The impact of cannabis decriminalisation in australia and the united states

Journal of Public Health Policy

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 157-186

  Single, Eric ^a   Christie, Paul ^b   Ali, Robert ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b Drug & Alcohol Services South Australia   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANNABIS;

AUSTRALIA; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CRIMINAL LAW; HEALTH CARE POLICY; OFFENDER; PUNISHMENT; REVIEW; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AUSTRALIA; CRIME; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MARIJUANA SMOKING; PUBLIC HEALTH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0034045560     PISSN: 01975897     EISSN: 1745655X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3343342     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA).Mc Discussion Paper on Cannabis.Canberra: Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, 1993.
2. Aldrich, M., and Mikuriya, T. “Savings in California Marijuana Law Enforcement Costs Attributable to the Moscone Act of 1976—a Summary,”J. Psychoactive Drugs20 (1988): 75-81.
3. Ali, R., Christie, P., Lenton, S., Hawks, D., Sutton, A., Hall, W., &Mc All-sop, S.Mc The Social Impacts of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in South Australia.Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care, 1999.
4. Astin, A., Green, K., and Korn, W.Mc The American Freshman: Twenty-year Trends, 1966-1985.Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, Los Angeles, 1987.
5. Beers, D. “Just Say Whoa!”Mc Mother JonesMc July/August 1991: 36-43 &Mc 52-56.
6. Bowman, J., and Sanson-Fisher, R.Mc Public Perceptions of Cannabis Legislation. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series, No. 28. Canberra: Department of Human Services and Health, 1994.
7. Brecher, E. M., “Marijuana: The Health Questions/ The Legal Question,” Contemporary Drug Problems 4 (1975): 115.
8. Brooks, A., Stothard, C., Moss, J., Christie, P., and Ali, R.Mc Costs Associated with the Operation of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in South Australia.Mc National Drug Strategy Monograph Series. Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care, 1999.
9. Brownell, G. “Marijuana and the Law in California: A Historical and Political Overview,”J. Psychoactive Drugs20 (1988): 71-74.
10. Budman, K.A First Report of the Impact of California’s New Marijuana Law (SB95).State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse, Sacramento, California, 1977.
11. Christie, P. The Effects of Cannabis Legislation in South Australia on Levels of Cannabis Use.Adelaide: Drug and Alcohol Services Council, 1991.
12. Christie, P. Cannabis Offences Under the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in South Australia. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series, No. 35. Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care, 1999.
13. Collins, D., and Lapsley, H. The Social Costs of Drug Abuse in Australia in 1988 and 1922. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, National Drug Strategy Monograph No. 30,1996.
14. Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing, Local Government and Community Services. National Strategic Drug Plan 1993-97. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1993.
15. Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services. Statistics on Drug Abuse in Australia 1994. Canberra: Department of Health and Family Services, 1994.
16. Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services. National Drug Strategy Household Survey: Survey Report 199s- Canberra: Department of Health and Family Services, 1996.
17. Donnelly, N., and Hall, W. Patterns of Cannabis Use in Australia. NDS Monograph No. 27, Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service, 1994.
18. Donnelly, N., Hall, W., & Christie, P. “The Effects of Decriminalisation on Cannabis Use in South Australia 1985-1993,”Australian Journal of Public Health19 (1995): 281-87.
19. Donnelly, N., Hall, W., & 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.Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care, 1999.
20. Drug Abuse Council. Marijuana Survey—State of Oregon, News Releases. Washington, D.C., 1974-1977.
21. Fulton, M., Clark, R., and Robinson, T. The Decriminalization of Marijuana and the Maine Criminal Justice System: A Time/Cost Analysis, November. Maine Office of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Prevention, Augusta, Me., 1979.
22. Goode, E. Drugs in American Society, Fourth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.
23. Harwood, H., Fountain, D., and Livermore, G. The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States 1992.Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1998.
24. Heale, P., Hawks, D., and Lenton, S. Public Awareness, Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding the CEN System in South Australia.Perth: National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse, 1999.
25. Humeniuk, R., Brooks, A., Christie, P., Ali, R., & Lenton, S. Social Impacts and Characterisation of Offenders under the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in South Australia.Adelaide: Drug and Alcohol Services Council, 1999.
26. Inciardi, J., and McBride, D. “The Case Against Legalization,” pp. 45-79 in Inciardi, J., ed.The Drug Legalization Debate.Newbury Park, California, 1991.
27. Johnston, L., “Marijuana Use and the Effects of Marijuana Decriminalization,” Testimony Presented at Hearings on the Effects of Marijuana Held by Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, January 16, 1980.
28. Johnston, L., O’Mally, P., and Bachman, J. “Marijuana Decriminalization: the Impact on Youth 1975-1980,”Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper Series, paper13, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1981.
29. Johnson, L., O’Malley, R, and Bachman, J. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study; 1975-1977, Volume I: Secondary School Students.Washington: National Institutes of Health, 1998.
30. Johnson, L., O’Malley, R, and Bachman, J. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1977, Volume II: College Students and Young Adults, Washington: National Institutes of Health, 1998.
31. Lazare, D. “The Drug War Is Killing Us,” The Village Voice, January 23, 1990: 22-29.
32. LeDain, G. Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Nonmedical Use of Drugs.Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing Service, 1972.
33. Lenton, S., Christie, P., Humeniuk, R., Brooks, A., Bennett, M., and Heale, P. Infringement Versus Conviction: The Social Impact of a Minor Cannabis Offence Under a Civil Penalties System and Strict Prohibition in Two Australian States.Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care, 1999.
34. Lenton, S., and Single, E. “The Definition of Harm Reduction,”Drug and Alcohol Review17 (1998): 213-20.
35. Maine Office of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Prevention. An Evaluation of the Decriminalization of Marijuana in Maine. Office of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Prevention, Augusta, Me., 1979.
36. Makkai, T., and McAllister, I. Marijuana in Australia: Patterns and Attitudes, NDS Monograph No. 31. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service, 1997.
37. McDonald, D., Moore, R., Norberry, J., Wardlaw, G., & Ballenden, N. Legislative Options for Cannabis in Australia. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series, No. 26.Canberra: Department of Human Services and Health, 1994.
38. McDowell, D. “Law Enforcement,” pp. 94-109 in: Australian Institute of Criminology, Comparative Analysis of Illicit Drug Strategy, National Campaign Against Drug Abuse Monograph No. 18. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service, 1992.
39. Musto, D. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control, 2nd ed., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.
40. National Governors’ Conference. Marijuana: A Study of State Policies and Penalties, 3 vols., Center for Policy Research and Analysis, Washington, D.C., 1977.
41. Sarre, R., Sutton, A., & Pulsford, T. Cannabis—The Expiation Approach.Adelaide: South Australian Attorney-General’s Department, 1989.
42. Saveland, W., and Bray, D. American Trends in Cannabis Use Among States with Different and Changing Legal Regimes. Bureau of Tobacco Control and Biometrics, Health and Welfare, Canada, Ottawa, 1980.
43. Shafer Commission. Marijuana: Signal of Misunderstanding, First Report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972.
44. Single, E. “The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: An Update,” Journal of Public Health Policy 10 (1989), 45 6-66.
45. Single, E., and Rohl, T. The National Drug Strategy: Mapping the Future, Report Commissioned by the Ministerial Council of Drug Strategy. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Serivce, Publication No. 2014, 1997.
46. Sommer, R. “Two Decades of Marijuana Attitudes: the More it Changes the More it Is the Same,”J. of Psychoactive Drugs 20 (1980): 67-70.
47. Spitzner, J., Drug Use in Ohio: 1978. Ohio Bureau of Drug Abuse, Columbus, Ohio, 1979.
48. Stuart, R., Guire, K., and Krell, M., “Penalty for the Possession of Marijuana: An Analysis of Some of its Concomitants,”Contemporary Drug Problems5 (1976): 553.
49. Sutton, A., and McMillan, E. A Review of Law Enforcement and Other Criminal Justice Attitudes, Policies and Practices Regarding Cannabis Laws in South Australia. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series. Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care, 1999.
50. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1996, Washington: Department of Health and Human Services, 1998.
51. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preliminary Results from the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.Washington: Department of Health and Human Services, 1998.
52. Williams, P. Progress of the National Drug Strategy: Key National Indicators.Canberra: Dept, of Health and Human Services, Publication Number 2006, 1997.