Page 2 of 95 METAFORUM POSITION PAPERS The interdisciplinary think-tank Metaforum aims to strengthen the KU Leuven's involvement in societal debate by supporting multidisciplinary working groups in which researchers from different disciplines combine their sci- entific expertise and discuss relevant societal issues from different angles. 1. Increased Use of Psychiatric Medication (2010) 2. Biodiversity: Basic Commodity or Luxury Item? (2010) 3. Socio-Economic Differences in Overweight (2010) 4. Traffic Mobility in Flanders (2011) 5. Conservation and Management of Forests for Sustainable Development: Where Science Meets Policy (2011) 6. Full Sequencing of the Human Genome (2011) 7. Secondary Education Reforms in Flanders (2012) 8. Towards a New Communality for Brussels (2012) 9. Studium Generale: Proposal for an Interdisciplinary Bachelor Course (2013) 10. Public Funding of the Art Sector: The Importance of Investing in Art Production (2013) 11. Euthanasia and Human Frailty (2013) 12. GMOs in Our Food Production: Contribution to a Nuanced Debate (2013) 13. Health and Health Care: Everyone an Expert? (2015) 14. Food Production and Food Security: The Incomplete Truth (2015) 15. Circular Economy (2016) METAFORUM CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNAL DEBATE A university intent on contributing to societal debate must also accept its own responsibilities. For this reason, Metaforum also supports working groups that reflect on the KU Leuven’s own identity and potential for action. 1. University, Church and Society (2010) 2. KU Leuven Climate Neutral 2030 (2013) Metaforum KU Leuven, interdisciplinary think-tank for societal debate Holland College, Damiaanplein 9 bus 5009, 3000 Leuven [email protected], www.kuleuven.be/metaforum TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Cannabis: what is it and how does it work? ................................................................................................... 8 I. Cannabinoid receptors ........................................................................................................................ 10 II. Endogenous and exogenous cannabinoids and their effect on our body .......................................... 11 III. Inhibitory and excitatory neurotransmitters ...................................................................................... 12 IV. The influence of the endocannabinoid system on the development of dependence and abuse ...... 12 V. THC uptake according to use .............................................................................................................. 12 3. The prevalence of cannabis use in Belgium from a European perspective .................................................. 18 4. Belgium’s cannabis policy today: to what extent has it achieved its goals? ................................................ 23 I. Beginnings ........................................................................................................................................... 23 II. Parliamentary working group on drugs ............................................................................................... 23 III. Federal drugs memorandum ............................................................................................................... 24 IV. Legislative reform in 2003 ................................................................................................................... 24 V. Intervention of the constitutional court ............................................................................................. 25 VI. Recent revisions .................................................................................................................................. 25 VII. Current legal situation and criminal prosecution practice .................................................................. 25 VIII. Some statistics on the results of criminal prosecution ....................................................................... 26 I. Trends in the problematic use of cannabis ......................................................................................... 28 II. The paradox of the repressive approach and its consequences ......................................................... 28 5. The evolution of international cannabis policy ............................................................................................ 31 I. The first opium convention of The Hague, 1912 ................................................................................. 31 II. The drugs conventions of the league of nations and the first national legislations ............................ 32 I. The Single Convention of 1961 ............................................................................................................ 33 II. The Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 ........................................................................ 33 III. Convention against Illicit Trafficking of 1988 ...................................................................................... 34 IV. The ‘Vienna Consensus’ and its critics ................................................................................................ 34 V. The UN General Assembly Special Session of 2016 and the ‘flexibility’ of the three UN conventions 35 VI. The potential reform of the international drug control system ......................................................... 36 I. The Schengen agreement of 2000 ........................................................................................................ 37 II. The 2009 convention on the functioning of the European Union and Frame Decision 2004/757/JBZ 38 III. The European Drugs Strategy for 2013-20 ........................................................................................... 39 IV. The studies of Van Kempen and Fedorova .......................................................................................... 39 6. The reform of cannabis policy in various legal domains ............................................................................... 42 I. The evolution of the Dutch policy of tolerance ................................................................................... 44 II. The current debate .............................................................................................................................. 45 7. The experiences with legal psychoactive substances ................................................................................... 56 8. Regulatory options for cannabis: prohibition, commercialization and compromise options ...................... 66 I. The Alaska model: home cultivation for personal use ........................................................................ 69 II. Cannabis social clubs: the cooperative model .................................................................................... 70 III. License system for non-profit organizations ....................................................................................... 70 IV. Government monopoly ....................................................................................................................... 71 V. The coffee shop model (and its variants) ............................................................................................ 72 VI. Competitive, regulated models ........................................................................................................... 72 VII. Medicinal cannabis programmes ........................................................................................................ 73 9. Recommendations for a new Belgian cannabis policy ................................................................................. 75 10. Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................. 80 Appendix 1 – Definitions of juridical concepts ..................................................................................................... 94 Page 5 of 95 1. INTRODUCTION Given the limited scientific knowledge of the day, it is understandable to a degree that the architects of the current international enforcement regime on drugs believed sixty years ago in the concept of total eradication of drug production and use. Nowadays, however, it is impossible to ignore the scientific insights and experiences that have been acquired since then in this regard: it is impossible to reduce production and trafficking in illegal drugs and their consumption on a global scale, and certainly not within the border-free European Union. In other words: the global ‘war on drugs’ launched in the 1980s cannot be won and only serves to create additional problems such as corruption, violence and illegal drug revenue in a number of countries worldwide (e.g. Paoli, Reuter & Greenfield, 2009). For decades, debate surrounding alternative regulatory models has been suppressed with the argument, among others, that international agreements and obligations do not permit it (Van Dijk, 1997). But after years of apparent immobility, several countries are presently engaged in an active search for ways to abandon the ‘war on drugs’ path – especially with respect to cannabis. A significant change of course via established international accords is unlikely in the short term because consensus is necessary in this regard