small Illegal Illegal (decriminali (at the maximum two years for the first offence for under 25-year-olds). In practice, a mere amount zed for warning may be given to a minor unconscious first offender.[34] Country/Territory Possession Sale Transport Cultivation Notes decriminaliz some farms ed for to grow medical Hemp) uses) Illegal Purchas (cultivation e of up of up to 5 to 15g Illegal (up bushes Illegal legal; to 15g decriminali Main article: Drug policy of the Czech Republic (possession sale of decriminali zed/cultivati Czech Republic of up to 15g medical zed/Medical Possession of up to fifteen grams for personal use or cultivation of up to five plants is merely a on for [35][36] decriminaliz cannabi subject to misdemeanor. Popular destination for smokers. Medical use of cannabis on prescription medical [37][38] ed) s legal, license has been legal and regulated since 1 April 2013. purposes otherwi legal) subject to se sale license illegal) legal) As with all drugs, cannabis-related offences are punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years[39] Freetown Christiania, a self-declared autonomous region, is known for its cannabis Denmark Illegal Illegal Illegal Illegal trade. Police often raid the area around Christiania. Dominica Illegal Illegal Illegal Illegal Class B drug to cultivate, sell or possess[40] Legal (up to As defined by Law 108, possession of small amounts of cannabis is not illegal.[41][42][43] Ecuador Illegal Illegal Illegal 10g) Possession of under 10 grams is considered personal use and it is legal and not punished.[44] Although technically illegal, use is widespread and part of every day culture. Convictions for personal use are very rare.[45] Formerly a plant of high status with several documented Egypt Illegal Illegal Illegal Illegal medicinal uses in ancient times, cannabis was made illegal in 1925 with the League of Nations’ Geneva International Convention on Narcotic Control, and has
Recommended publications
  • The Burgeoning Recognition and Accommodation of The

    The Burgeoning Recognition and Accommodation of The

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Ghent University Academic Bibliography International Journal of Drug Policy 58 (2018) 93–103 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Drug Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/drugpo Policy Analysis The burgeoning recognition and accommodation of the social supply of T drugs in international criminal justice systems: An eleven-nation comparative overview ⁎ Ross Coombera, , Leah Moyleb, Vendula Belackovac, Tom Decorted, Pekka Hakkarainene, Andrew Hathawayf, Karen Joe Laidlerg, Simon Lentonh, Sheigla Murphyi, John Scottj, Michaela Stefunkovak, Katinka van de Venl, Marieke Vlaemynckd, Bernd Wersem a Department of Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, L69 7ZA, United Kingdom b Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus G06_2.08, Queensland, 4222, Australia c Department of Insitutional Economics, University of Economics, UE Prague, W. Churchill Sq. 4, 130 67 Prague 3, Czech Republic d Institute for Social Drug Research (ISD), Ghent University, Universiteitstraat 4, 9000, Ghent, Belgium e Alcohol, Drug and Addictions Unit, National Institute for Health and Welfare, PO Box 30, FI-00271, Helsinki, Finland f Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada g Department of Sociology, University of Hong Kong, The Jockey Club Tower, Centennial Campus, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China h National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University, Building 609, Level 2, 7 Parker Place Technology Park, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia i Center for Substance Abuse Studies, Institute for Scientific Analysis, 390 4th Street, Second Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA j School of Justice, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Level 4, C Block, Gardens Point, 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia k Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention, Namesti 14.
  • Product Disclosure Statement Initial Public Offering of Ordinary Shares in Rua Bioscience Limited

    Product Disclosure Statement Initial Public Offering of Ordinary Shares in Rua Bioscience Limited

    Product Disclosure Statement Initial Public Offering of ordinary shares in Rua Bioscience Limited This document gives you important information about this investment to help you 25th September 2020 decide whether you want to invest. There is other useful information about this offer on LEAD MANAGER CO-MANAGER disclose-register.companiesoffice.govt.nz/. Rua Bioscience Limited has prepared this document in accordance with the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013. You can also seek advice from a financial adviser to help you to make an investment decision. 2 RUA Bioscience Limited • Key information summary Key information summary 1.1 Rua has secured a sales agreement with leading German wholesale importer and distributor Nimbus Health GmbH What is this? (Nimbus), and has developed two commercial-scale facilities: a controlled cultivation facility in Ruatorea and an extraction This is an offer of ordinary shares (Offer Shares) in Rua and manufacturing facility in Gisborne. By prioritising Bioscience Limited (Rua or the Company). Ordinary shares in wholesale exports in the short term, Rua intends to generate Rua give you a stake in the ownership of Rua. You may receive revenue to support its on-going investment into a range of long a return if dividends are paid or Rua increases in value and you term value opportunities, including genetics research, product are able to sell your Shares at a higher price than you paid development, clinical trials and brand development. for them. Rua holds a Medicinal Cannabis Licence from New Zealand’s If Rua runs into financial difficulties and is wound up, you will Medicinal Cannabis Agency, permitting it to operate in be paid only after all creditors have been paid.
  • An Economic Perspective on the Legalisation Debate: the Dutch Case

    An Economic Perspective on the Legalisation Debate: the Dutch Case

    AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE ON THE LEGALISATION DEBATE: THE DUTCH CASE Martijn Adriaan Boermans* Introduction Understanding the consequences of drug legalisation versus prohibition is important for policy. Most recently this subject has gained much political attention not only globally, but specifically in the Netherlands.1 This study will provide a contribution to the legalisation debate based on a microeconomic analysis of the effects of illegal markets. The research question is how to design a coherent soft drugs policy framework that maximizes social welfare within the Netherlands that precludes most historical, sociological and political debates. In particular, attention is restricted to ‘soft drugs’ better known as cannabis derived products like hashish and marijuana.2 The focus is on the Dutch case, since traditionally the Netherlands has been a forerunner in terms of drug-related policies, as exemplified by coffeeshops. In a country with a population of 16 million about 1 million indicate to use soft drugs on a regular basis. Almost all consumers buy soft drugs in coffeeshops.3 Interestingly, there is no stereotypical Dutch soft drug consumer, since users are representative of the Dutch population, for example in terms of education levels. Prices vary between 150-250 euro per * M.A. Boermans, MPhil, is a PhD Candidate and works for the Innovation and Business Centre (InnBus) at the Hogeschool Utrecht where he also is Lecturer. His other works include economic papers on international trade. He holds a research master degree in Multidisciplinary Economics from the Universiteit Utrecht and obtained his undergraduate degree from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Corresponding email: [email protected].
  • Commission on Narcotic Drugs Report of the Sixteenth Session (24 April - 10 May 1961)

    Commission on Narcotic Drugs Report of the Sixteenth Session (24 April - 10 May 1961)

    E/35U / E/CN.7/411 · __n~~VANCE UN UBRARY NOV 1 ;j )~bl UN/SA COLLECl\ON UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS REPORT OF THE SIXTEENTH SESSION (24 APRIL - 10 MAY 1961) ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL OFFICIAL RECORDS: THffiTY-SECOND SESSION J SUPPLEMENT No. 9 GENEVA CONTENTS Chapter Paragraphs Page I. Organizational and administrative matters. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1-20 Representation at the session. 1-11 Opening and duration of the session . .. .. .. .. .. ... ........ ... 12 2 Election of officers ... ............. ..... ... ..... .. .......... ... 13 2 Adoption of the agenda ....... ......... ....... ... .......... ... ..... 14-15 2 Report of the Commission to the Economic and Social Council on its sixteenth session. .... ...... .. ... ......... ....... ... .... .. ........... .. .. 16 3 Organization of the seventeenth session of the Commission ............. ... .. 17-19 3 Place of meeting of the seventeenth session of the Commission..... .......... 20 3 II. Implementation of the treaties and international control ....... ................. 21-70 4 Report of the Division of Narcotic Drugs ...... .. .. ...... .......... .. ... 21-23 4 List of drugs under international control. ...... .. ... .. ............ ....... 24-27 4 Ratifications, acceptance, accessions and declarations concerning the multilateral treaties on narcotic drugs . .... .. .................. .. ........... .... 28-31 4 Annual reports of governments made in pursuance of article 21 of the 1931 Convention . .. .. .. .... .. .. .. ...... .. .... .... .. .... ......
  • Cannabis in New Zealand Perceptions of Use, Users and Policy

    Cannabis in New Zealand Perceptions of Use, Users and Policy

    Cannabis in New Zealand perceptions of use, users and policy Geoff Noller A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Otago, Christchurch Aotearoa, New Zealand November 5, 2008 ABSTRACT Introduction Despite humanity’s lengthy relationship with psychoactive substances, their consumption in contemporary societies is perceived as highly problematic. Cannabis, the most commonly imbibed illicit psychotropic, has come to embody these concerns. Medical and scientific research informs notions of use and user, with these being further constructed in the public realm by law, the media and policy against a backdrop of health deficits and other harms including risk taking, criminality and deviance. With many studies drawing on clinical populations, e.g. high intensity users or those in treatment, a pathologized view of the user predominates. Where general population studies incorporate user data, these typically concentrate on the epidemiology of use: frequency, intensity, duration, and symptoms of abuse and dependence. This, however, tells us little about the meaning of use for users or why use continues despite universal official disapprobation. A lack of studies incorporating user perspectives thus ensures the limited focus of much present research and a policy accent on supply reduction at the expense of harm minimisation and safe use education. Those choosing to continue use are stigmatised as deviant or dependant. This has the effect of further bolstering enforcement, a strategy showing little evidence of efficacy. The present study sought a comparison between this dominant discourse on cannabis use and the perspectives of users, with a range of exploratory hypotheses being identified. Method Eighty cannabis-using respondents participated in open-ended face-to-face interviews, of which seventy-six successfully completed a follow-up questionnaire.
  • Tobacco & Cannabis

    Tobacco & Cannabis

    TOBACCO & CANNABIS: THE EVOLUTION OF PERTINENT RULES & REGULATIONS AND SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL RAMIFICATIONS by Virginia Palmer Yerger Avisto A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of Mississippi in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College. Oxford May 2016 Approved by _________________________ Advisor: Dr. Bonnie Van Ness _________________________ Reader: Dr. Travis Box _________________________ Reader: Dr. Dwight Frink © 2016 Virginia Palmer Yerger Avisto ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii I would like to dedicate my thesis to all family members who encouraged me to apply to the Honors College and acted as my cheerleaders throughout the entire process. Peter Avisto Virginia Avisto Harrison Avisto Gingia Yerger Swan Yerger Patricia Avisto Uno Avisto iii ABSTRACT PALMER AVISTO: Tobacco & Cannabis: The Evolution of Pertinent Rules & Regulations and Subsequent Financial Ramifications (Under the direction of Dr. Bonnie Van Ness) My thesis will discuss the evolution of the regulations surrounding tobacco and cannabis and the subsequent financial ramifications later posed on pertaining companies and the industries themselves. I will also briefly discuss the evolution of tobacco advertisements and the introduction of e-cigarettes into the tobacco market. Concerning newly legalized cannabis stores, I will discuss the struggle to acquire financial tools, the state-Federal disagreement, and proposed solutions to those issues. Both having been deemed “public enemy number one,” I will compare marijuana and tobacco regarding health effects, profitability after new laws, and their overall economic profitability for the country. I researched and summarized all pertinent regulations for the two industries and analyzed the available annual reports for the major tobacco companies.
  • The Impact of Cannabis Access Laws on Opioid Prescribing

    The Impact of Cannabis Access Laws on Opioid Prescribing

    Journal of Health Economics 69 (2020) 102273 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Health Economics j ournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase The impact of cannabis access laws on opioid prescribing a,∗ b c Benjamin J. McMichael , R. Lawrence Van Horn , W. Kip Viscusi a Assistant Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law, Box 870382, 101 Paul W. Bryant Drive East, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35487, United States b Associate Professor of Management and Law, Executive Director of Health Affairs, Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, 401 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN, 37203, United States c University Distinguished Professor of Law, Economics, and Management, Vanderbilt University Law School. 131 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN, 37203, United States a r a t i c l e i n f o b s t r a c t Article history: While recent research has shown that cannabis access laws can reduce the use of prescrip- Received 5 October 2018 tion opioids, the effect of these laws on opioid use is not well understood for all dimensions Received in revised form 17 July 2019 of use and for the general United States population. Analyzing a dataset of over 1.5 bil- Accepted 7 December 2019 lion individual opioid prescriptions between 2011 and 2018, which were aggregated to the Available online 14 December 2019 individual provider-year level, we find that recreational and medical cannabis access laws reduce the number of morphine milligram equivalents prescribed each year by 11.8 and 4.2 JEL classification: percent, respectively. These laws also reduce the total days’ supply of opioids prescribed, I180 the total number of patients receiving opioids, and the probability a provider prescribes K19 any opioids net of any offsetting effects.
  • ODCCP Studies on Drugs and Crime MONOGRAPHS

    ODCCP Studies on Drugs and Crime MONOGRAPHS

    ODCCP Studies on Drugs and Crime MONOGRAPHS THE DRUG NEXUS IN AFRICA Publications under the ODCCP Studies on Drugs and Crime Series may be the work of one or more staff members or organizational units of ODCCP, or the result of joint efforts involving ODCCP and other United Nations entities. ODCCP may also commission contributions from independent experts. Whenever appropriate, authorship is identified. The ODCCP Studies on Drugs and Crime incorporates the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Newsletter and the three categories of publications previously printed under the UNDCP Technical Series (Monographs, Statistical Summaries and Analyses, and Manuals and Guidelines). The present document represents issue # 1 in the Monograph series. The views expressed in the publications do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Secretariat of the United Nations or the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention. Material published in the ODCCP Studies on Drugs and Crime is the property of the United Nations and enjoys copyright protection, in accordance with the provision of the Universal Copyright Convention Protocol 2, concerning the application of that convention to the works of certain international organizations. Request for permission to reprint signed material should be addressed to the secretary of the Publications Board, United Nations, New York, N.Y. 10017, United States of America. © Copyright United Nations, 1999 - All rights reserved - Printed in Austria THE DRUGNEXUS INAFRICA March1999 Vienna
  • Civil Society Monitoring of Harm Reduction in Europe, 2019

    Civil Society Monitoring of Harm Reduction in Europe, 2019

    Correlation Correlation European DATA REPORT Eropean Harm Reduction R C Network C Network CIVIL SOCIETY MONITORING OF HARM REDUCTION IN EUROPE, 2019 DATA REPORT 1 CIVIL SOCIETY MONITORING OF HARM REDUCTION IN EUROPE, 2019 ® Correlation – European Harm Reduction Network, 2019. This publication of Correlation – European Harm Reduction Network is protected by copyright. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Recommended citation: Tammi, T., Rigoni, R., Matičič, M., Schäffer, D., van der Gouwe, D., Schiffer, K., Perez Gayo, R., Schatz, E. (2020): Civil Society Monitoring of Harm Reduction in Europe, 2019. Data Report. Correlation European Harm Reduction Network, Amsterdam. Correlation – European Harm Reduction Network c/o Foundation De REGENBOOG GROEP Droogbak 1d 1013 GE Amsterdam The Netherlands www.correlation-net.org This project has been supported by the European Commission. Correlation - European Harm Reduction Network is co-funded by the European Union 2 Correlation European DATA REPORT Harm Reduction C Network CIVIL SOCIETY MONITORING OF HARM REDUCTION IN EUROPE, 2019 DATA REPORT 3 CIVIL SOCIETY MONITORING OF HARM REDUCTION IN EUROPE, 2019 CONTRIBUTORS Editor: The data network: Graham Shaw Albania: Genci Mucollari, Aksion Plus Austria: Alexandra Karden & Barbara Siokola, Scientific expert group: Suchthilfe Wien Tuukka Tammi (THL), Dagmar Hedrich (EMCDDA), Belgium: Peter Blanckaert & Tessa Windelinckx, Sam Shirley-Beavan (HRI), Perrine Roux (INSERM). Free Clinic Bosnia and Herzegovina: Samir Ibisevic, PROI
  • A Research Agenda for the Regulation of Non-Medical Cannabis Use in Switzerland

    A Research Agenda for the Regulation of Non-Medical Cannabis Use in Switzerland

    A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR THE REGULATION OF NON-MEDICAL CANNABIS USE IN SWITZERLAND Commissioned by the Federal Office of Public Health Roman Zwicky, Palmo Brunner, Flavia Caroni, Daniel Kübler Zürcher Politik- & Evaluationsstudien Nr. 20, May 2021 Zürcher Politik- & Evaluationsstudien herausgegeben von Thomas Widmer Publikationsreihe des Forschungsbereichs ‚Policy-Analyse & Evaluation’ Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Universität Zürich Projektinformation: Auftraggeberin: Bundesamt für Gesundheit (BAG) Sektion wissenschaftliche Grundlagen 3003 Bern E-Mail: [email protected] Vertragsnummer: 20.011294 Laufzeit: November 2020 – Mai 2021 Leitung Forschungsprojekt im BAG: Marc Wittwer, Sektion wissenschaftliche Grundlagen Originalsprache: Englisch Zitiervorschlag: ZWICKY, Roman, BRUNNER, Palmo, CARONI, Flavia & KÜBLER, Daniel (2021):A Research Agenda for the Regulation of Non-Medical Cannabis Use in Switzerland. Zurich, Department of Political Science (Zürcher Politik- und Evaluationsstudien Nr. 20) ISBN 3-908610-43-7 Bezugsadresse: Universität Zürich Institut für Politikwissenschaft Forschungsbereich Policy-Analyse & Evaluation Affolternstrasse 56, CH-8050 Zürich Telefon +41 1 634 38 41 E-Mail [email protected] © 2021 bei den Autorinnen und Autoren und beim Bundesamt für Gesundheit Table of Contents A Research Agenda for the Regulation of Non-Medical Cannabis Use in Switzerland Table of Contents Executive summary 5 Zusammenfassung 15 Résumé 27 Sintesi 38 1 Introduction 49 1.1 Background: Cannabis policy in Switzerland 49 1.2 Mandate
  • Annual Report 2012: the State of the Drugs Problem in Europe

    Annual Report 2012: the State of the Drugs Problem in Europe

    TD-AC-12-001-EN-C ISSN 1609-6150 ANNUAL REPORT 2012: THE STATE OF THE THE STATE DRUGSANNUAL PROBLEM REPORT IN 2012: EUROPE About the EMCDDA The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) is one of the European Union’s decentralised agencies. Established in 1993 and based in Lisbon, it is the central source of comprehensive information on drugs and drug addiction in Europe. The EMCDDA collects, analyses and disseminates factual, objective, reliable and comparable information on drugs and drug addiction; in doing so, it provides its audience with an evidence-based picture of the drug phenomenon at European level. The Centre’s publications are a prime source of information for a wide audience including policymakers and their advisers; professionals and researchers working in the field of drugs; and, more broadly, the media and general public. 12 The annual report presents the EMCDDA’s yearly overview of the drug phenomenon in the EU and is an essential reference for those seeking the latest findings on drugs in Europe. 20 THE STATE OF THE DRUGS PROBLEM IN EUROPE REPORT ANNUAL EN HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS Free publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • at the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758. Priced publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union): • via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
  • Idpc Drug Policy Guide 3Rd Edition

    Idpc Drug Policy Guide 3Rd Edition

    IDPC DRUG POLICY GUIDE 3RD EDITION IDPC Drug Policy Guide 3 IDPC DRUG POLICY GUIDE 3RD EDITION Acknowledgements Global Drug Policy Observatory) • Dave Borden (StoptheDrugWar.org) IDPC would like to thank the following authors for drafting chapters of the 3rd Edition of the • Eric Gutierrez (Christian Aid) IDPC Drug Policy Guide: • Fabienne Hariga (United Nations Office on • Andrea Huber (Policy Director, Penal Reform Drugs and Crime) International) • George McBride (Beckley Foundation) • Benoit Gomis (Independent international • Gloria Lai (IDPC) security analyst, Associate Fellow at Chatham House, and Research Associate at Simon Fraser • Graham Bartlett (former Chief Superintendent University) of the Sussex Police) • Christopher Hallam (Research Officer, IDPC) • Gregor Burkhart (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction) • Coletta Youngers (Consultant, IDPC & Washington Office on Latin America) • Ines Gimenez • Diana Guzmán (Associate investigator, • Jamie Bridge (IDPC) DeJusticia, Associate Professor at Colombian • Javier Sagredo (United Nations Development National University and PhD candidate at Program) Stanford University) • Jean-Felix Savary (Groupement Romand • Diederik Lohman (Associate Director, Health d’Etudes en Addictologie) and Human Rights Division, Human Rights • Juan Fernandez Ochoa (IDPC) Watch) • Katherine Pettus (International Association for • Gloria Lai (Senior Policy Officer, IDPC) Hospice and Palliative Care) • Jamie Bridge (Senior Policy and Operations Manager, IDPC) • Luciana Pol (Centro de Estudios