Options for cannabis reform

International Journal of Drug Policy

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 281-290

  Single, Eric ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cannabis policy; Health and safety risks; Moralistic arguments

Indexed keywords

CANNABIS ADDICTION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 0033197599     PISSN: 09553959     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0955-3959(99)00025-0     Document Type: Note

References (8)

1. Drug Policy Forum (DPF) Trust of New Zealand, New Zealand Should Regulate and Tax Cannabis Commerce - Final Report, Auckland: New Zealand Drug Foundation, 1998.
2. Erickson P. Cannabis criminals: The social effects of punishment on drug users. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation Books, 1980.
3. Fischer B, Single E, Room R, Paulin C, Sawka E, Thompson H, Topp J. Cannabis use in Canada - policy options for control. Policy Options 1998;19:34-8.
4. Le Dain Commission, Cannabis: Report of the Commission of Inquiry Into the Non-medical Use of Drugs (Le Dain Commission), Ottawa: Queens Printer, 1972.
5. McDonald D., Moore R., Norberry J., Wardlaw G., Ballenden N. Legislative options for cannabis use in Australia, National Drug Strategy Monograph No. 26, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1994.
6. Single E, Solomon R, Erickson P, Canadian cannabis control policy: An outline of legislative options regarding possession, The Journal, November 1, 1980, pp. 7-8.
7. Single E, Robson L, Xie X, Rehm J, The economic costs of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs in Canada, 1992, Addiction 93:7 (1998): 983-998.
8. Solomon R, Single E, Erickson P, Legal Considerations in Canadian Cannabis Policy, Canadian Public Health Policy-Analyse de Politiques, IX:4: 419-433, 1983.