Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694500364775.pdf (Australia)
Assessing the Public Health Impacts of Legalizing Recreational Cannabis Use in the USA W Hall1,2 and M Weier1 A major challenge in assessing the public health impact of legalizing cannabis use in Colorado and Washington State is the absence of any experience with legal cannabis markets.

The Netherlands created a de facto legalized cannabis market for recreational use, but policy analysts disagree about how it has affected rates of cannabis use.
Some US states have created de facto legal supply of cannabis for medical use.

So far this policy does not appear to have increased cannabis use or cannabis-related harm.

Given experience with more liberal alcohol policies, the legalization of recreational cannabis use is likely to increase use among current users.
It is also likely that legalization will increase the number of new users among young adults but it remains uncertain how many may be recruited, within what time frame, among which groups within the population, and how many of these new users will become regular users.

Recreational cannabis use was banned under the Single Conven- tion on Narcotic Drugs in 1961.1,2 By the end of the 1960s, how- ever, cannabis use and arrests for possession and use had risen among young adults in the USA.
Concerns about the adverse effects of criminal records on the lives of young people led some US states to depenalize or decriminalize cannabis use in the 1970s.2 Depenalization replaced imprisonment with ﬁnes or diversion into treatment while decriminalization removed crimi- nal penalties for use from the statute.1,3 High rates of cannabis use among adolescents in the late 1970s produced a conservative reaction to liberal cannabis policies in the 1980s.4,5 Arrests for cannabis use increased and remained high well into the 2000s.1,6 In the 1990s, advocates of more lib- eral cannabis policies campaigned to legalize the medical use of cannabis.
In 1996 Californians approved a citizen-initiated refer- endum to legalize cannabis for medical use, very broadly deﬁned.

By the end of the 2000s, 20 states and territories in the USA allowed medical cannabis use in some form.

In 2012, citizens in Colorado and Washington State voted to legalize recreational cannabis use and its commercial sale to adults.
Citizens of Alaska and Oregon followed suit in 2014 and those in the District of Columbia voted to allow adults to grow cannabis for their own use and give it to friends.

In this article we discuss how we should assess the possible effects of these policy changes.
We begin with an account of the effects of policy changes that preceded the legalization of recrea- tional use: decriminalization of personal use in Australia, the Netherlands, and the USA in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s; and the creation of de facto legal retail cannabis markets in the Neth- erlands in the 1980s and in some US states in the early 2000s under the guise of providing marijuana for medical use.
We describe the results of the studies of their effects on rates of can- nabis use and cannabis-related harm.

We then ask, in light of this experience, and historical experiences with the effects of more lib- eral alcohol policies: What may we expect to happen to cannabis use and cannabis-related harm after the legalization of commer- cial sales of cannabis for recreational use?

What adverse and ben- eﬁcial effects should we assess when evaluating the effects of this policy?
DEPENALIZATION AND DECRIMINALIZATION OF CANNABIS USE In Australia and the USA a number of states have reduced or removed criminal penalties for cannabis use while the remaining states retained them.
The availability of national household sur- veys of drug use enabled researchers to compare trends in canna- bis use among young adults between states that had and had not legislated to reduce or remove criminal penalties for cannabis use.1,7 These studies generally did not ﬁnd large differences in rates of increase in cannabis use in states that had and had not decriminalized cannabis.
This was the case in Australia in the late 1Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, University of Queensland, Herston, Australia; 2Addiction Policy, National Addiction Centre, Kings College, London, UK.
Correspondence: W Hall (w.hall@uq.edu.au) Received 3 December 2014; accepted 5 March 2015; advance online publication 16 March 2015. doi:10.1002/cpt.110 CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS | VOLUME 97 NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2015 607 Personal choice and community impactsSubmission 116 - Attachment 10 1980s and early 1990s (e.g., refs.

8,9); the Netherlands in the 1980s10; the USA in the 1970s and 1980s3; and later in Europe11,12 (see ref.

1 for a detailed review).


Various explanations have been offered for these ﬁndings.
One was that there was in fact very little difference in law enforcement practices between jurisdictions that had legislated to remove or reduce criminal penalties and those that nominally retained them.7 Another explanation was that criminal penalties for can- nabis use had very little deterrent effect because so few users were arrested in states that nominally retained these penalties and enforced the law.7 Finally, small sample sizes in each state in the household surveys in Australia in the 1980s and early 1990s pro- vided limited statistical power to detect differential changes in cannabis use between states that had and had not reduced the severity of criminal penalties.13 A more nuanced view has been provided by more recent analy- ses of Australian data on cannabis use.
These have used larger sur- vey samples to observe the effects of these policies over longer periods of time.14–17 They have also used more sophisticated sta- tistical methods to examine the effects of cannabis penalties while controlling for any effects of differences in cannabis price and enforcement of laws against cannabis use.

Their ﬁndings suggest that criminal penalties may marginally discourage some people from using cannabis but do not inﬂuence how much cannabis is consumed by those who do use.
Constraints on cannabis liberalization There is a simple reason why the most common cannabis reforms have involved very modest changes in penalties for personal can- nabis use: most developed countries have signed International Drug Control Treaties, such as the Single Convention,1,2 that require them to restrict the use of cannabis to medical and scien- tiﬁc purposes.
The treaties are also interpreted as requiring nation states to make it a criminal offense to use, possess, produce, and sell cannabis but they allow latitude in the penalties that may be imposed for this offense.18 There is no doubt, however, that they prevent states that have signed them from creating a legal canna- bis market for recreational use.1,2 De facto cannabis legalization in the Netherlands In the 1970s and 1980s the Netherlands creatively used a consti- tutional exemption allowed in the Single Convention to initially allow cannabis use and then small-scale retail sales to be decrimi- nalized and made de facto legal.1,2 In 1976 state prosecutors issued a statement that they would not prosecute persons for the possession and use of up to 30 grams of cannabis, effectively mak- ing possession and use of these small quantities of cannabis legal de facto.19,20 The Dutch authorities later extended this policy to the sale of small amounts of cannabis in coffee shops,10,19 thereby creating a de facto legal retail cannabis market.1 Over the next decade guidelines were used to regulate the retail cannabis market in the Netherlands.19 Coffee shops that sold cannabis products were prohibited from: 1) advertising; 2) selling hard drugs; 3) selling cannabis to minors; 4) selling amounts greater than a speciﬁed quantity; and 5) allowing public distur- bances in their vicinity.10 In the mid-1990s, the licensing system limited the number and location of coffee shops, gave local gov- ernment control over where cannabis could be sold, and reduced the quantity of cannabis that could be legally sold and/or pos- sessed to 5 grams.20 The architects of Dutch policy chose de facto legalization because de jure legalization was seen to be contrary to interna- tional treaties, and hence, likely to attract criticism from neigh- boring countries and defenders of the international drug control treaties.19 The Dutch government argued that their policy still complied with the international drug control treaties because cannabis use and sale remained illegal; the authorities simply used the expediency principle (contained in the Netherlands’ constitu- tion) to give a low priority to enforcing these laws if certain con- ditions were met.1,2 This argument was accepted by the guardian of the drug control treaties, namely, the International Narcotic Control Board, until the late 1990s but thereafter was strongly criticized for failing to comply with the treaties.2,21 Impacts of Dutch policy on rates of cannabis use Analysts disagree about the effects that the Netherlands’ policy had on cannabis use among young adults.
MacCoun and Reu- ter10,22 compared cannabis use between the Netherlands, USA, Denmark, and Germany and concluded that de facto decriminal- ization had not increased cannabis use in the Netherlands.

They argued, however, that cannabis use increased among youth between 1992 and 1996 as a result of the de facto legalization of commercial sales and a rapid growth in the number of coffee shops.
For example, lifetime cannabis use among Dutch youth aged 18 to 20 increased from 15% in 1984 to 44% in 1996, while use in the past month increased from 8.5% to 18.5% over the same period.10 Abraham et al.23 criticized MacCoun and Reuter for comparing data from cities in the Netherlands with data from whole nations.

Korf20 argued that trends in recent cannabis use in the Netherlands were very similar to that in other Euro- pean countries and the USA.
Room et al.,1 who reviewed later evidence, concluded that the case was “still open” on whether de facto legalization had increased cannabis use among Dutch youth.

MacCoun24 recently evaluated Dutch policy using more exten- sive survey data from the Netherlands and the rest of Europe.
He maintains that the evidence indicated that cannabis use increased when coffee shop numbers expanded and declined after the num- ber of coffee shops was reduced and the quantity of cannabis that could be sold was reduced to 5 g in the late 1990s.

He also pointed to other evidence for an increase, namely, survey evidence that Dutch youth initiated cannabis user earlier, and that there were higher rates of treatment for cannabis dependence in the Netherlands than elsewhere in Europe.
MacCoun stressed that the Dutch cannabis policy fell short of full legalization because cannabis prices in the Netherlands did not differ from those in other EU countries and in the USA where retail sales remain illegal.

The legalization of medical cannabis use in the USA In 1996 California passed a citizen-initiated referendum, Propo- sition 215, that allowed the medical use of cannabis (marijuana) for a broad set of indications.
These included, in addition to 608 VOLUME 97 NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2015 | www.wileyonlinelibrary/cpt Personal choice and community impactsSubmission 116 - Attachment 10 nausea, weight loss, pain, and muscle spasm, any “serious medical condition” for which cannabis provided relief.15 By mid-2013, 20 US states (and the Federal District of Columbia) had enacted laws that allowed the medical use of cannabis under some conditions.25,26 In order to ensure a legal supply of cannabis for medical users, around half of these states subsequently allowed dispensaries to sell cannabis to persons with a range of medical conditions, if they had a doctor’s written “recommendation."
During the 2000s, the expansion of for-proﬁt dispensaries effectively legalized the commercial supply of cannabis in California and Colorado.

The effects of broadly deﬁning medical use in California are reﬂected in the characteristics of 4,117 patients of dispensaries in the San Francisco-Bay Area during 2001–2007.

They were pre- dominantly male (77%) with an average age of 32.
Most (89%) started using cannabis before the age of 19 and 90% were daily smokers.27 In a survey of a representative sample of 7,525 adults in California, 5% of adults reported “medical cannabis” use in the past year,28 primarily for chronic pain.

The highest preva- lence of medical use was among young adults aged 18 to 24 years (9%) and the lowest among those over the age of 65 (2%).

These data raise questions about how “medical” this use is in California.
They also suggest that much of the self-described medical use is for indications other than those for which there is some evidence of efﬁcacy, namely, cancer-related nausea and vomiting, some types of pain, and spasticity in multiple sclerosis.29–32 THE PUBLIC HEALTH EFFECTS OF LEGALIZING MEDICAL CANNABIS Effects on adolescent cannabis use A major community concern has been that the legalization of medical marijuana will increase cannabis use among adolescents by: increasing their access to more potent cannabis, at a cheaper price than the black market; increasing the social acceptability of using cannabis; and lowering the perceived risks of using canna- bis.33,34 Researchers have assessed these concerns by comparing trends in cannabis use among young people in states that have and have not legalized medical cannabis use (using large-scale household and school-based national surveys of drug use).
Wall et al.35 used data from a household survey to compare cannabis use among adolescents living in states that did and did not allow medical marijuana use.

They found higher average rates of cannabis use and lower perceived riskiness of use among ado- lescents in medical marijuana states but their analysis did not take account the fact that these states reported higher rates of cannabis use before medical cannabis use was made legal.
Cerda et al.33 also examined a number of indicators of canna- bis use (use in the past year; use in the past 30 days; near daily use; and use meeting criteria for a cannabis use disorder) in the National Epidemiologic Survey of Alcohol and Related Condi- tions (NESARC) conducted in 2004–2005.

They compared these outcomes in the eight US states that had legalized medical marijuana by 2004 with that in states which had not.
They found higher rates of cannabis use on all indicators in the medical mari- juana states, but these data were cross-sectional so it was not pos- sible to tell whether medical marijuana laws had increased cannabis use, or the higher rates of cannabis use in the medical marijuana states were a consequence of greater social tolerance of cannabis use in these states that also explained why their citizens had voted to legalize medical cannabis use.
A number of studies have attempted to discriminate between these possibilities by conducting difference-in-difference analyses of survey data that take into account preexisting differences between states with and those without medical marijuana laws in cannabis use and social attitudes towards cannabis use.
Harper et al.36 applied this method of analysis to the data used by Wall et al.35 They found no differences in rates of change in cannabis use, or in the perceived risks of cannabis use, between states that allowed medical marijuana and those that did not.

Choo et al.37 compared adolescent cannabis use among Ameri- can high school students in US states that did or did not allow medical marijuana use using data from the Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance Survey.
They did not ﬁnd any signiﬁcant difference in rates of cannabis use in the past month between states that had or had not legalized medical marijuana.

Lynne-Landsman et al.34 also used the Youth Risk Behavior Survey to assess adoles- cent marijuana use before and after medical marijuana laws were introduced.

They also found no signiﬁcant differences in rate of change in cannabis use before and after the introduction of medi- cal marijuana laws.
Scheurmeyer et al.38 compared trends in cannabis use and atti- tudes towards cannabis use within Colorado with trends in states that did not allow medical cannabis use.

They used the National Survey on Drug Use and Health to examine trends in cannabis use and perceived riskiness of cannabis use among young adults in Colorado before and after commercial medical cannabis sales were allowed in 2009.
They found a decline in the proportion of young adults in Colorado who perceived cannabis use as risky, an increase in their reported ease of access to cannabis, and higher rates of cannabis use and dependence in Colorado after commer- cialization of medical cannabis sales.

They also showed that the rates of change in these indicators were larger in Colorado than in US states that had not allowed medical cannabis use.

Many of these studies share the same limitations.


First, not all state medical marijuana laws have been as liberal in allowing access to cannabis for medical use as California, Colorado, and Washington.26,34 It would be an error, therefore, to expect all medical marijuana states to show similar changes in cannabis use among youth.

Second, not all states have allowed commercial marijuana markets to sell marijuana for medical use.
One would expect a larger impact on cannabis use in states that have legalized cannabis supply for very broadly deﬁned medical indications than in states in which only small numbers of patients use cannabis for strictly deﬁned purposes.39 Schuermeyer et al.

provide sugges- tive evidence for such an effect that needs replication and exten- sion.38 Third, in many of these analyses it has been only 1–5 years since medical marijuana use was legalized in the states under study.
This may be too short a time to detect increases in canna- bis use or cannabis-related harm among young people.

Fourth, in national household surveys sample sizes for individual states are often small, limiting the statistical power of state-level analyses to detect increases in cannabis use among youth.

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS | VOLUME 97 NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2015 609 Personal choice and community impactsSubmission 116 - Attachment 10 Table 1 What are the health effects of cannabis?

1.
1.

Adverse effects of acute use Cannabis does not produce fatal overdoses like opioids do.

 Driving a vehicle while intoxicated doubles the risk of being in a car crash; combining cannabis and alcohol greatly increases the risk of a car crash.

 Women who use cannabis during pregnancy have babies with a reduced birth weight.

 Some naive cannabis users have very unpleasant psychological experiences, such as heightened anxiety and psychotic symptoms.

2.
2.

Adverse effects of chronic use Regular cannabis use from adolescence into adulthood has been associated with the risk of developing a dependence syndrome (around 1 in 10 among those who ever use and 1 in 6 among those who start in adolescence).

 Regular cannabis users in adolescence and young adulthood double their risks of experiencing psychotic symptoms and disorders.
The risk is higher in those users who have a personal or family history of such disorders, who initiate in their mid-teens.

 Regular adolescent cannabis users have lower educational attainment than nonusing peers.

 Regular use that begins in adolescence and continues throughout young adulthood appears to produce cognitive impairment but it is unclear how reversible it is.
Regular adolescent cannabis users are more likely to use other illicit drugs for reasons that remain a subject of debate.

 All of these relationships have persisted after controlling for plausible confounders in well-designed longitudinal studies but some researchers still question whether these adverse effects are causally related to regular cannabis use.

3.
3.

Physical health outcomes Regular cannabis smokers have higher risks of developing chronic bronchitis but have not shown impaired respiratory function in all studies.

 Cannabis smoking by middle-aged adults probably increases the risks of myocardial infarction.

 The effects of cannabis use on respiratory cancers remain unclear because it has been difﬁcult to disentangle the effects of cannabis and tobacco smoking.
Effects of medical cannabis laws on cannabis-related harm The most probable adverse health effects of acute and chronic cannabis use are summarized in Table 1.

These are based on a review of epidemiological studies of recreational cannabis users conducted over the past 20 years.40 Given the short time that medical cannabis use has been commercialized in some US states, the most likely adverse health effects are those of acute use.
For understandable reasons, the outcome that has attracted the most research attention is the impact of medical marijuana laws on motor vehicle fatalities.

Effects on motor vehicle fatalities The availability of toxicological data on drivers and passengers killed in car crashes in the USA has enabled researchers to inves- tigate whether there has been an increase in the proportion of cannabis-impaired drivers involved in car crashes in US states that do and do not allow medical cannabis use.
Masten and Guenzburger41 found increases in the percentage of both fatal crash-involved drivers and fatally injured drivers who tested posi- tive for cannabinoids in California, Hawaii, and Washington after medical cannabis use was legalized.

They also found that the increase in prevalence occurred shortly after the legalization of medical cannabis but did not increase further thereafter.
Interpre- tation of their data was complicated by the fact that the propor- tion of fatalities tested for cannabis and other drugs was very low in medical marijuana states before medical cannabis laws were enacted.

This proportion increased steeply after the medical mari- juana laws were passed because cannabis-impaired driving was now an offense.

This may mean that the increased rate of detec- tion reﬂects, at least in part, an increased postmortem testing in states that allowed medical cannabis use.
Anderson et al.42 examined changes in the role of alcohol in car crashes over the period 1990–2010 in US states that had and had not legalized the medical use of cannabis.

They reported a decrease of between 8 and 11% in total trafﬁc fatalities and in fatalities in which alcohol was detected at levels indicative of impairment (blood alcohol concentration greater than 0.08%).

These decreases were larger in crashes involving young adult males.
Other data they presented suggested that this could reﬂect a substitution of cannabis for alcohol among young males.

Data on cannabis prices, for example, showed that cannabis was cheaper in medical marijuana states.

The latter states also showed larger reductions in alcohol consumption reported in surveys and in beer sales (the preferred beverage of young adult males) than states that had not legalized medical cannabis.
Other effects of legalizing medical cannabis use A small number of other studies have examined relationships between the legalization of medical cannabis use and more posi- tive health outcomes.

Anderson et al.,43 for example, reported steeper declines in suicide rates in males aged 20 to 30 in US states that legalized medical marijuana than in those that had not.
A similar analysis of state trends in opioid overdose deaths found that states that had legalized medical marijuana had signiﬁ- cantly lower rates of these deaths than states without such laws and that this difference had increased over time.44 By contrast, 610 VOLUME 97 NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2015 | www.wileyonlinelibrary/cpt Personal choice and community impactsSubmission 116 - Attachment 10 Sevigny et al.26 reported small increases in average cannabis potency in states that allowed medical cannabis use, and found that the largest increases were in states that allowed commercial cannabis dispensaries.
These studies have so far reported correlations between the passage of medical marijuana laws and changes in time series data on some health outcomes.

They have not established a causal relationship between medical cannabis legalization and these improved health outcomes.
More detailed analyses are needed to assess 1) whether these trends persist over the longer term and 2) whether these associations are better explained by factors other than medical marijuana laws, such as unmeasured differences between the populations in the prevalence of other risk factors for suicide or opioid overdose and the effects of other policies in states that have and have not legalized medical cannabis use (e.g., greater reductions in rates of opioid prescribing).45 ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF LEGALIZING RECREATIONAL CANNABIS USE IN THE USA In 2012, citizen-initiated referenda legalized recreational cannabis use in Colorado and Washington State.
In Colorado, 54% of vot- ers passed a proposal to amend the state constitution to allow rec- reational cannabis use for adults over the age of 21.46 It speciﬁed that cannabis would be taxed and regulated by Department of Revenue.

In Washington State, 53% of voters endorsed a pro- posal to legalize recreational cannabis use for adults over 21 years, with cannabis to be taxed and regulated by the Liquor Control Board.
In November 2014 the states of Alaska and Oregon and the District of Columbia passed similar citizen-initiated referenda to legalize recreational cannabis use by adults.

The details of the ways in which recreational cannabis use will be regulated in the latter states remain to be speciﬁed.

Colorado and Washington State implemented the legalization of cannabis sales for recrea- tional use in 2013 and 2014, respectively.47,48 HOW WILL CANNABIS LEGALIZATION WORK IN COLORADO AND WASHINGTON STATE?
In Colorado, regulations allow adults over the age of 21 to pur- chase up to 28.5 g from each supplier but this limit is nominal because there is no register of sales.48 Regulations allow the verti- cal integration of the limited number of producers, processors, and sellers.

Most of those licensed to grow and sell cannabis for recreational use were involved in supplying medical cannabis.
Cannabis products are taxed on their weight (not on their THC content), with a 15% tax imposed at production and another 10% at point of sale.

Medical marijuana is tax-exempt and home cultivation is allowed for personal use and not taxed.

Drug- impaired driving is prohibited, with the state law deﬁning it as driving with greater than or equal to 5 nanograms/mL of THC in blood.49 In Washington State a 28.5 g purchase limit has also been imposed per store but without any register of purchasers.
Licenses will be required for producers, processors, and sellers and vertical integration is not allowed.

Cannabis is taxed on weight, with a 25% tax imposed at production, another 15% from production to retailer, and a further 10% on sales.50 Medical marijuana is allowed to continue under existing laws but home cultivation is not allowed.

Drug-impaired driving is also prohibited and also deﬁned as 5 nanograms/mL of blood.
Colorado and Washington have unsurprisingly implemented regulatory systems like those that have been used to regulate alco- hol.51 Advocates of cannabis legalization have often argued that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol,52 and cannabis is used for similar reasons as alcohol, in similar social settings.

US state gov- ernments have regulatory systems for alcohol that can be more easily adapted to regulate recreational cannabis use than designing a new regulatory system from scratch.
Alcohol policy analysts would argue that most alcohol regula- tory regimes give a low priority to protecting public health.53 They have often been captured by alcohol producers and sellers who manipulate these regimes to maximize their proﬁts and pro- tect their interests.54 Others argue that cannabis legalization will be exploited by the tobacco industry and other large-scale com- mercial interests to promote cannabis use in much the same way that they promoted tobacco smoking.55 Commercialization of sales and an expansion of cannabis production and distribution are likely outcomes of licensed sellers seeking to maximize their incomes by promoting cannabis use, increasing the number of new users, and increasing levels of use among existing users.54 Recent Christmas promotion offers by marijuana retailers in Col- orado exemplify the fears of these critics.56 HOW MIGHT LEGALIZATION AFFECT RATES OF CANNABIS USE?
After legal cannabis production has expanded to meet current demand, cannabis prices are likely to gradually fall below current black market prices.6,57 This is likely to occur for a number of rea- sons: in jurisdictions where cannabis is a legal commodity, produc- tion and distribution costs will no longer include a black market premium to cover the risk of arrest or drug market violence.
More- over, as the market matures, cannabis producers will become more efﬁcient at growing and processing cannabis and will pass these efﬁciencies on to consumers in the form of lower prices; and differ- ent sellers will compete for customers by offering lower prices.
Allowing licensees to be involved in production, processing, whole- sale, and retail sales, as is presently the case in Colorado, will increase efﬁciency of production and reduce costs.57 The proposed forms of taxation in both states will not main- tain cannabis prices at current black market levels.57 The regula- tory systems in both states unwittingly provide incentives to increase the THC content of cannabis products.
Because canna- bis is taxed on weight, anything that increases THC content effectively reduces the rate of tax.54 The proposed regulatory schemes in Colorado and Washington, in short, do not apply any of the lessons learned from regulating alcohol and tobacco to pro- tect public health, namely, the desirability of restricting the num- ber of producers and sellers, tightly regulating promotion, and the most potent using taxes products.58,59 to discourage heavy use of According to basic principles of economics, the use of any commodity will increase if its price falls.
It is accordingly a safe prediction that cannabis use will increase after the legalization of CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS | VOLUME 97 NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2015 611 Personal choice and community impactsSubmission 116 - Attachment 10 recreational use.7 What is uncertain is by how much, which type of users will increase their use the most (e.g., current users, new users, or some mix of the two),6,57 and over what time period will any such increases be expected to occur.6,57 One may most conﬁdently predict, given our experience with the effects of reduced alcohol prices,53,60 that a reduction in can- nabis price will increase use among current users.6 These users will be able to buy more of their favorite drug for the same price that they paid under prohibition and their use will also be less clandestine because it is now legal.
If heavier use among current users increases the prevalence of cannabis dependence, then reduced prices will lead, after a 5–10 year delay, to an increase in the number of cannabis users who seek help for problems related to their use.

It is less clear whether, and if so, when, lower cannabis prices will increase the initiation of new users.
Any increases in new users may take time to occur, if experience with alcohol use after the Repeal of National Alcohol Prohibition in 1932 is any guide.61 Alcohol use increased very slowly after Repeal for a num- ber of understandable reasons.61 It took time for alcohol pro- ducers to increase alcohol production after Repeal.

Average incomes fell in the USA during the Great Depression, constrain- ing increases in alcohol consumption.
After Repeal many US states introduced restrictive alcohol regulations (e.g., state liquor monopolies) that provided a further brake on alcohol consump- tion.

Social norms about the acceptability of alcohol use also changed slowly after Repeal.

For example, many young adults who were nondrinkers during Prohibition continued to abstain long after Repeal.
For all these reasons per capita alcohol use in the USA did not reach pre-Prohibition levels until well after World War II.61–63 Similar factors may moderate increases in cannabis use after legalization.

Cannabis production has been slow to increase because both Colorado and Washington State have restricted the number of licensed producers in the interests of simplifying regu- lation initially.
Incomes have remained low in the USA as a lin- gering after-effect of the global ﬁnancial crisis of 2008 and after 60 years of cannabis prohibition and strong social disapproval of use, it may take time for cannabis use to become as socially acceptable as alcohol use is now.

The most conspicuous difference between the situations after repeal of cannabis and alcohol prohibition is the absence of a public health-oriented approach to regulating cannabis sales.
There is another factor that may nonetheless slow the growth of retail cannabis markets in Colorado and Washington, at least in the short term; namely, the conﬂict between US federal law and state legalization.

Under US federal law legal suppliers of canna- bis could be prosecuted for drug trafﬁcking and their assets seized under proceeds of crime legislation.
The US Department of Jus- tice signaled via a memo in 2013 that it will not enforce federal law in Colorado and Washington for the moment but will moni- tor the situation carefully to ensure that cannabis is being sold and promoted in ways that do not endanger public health or public order, e.g., allowing cannabis sales to minors; promoting heavy cannabis use; and trafﬁcking cannabis to neighboring states that still prohibit cannabis use and sale.64 The possibility remains that the Department of Justice could enforce federal law in these states if it thought these priorities were not being respected.
Fear of federal intervention may provide some brake on promotional activities by cannabis retailers in Colorado and Washington while this federal policy remains in place.

But this federal policy could change if more states legalize cannabis use.

If the promotion of cannabis use is constrained in these ways, then the initiation of new cannabis users may be delayed.
If so, there will be a further lag before there is any increase in the num- ber of persons presenting to health services seeking assistance in dealing with their cannabis use.
From recent Australian experi- ence, it may take as long as a decade before those who initiate cannabis use in adolescence present to addiction treatment serv- ices in their late 20s and early 30s.65 These possibilities suggest that opponents of cannabis legalization would be wise not to pre- dict large and immediate increases in cannabis use and cannabis- related harm after legalization.
For the same reasons, it may take as long as 10 years before evaluations of legalizing recreational cannabis use produce clear results on its effects and rates of can- nabis use and harms related to use.

HOW SHOULD WE EVALUATE THE US CANNABIS POLICY EXPERIMENTS?

The greatest concern about cannabis legalization is that it will increase cannabis use among young people, and in particular, ini- tiate adolescent users who would not otherwise have used canna- bis.
As argued above, there may be a delay before any such increase in use can be seen.

An increase in adolescent cannabis use is likely to be preceded by changes in the perceived risks and social acceptability of cannabis use among young people.

In the 1980s and 1990s in the Monitoring the Future Surveys,66,67 changes in the perceived risks and social acceptability of cannabis use predicted increases and decreases in use among youth 1–2 years later.
An early warning of increased use may therefore be larger changes in these attitudes in states that have legalized can- nabis.

This sort of evaluation could be complicated by national changes in youth attitudes towards cannabis, if other US states quickly follow the examples of Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington.

Another early predictor of later increased use may be increased frequency of use among youth who already use the drug.
This could be detected by asking about the frequency of cannabis use among youth who are treated for cannabis problems.

This will continue to be under parental and legal coercion because canna- bis use under the age of 21 years will be illegal in Colorado and Washington State.
We may also see heavier cannabis use among youth who are counseled in high schools for conduct or school problems, who are in the juvenile justice system, and who seek treatment for mental health problems, such as anxiety, depres- sion, and psychoses.

As argued above, readier access to cheaper and more potent cannabis products is likely to increase frequency of use among current users over the legal age of 21 years.
The cannabis-related that may increase among these young adults would harms include: increased convictions for cannabis-impaired driving; increased car crashes involving cannabis-intoxicated drivers; and 612 VOLUME 97 NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2015 | www.wileyonlinelibrary/cpt Personal choice and community impactsSubmission 116 - Attachment 10 increased emergency room attendances for the effects of cannabis intoxication and the acute adverse effects from using high THC content cannabis products.
An increase in the number of chil- dren treated for the adverse effects of accidentally ingesting high potency cannabis consumables may be another early indicator of increased access to cannabis in the community.

We may see increased help-seeking among older cannabis users, with a time lag of up to a decade, as argued above.
An earlier indi- cation of emerging cannabis use problems among adults may come from surveys in which all respondents (including users and nonusers) are asked whether they have had reasons to express concerns to a family member or a friend about their use of canna- bis.
Similar questions have tracked population trends in the prev- alence of problem alcohol use.68 Potential positives of cannabis legalization Evaluations of the effects of cannabis legalization will also need to assess potential health beneﬁts of the policy.

An important possibility raised by advocates of legalization is that alcohol- related harm will be reduced if substantial numbers of young males use cannabis instead of alcohol.
This would be the case if cannabis and alcohol proved to be substitutes in young adults.

Anderson et al.’s42 examination of road crashes in states that have and have not legalized medical cannabis use raised this possi- bility, as has Anderson et al.’s study43 of the effects of medical marijuana legalization on suicide rates in males aged 20 to 30.
If, however, alcohol and cannabis prove to be complements rather than substitutes, increased cannabis use in combination with alcohol could increase fatal car crashes involving both drugs.

A major positive of cannabis legalization will be that it will be easier to undertake research on the health effects of recreational cannabis use.
It will be much easier to study regular users and address questions that have been difﬁcult to answer, such as: What doses of THC and CBD do daily and nondaily cannabis users typically use?

To what extent are cannabis users able to titrate their doses of THC when they use more potent cannabis products?

Does their ability to titrate vary with route of adminis- tration?
If the conﬂict between federal and state drug laws can be resolved then it will also be easier to investigate how medically useful cannabis and cannabinoids are, after we remove the dis- torting effects of cannabis prohibition on “medical use."

CONCLUSIONS The legalization of recreational cannabis use in the USA is a large-scale public health experiment whose outcomes may remain uncertain for a decade.
The pathway to this policy experiment was facilitated by citizen-initiated referenda over the past decade in several US states that have legalized medical cannabis use using a very liberal deﬁnition of what constitutes medical cannabis use, and legalized commercial cannabis supply via dispensaries.
These laws created de facto legal cannabis markets by making cannabis legally accessible to anyone willing to obtain a letter of recom- mendation from the doctors who advertise their specialization in providing them.

Evaluations of the effects of medical cannabis laws have not so far found any marked increases in cannabis use or in cannabis- related harm.

But many evaluations of these laws have failed to distinguish between very different forms of medical cannabis pro- vision.
The absence of evidence of any impact to date is not com- pelling evidence that there will be no increases in the future.

It is probably still too early to conclude that the legalization of medi- cal cannabis use has had no effects on cannabis use or cannabis- related harm, especially in those states with liberal deﬁnitions of medical use and poorly regulated commercial supply of cannabis.
The process of creating legal cannabis markets for recreational use in the USA is at an even earlier stage, making it much too soon to assess whether these policies have increased cannabis use and cannabis-related harm.
Future evaluations of these policy experiments should look for evidence of: more favorable attitudes towards cannabis use among young people; increased use among youth who are seeking help for cannabis use and mental health problems or involved in the criminal justice system; and increased heavy use among current cannabis users.

It may well be a decade before we can decide whether the legal- ization of cannabis use has increased population cannabis use and harms related to such use.
This time frame will also be required to assess whether increased access to cannabis has reduced or ampliﬁed alcohol-related harm among youth.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare no conﬂicts of interest.

VC 2015 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Room, R., Fischer, B., Hall, W.D., Lenton, S. & Reuter, P. Cannabis Policy: Moving Beyond Stalemate (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2010).
Bewley-Taylor, D., Blickman, T. & Jelsma, M. The rise and decline of cannabis prohibition.

The history of cannabis in the UN drug control system and options for reform (Global Drug Policy Observatory/ Transnational Institute, Amsterdam/Swansea, 2014).

<http:// www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/ﬁles/download/ rise_and_decline_web.pdf> Accessed 27 November 2014.

Pacula, R.L., Chriqui, J.

& King, J.

Marijuana decriminalization: what does it mean in the United States?

Report No.
Report No.

WR-126 (RAND, Santa Monica, 2004).

<http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/ WR126/> Accessed 27 November 2014.

Baum, D. Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics Of Failure (Back Bay Books, New York, 1996).

Courtwright, D.T.

No Right Turn: Conservative Politics in a Liberal America (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2010).

Caulkins, J., Hawken, A., Kilmer, B.

& Kleiman, M. Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, New York, 2012).

7.
7.

Hall, W.D.

& Pacula, R. Cannabis Use and Dependence: Public Health and Public Policy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010).

Single, E., Christie, P. & Ali, R. The impact of cannabis decriminalization in Australia and the United States.

J.

Public Health Policy 21, 157–186 (2000).

8.

9.

Donnelly, N., Hall, W.D.


& Christie, P. Effects of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme on Levels and Patterns of Cannabis Use in South Australia: Evidence From the National Drug Strategy Household Surveys 1985–1995 (Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1999).

10.

MacCoun, R.J. & Reuter, P. Drug War Heresies: Learning From Other Vices, Times and Places (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001).
CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS | VOLUME 97 NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2015 613 Personal choice and community impactsSubmission 116 - Attachment 10 11.

Greenwald, G. Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies (Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., 2009).

12.

Hughes, C.E.

& Stevens, A.

A resounding success or a disastrous failure: re-examining the interpretation of evidence on the Portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs.

Drug Alcohol Rev.

31, 101–113 (2012).


13.

Donnelly, N., Hall, W.D.

& Christie, P. The effects of partial decriminalization on cannabis use in South Australia, 1985 to 1993.

Aust.

J.

Public Health 19, 281–287 (1995).

14.

Cameron, L. & Williams, J. Cannabis, alcohol and cigarettes: substitutes or complements?

Econ.

Rec.

77, 19–34 (2001).

15.

Pacula, R.L., Chriqui, J.F., Reichman, D.A.

& Terry-McElrath, Y.

State medical marijuana laws: understanding the laws and their limitations.

J.
J.

Public Health Policy 23, 411–437 (2002).

16.

Williams, J.

The effects of price and policy on marijuana use: what can be learned from the Australian experience?

Health Econ.

13, 123–137 (2004).

17.

Williams, J.

& Bretteville-Jensen, A.L.

Does liberalizing cannabis laws increase cannabis use?

J.

Health Econ.

36, 20–32 (2014).

18.

Working Party of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians.

Drugs: Dilemmas and Choices (Gaskell, London, 2000).

19.
19.

Grund, J.P. & Breekesma, J.

Coffee Shops and Compromise: Separated Illicit Drug Markets in the Netherlands (Global Drug Policy Program, Open Society Foundation, New York, 2013).

37.

Choo, E.K., Benz, M., Zaller, N., Warren, O., Rising, K.L.

& McConnell, K.J.

The impact of state medical marijuana legislation on adolescent marijuana use.

J. Adolesc.

Health 55, 160–166 (2014).

38.

Schuermeyer, J. et al.


Temporal trends in marijuana attitudes, availability and use in Colorado compared to non-medical marijuana states: 2003-11.

Drug Alcohol Depend.

140, 145–155 (2014).

39.

Pacula, R.L., Powell, D., Heaton, P. & Sevigny, E.L. Assessing the effects of medical marijuana laws on marijuana use: the devil is in the details.

J.

Policy Anal.

Manage.

34, 7–31 (2015).

40.

Hall, W.D.


What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational cannabis use?

Addiction 110, 19–35 (2015).

41.

Masten, S.V.

& Guenzburger, G.V.

Changes in driver cannabinoid prevalence in 12 U.S. states after implementing medical marijuana laws.

J.

Safety Res.

50, 35–52 (2014).

42.

Anderson, D.M., Hansen, B.

& Rees, D.I.

Medical marijuana laws, trafﬁc fatalities, and alcohol consumption.

J.

Law Econ.
J.

Law Econ.

56, 333–369 (2013).

43.

Anderson, D.M., Rees, D.I.

& Sabia, J.J. Medical marijuana laws and suicides by gender and age.

Am.

J.

Public Health 104, 2369–2376 (2014).

44.

Bachhuber, M.A., Saloner, B., Cunningham, C.O.

& Barry, C.L.

Medical cannabis laws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality in the United States, 1999–2010.

JAMA Internal Med.

174, 1668–1673 (2014).

20.

Korf, D.J.

Dutch coffee shops and trends in cannabis use.

Addict.

45.

Hayes, M.J. & Brown, M.S.


Legalization of medical marijuana and 21.

Behav.

27, 851–866 (2002).

INCB.

Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2013 (United Nations, New York, 2014).

<http://www.incb.org/ documents/Publications/AnnualReports/AR2013/English/ AR_2013_E.

pdf> Accessed 14 August 2014. incidence of opioid mortality.

JAMA Internal Med.

174, 1673–1674 (2014).

46.

Garvey, T. & Yeh, B.T.


State legalization of recreational marijuana: selected legal issues (Congressional Research Ofﬁce, Washington, D.C., 2014).

22.

MacCoun, R.J. & Reuter, P. Interpreting Dutch cannabis policy: 47.

Washington State Liquor Control Board.

I-502 Implementation, reasoning by analogy in the legalization debate.

Science 278, 47–52 (1997).

<http://www.liq.wa.gov/marijuana/I-502> (2014).

Accessed 27 November 2014.

23.

Abraham, M.D., Cohen, P.D.A.

& Beukenhorst, D.J.


Comparative cannabis use data.

Br.

J. Psychiatry 179, 175–176 (2001).

24.

MacCoun, R.J. What can we learn from the Dutch cannabis 48.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Retail marijuana <https://www.colorado.gov/paciﬁc/cdphe/retail- marijuana> (2014).

Accessed 27 November 2014. coffeeshop system?

Addiction 106, 1899–1910 (2011).

49.

Pardo, B. Cannabis policy reforms in the Americas: a comparative 25.

Annas, G.J.
Annas, G.J.

Medical marijuana, physicians, and state law.

N. Engl.

J. Med.

371, 983–985 (2014).

analysis of Colorado, Washington, and Uruguay.

Int.

J.

Drug Policy 25, 727–735 (2014).

26.

Sevigny, E.L., Pacula, R.L.

& Heaton, P. The effects of medical 50.

Washington State Department of Revenue.

Marijuana: taxes due on marijuana laws on potency.

Int.

J.

Drug Policy 25, 308–319 (2014).

27.

O’Connell, T.J. & Bou-Matar, C.B.


Long term marijuana users seeking medical cannabis in California (2001–2007): demographics, social characteristics, patterns of cannabis and other drug use of 4117 applicants.

Harm Reduct.

J.

4, 16 (2007).

28.

Ryan-Ibarra, S., Induni, M. & Ewing, D. Prevalence of medical marijuana use in California, 2012.

Drug Alcohol Rev.

(2014).

29.

Bostwick, J.M.


Blurred boundaries: the therapeutics and politics of recreational marijuana <http://dor.wa.gov/Content/ FindTaxesAndRates/marijuana/Default.aspx> (2014).

Accessed 27 November 2014.

51.

Wallach, P.A.

& Hudak, J.

Legal marijuana: comparing Washington and Colorado (2014) <http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/ﬁxgov/ posts/2014/07/08-washington-colorado-legal- marijuana- comparison-wallach-hudak>.

52.

Editorial Board.

Repeal Prohibition, again.


New York Times (2014, medical marijuana.

Mayo Clin.

Proc.

87, 172–186 (2012).

July 27).

30.

Cohen, P.J.

Medical marijuana 2010: it’s time to ﬁx the regulatory 53.

Babor, T. et al.

Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity: Research and Public vacuum.

J.

Law.

Med.

Ethics 38, 654–666 (2010).

Policy 2nd ed.

(Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2010).

31.

Regan, T. Joint Ventures: Inside America’s Almost Legal Marijuana 54.
Room, R. Legalizing a market for cannabis for pleasure: Industry (Wiley, New York, 2011).

32.

Reinarman, C., Nunberg, H., Lanthier, F. & Heddleston, T. Who are medical marijuana patients?

Population characteristics from nine California assessment clinics.

J. Psychoactive Drugs 43, 128–135 (2011).

33.


Cerda, M., Wall, M., Keyes, K.M., Galea, S. & Hasin, D. Medical marijuana laws in 50 states: investigating the relationship between state legalization of medical marijuana and marijuana use, abuse and dependence.

Drug Alcohol Depend.

120, 22–27 (2012).

34.

Lynne-Landsman, S.D., Livingston, M.D.

& Wagenaar, A.C.

Effects of state medical marijuana laws on adolescent marijuana use.

Am.

J.

Public Health 103, 1500–1506 (2013).

35.


Wall, M.M., Poh, E., Cerda, M., Keyes, K.M., Galea, S. & Hasin, D.S.

Adolescent marijuana use from 2002 to 2008: higher in states with medical marijuana laws, cause still unclear.

Ann.

Epidemiol.

21, 714–716 (2011).

36.

Harper, S., Strumpf, E.C.

& Kaufman, J.S.

Do medical marijuana laws increase marijuana use?

Replication study and extension.

Ann.

Epidemiol.

22, 207–212 (2012).

Colorado, Washington, Uruguay and beyond.


Addiction 109, 345– 351 (2014).

55.

Barry, R.A., Hiilamo, H. & Glantz, S.A.

Waiting for the opportune moment: the tobacco industry and marijuana legalization.

Milbank Q.

92, 207–242 (2014).

56.

Wyatt, K. Merry marijuana: pot sellers woo holiday shoppers.

(2014).

<http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/merry-marijuana-pot-sellers- woo-holiday- shoppers/article_5c2e45d1-ab9e-5928-9dd5- aab43058f34e.html>.

57.
57.

Kilmer, B., Caulkins, J.P., Pacula, R.L., MacCoun, R.L.

& Reuter, P.H.

Altered state?

Assessing how marijuana legalization in California could inﬂuence marijuana consumption and public budgets (RAND Drug Policy Research Center, Santa Monica, 2010).

<www.rand.org/ content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/ RAND_OP315.pdf> Accessed 27 November 2014.

58.

Pacula, R.L., Kilmer, B., Wagenaar, A.C., Chaloupka, F.J. & Caulkins, J.P.
Developing public health regulations for marijuana: lessons from alcohol and tobacco.

Am.

J.

Public Health 104, 1021–1028 (2014).

59.

Transform Drug Policy Foundation.

How to regulate cannabis: a practical guide (Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Bristol, 2014).
614 VOLUME 97 NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2015 | www.wileyonlinelibrary/cpt Personal choice and community impactsSubmission 116 - Attachment 10 <http://www.tdpf.org.uk/resources/publications/how- regulate-cannabis-practical-guide> Accessed 30 September 2014.

60.

Wagenaar, A.C., Salois, M.J. & Komro, K.A.

Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: a meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies.

Addiction 104, 179–190 (2009).

61.

Hall, W.D.


What are the policy lessons of National Alcohol Prohibition in the United States, 1920–1933?

(Addiction history).

Addiction 105, 1164–1173 (2010).

62.

Warburton, C. The Economic Results of Prohibition (Columbia University Press, New York, 1932).

63.

Warburton, C. Prohibition, in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (ed.

Seligman, E.) 499–510 (Macmillan, Detroit, 1934).

64.

Cole, J.M.
64.

Cole, J.M.

Memorandum for all United States Attorneys: guidance regarding marijuana enforcement (US Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., 2013).

<http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf> Accessed 17 November 2014.

65.

Roxburgh, A. et al.

The epidemiology of cannabis use and cannabis- related harm in Australia 1993–2007.

Addiction 105, 1071–1079 (2010).

66.

Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M. & Bachman, J.G.


National Survey Results on Drug Use From the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975– 1993.

College Students and Young Adults (National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD, 1994).

67.

Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M. & Bachman, J.G.

National Survey Results on Drug Use From the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975– 1993.

Secondary School Students (National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD, 1994).

68.
68.

Room, R., Greenﬁeld, T. & Weisner, C. “People who might have liked you to drink less”: changing responses to drinking by U. S. family members and friends, 1979–1990.

Contemp.

Drug Probl.

18, 573–595 (1991).

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS | VOLUME 97 NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2015 615 Personal choice and community impactsSubmission 116 - Attachment 10