The case for policy reform in cannabis control

Canadian Journal of Psychiatry

Volumn 53, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 795-797

  Kisely, Stephen ^a,b  

^a GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL; CANNABIS; OPIATE;

CRIMINAL LAW; DRUG CONTROL; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFECT; DRUG INHIBITION; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG USE; EDUCATION PROGRAM; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMAN; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MENTAL HEALTH; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICE; REVIEW; SOCIAL CLASS; SOCIAL CONTROL; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; TOBACCO;

EID: 58149260292     PISSN: 07067437     EISSN: 14970015     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/070674370805301203     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. The Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs [Internet]. Cannabis: our position for a Canadian public policy - report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. Ottawa (ON): Senate of Canada; 2002 [cited 2008 Mar 3]. Available from: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/ rep-e/repfinalv011-e.pdf.
2. Kisely S. A tale of two jurisdictions - can Australia and Canada learn from each other's experience with cannabis control? Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2005;39:154-160.
3. Coulston CM, Perdices M, Tennant CC. The neuropsychology of cannabis and other substance use in schizophrenia: review of the literature and critical evaluation of methodological issues. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2007;41:869-884.
4. Moore TH, Zammit S, Lingford-Hughes A, et al. Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet. 2007;370:319-328.
5. Hall W, Degenhardt L. What are the policy implications of the evidence on cannabis and psychosis? Can J Psychiatry. 2006;51:566-574.
6. Lonie J . Research paper 8: a social history of drug control in Australia. Adelaide (AU): Royal Commission into the non-medical use of drugs in South Australia; 1979.
7. The Police Foundation. Drugs and the law. Report into the independent inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 [Internet]. London (GB): The Police Foundation; 2000 [cited 2008 Mar 10]. Available from: http://druglibrary.org/ schaffer/Library/studies/runciman/default.htm.
8. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Drug classification: making a hash of it? Fifth report of session 2005-06. London (GB): The Stationery Office Limited; 2006. Available from: http://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/103102.htm.
9. Levine HG, Reinarman C. Alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition. Lessons from alcohol policy for drug policy [Internet]. Amsterdam (NL): CEDRO; 2004 [cited 2008 Mar 12]. Available from: http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/levine. alcohol.html.
10. Wodak A, Reinarman C, Cohen PD. Cannabis control: costs outweigh the benefits. For. BMJ. 2002;324:105-106.
11. Jha P, Chaloupka FJ, Corrao M, et al. Reducing the burden of smoking world-wide: effectiveness of interventions and their coverage. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2006;25:597-609.
12. Poulin C, Elliott D. Student Drug Use Survey in the Atlantic Provinces 2007: Atlantic technical report [Internet]. Halifax (NS): Dalhousie University; 2007 [cited 2008 Mar 18]. Available from: http://www.health.gov.nl.ca/health/ publications/pdfiles/Atl_Tech_Report_2007_web_cover.pdf.
13. The House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. Policy for the new millennium. Working together to re-define Canada's drug strategy. Ottawa (ON): House of Commons; 2002.
14. Drummond C. Cannabis control: costs outweigh the benefits. Against. BMJ. 2002;324:107-108.
15. Cleary M, Hunt GE, Matheson S, et al. Psychosocial treatment programs for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse. Schizophr Bull. 2008;34:226-228
16. MacCoun R, Reuter P. Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. Br J Psychiatry. 2001;178:123-128.