Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes
Open accessAbstract
Background: Cannabis policy continues to be controversial in North America, Europe and Australia. Aims: To inform this debate, we examine alternative legal regimes for controlling cannabis availability and use. Method: We review evidence on the effects of cannabis depenalisation in the USA, Australia and The Netherlands. We update and extend our previous (MacCoun & Reuter, 1997) empirical comparison of cannabis prevalence statistics in the USA, The Netherlands and other European nations. Results: The available evidence indicates that depenalisation of the possession of small quantities of cannabis does not increase cannabis prevalence. The Dutch experience suggests that commercial promotion and sales may significantly increase cannabis prevalence. Conclusions: Alternatives to an aggressively enforced cannabis prohibition are feasible and merit serious consideration. A model of depenalised possession and personal cultivation has many of the advantages of outright legalisation with few of its risks.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Removal of criminal penalties alone had little or no impact on the prevalence of drug use or drug-related health harms.
“The removal of criminal penalties alone had little or no impact on the prevalence of drug use or drug-related health harms.”
From What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs? (2010) · cites this paper as MacCoun and Reuter 2001a
The Abstract and the section on cannabis prohibition say that removing criminal penalties for cannabis possession does not appear to increase drug-use prevalence. They do not establish that removal has little or no impact on drug-related health harms; the paper discusses harms of cannabis use and criminalisation without assessing that outcome. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRemoval of criminal penalties appeared to produce positive but slight impacts.
“They concluded that the removal of criminal penalties appeared to produce positive but slight impacts.”
From What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs? (2010) · cites this paper as MacCoun and Reuter 2001a
The Abstract (page unavailable) argues for decriminalising cannabis possession because it does not appear to increase drug prevalence. In “The basis for continued cannabis prohibition” (page unavailable), the authors also describe prohibition as harmful and costly. These passages support a favorable assessment of removing criminal penalties, but they do not characterize its positive impacts as slight. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe extent of additional drug use depended on the extent of commercial promotion.
“The extent of additional use depended rather on the extent to which there was commercial promotion.”
From What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs? (2010) · cites this paper as MacCoun and Reuter 2001a
In the ‘National Household Survey on Drug Abuse’ section (page not available), the authors hypothesise that increased access and promotion contributed to rising Dutch cannabis use, while cautioning that commercialisation was not the sole cause. In ‘The basis for continued cannabis prohibition’ (page not available), they say they believe supplier promotion would produce larger increases in use. These passages support a link, but not the claim’s unqualified statement that the extent of additional use depended on the extent of promotion. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe primary impact of removing criminal penalties was reducing the burden and cost in the criminal justice system.
“The primary impact was reducing the burden and cost in the criminal justice system.”
From What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs? (2010) · cites this paper as MacCoun and Reuter 2001a
In “The basis for continued cannabis prohibition” (page unavailable), the authors identify expensive, intrusive enforcement as a primary harm of criminalisation and say prohibition is costly. That supports the rationale for reducing criminal-justice costs, but the passage does not establish that reduced burden and cost was the primary observed impact of removing penalties. (LLM, conf=0.80)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the Netherlands, the rise in cannabis use did not immediately follow depenalization but coincided with the development of coffee shops that openly promoted illicit wares.
“They used the example of the Netherlands, where the rise in cannabis use did not immediately follow its depenalization, but coincided with the development of 'coffee shops' that openly promoted their illicit wares (MacCoun and Reuter 2001b).”
From What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs? (2010) · cites this paper as MacCoun and Reuter 2001b
Removal of criminal penalties reduced the intrusiveness of criminal justice responses to users.
“This also reduced the intrusiveness of criminal justice responses to users.”
From What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs? (2010) · cites this paper as MacCoun and Reuter 2001a
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls
Lynskey, M. T., Heath, A. C., Bucholz, K. K., Slutske, W. S., Madden, P. A. F., Nelson, E. C., Statham, D. J., & Martin, N. G. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.4.427 · Cited by 640 · see citing works
“This strategy may have been partially successful as rates of cocaine use among those who have used cannabis are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States.(42) While the findings of this study indicate that early cannabis use is associated with increased risks of progression to other illicit drug use and drug…”
BackgroundInfluentialCerdá, M., Wall, M. M., Keyes, K. M., Galea, S., & Hasin, D. S. (2011) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.06.011 · Cited by 490 · see citing works
What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?
Hughes, C. E., & Stevens, A. (2010) · British Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1093/bjc/azq038 · Cited by 440 · see citing works
“The most comprehensive synthetic review of the impacts of the decriminalization of illicit drugs has been conducted by MacCoun and Reuter (2001a), using data from the Netherlands, United States, Australia and Italy.”
MethodKeep off the grass? Cannabis, cognition and addiction
Curran, H. V., Freeman, T. P., Mokrysz, C., Lewis, D. A., Morgan, C. J. A., & Parsons, L. H. (2016) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.28 · Cited by 381 · see citing works
Cannabis, the mind and society: the hash realities
Murray, R. M., Morrison, P. D., Henquet, C., & Forti, M. D. (2007) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2253 · Cited by 319 · see citing works
Public Health Implications of Raising the Minimum Age of Legal Access to Tobacco Products
Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice (2015) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/18997 · Cited by 347 · see citing works
Medical Marijuana and Marijuana Legalization
Pacula, R., & Smart, R. (2017) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045128 · Cited by 254 · see citing works
“Instead, these states merely reduced the penalties associated with possession and/or use of marijuana, a policy generally known as depenalization (MacCoun & Reuter 2001, Pacula et al. 2005).”
BackgroundDoes Marijuana Use Cause the Use of Other Drugs?
Kandel, D. B. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.4.482 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Implications of Marijuana Legalization for Adolescent Substance Use
Hopfer, C. (2014) · Substance Abuse · doi:10.1080/08897077.2014.943386 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Cannabis and crime: findings from a longitudinal study.
Pedersen, W., & Skardhamar, T. (2010) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02719.x · Cited by 129 · see citing works
The role of endocannabinoid transmission in cocaine addiction
Arnold, J. C. (2005) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2005.02.015 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Barriers and facilitators to cannabis treatment.
Gates, P., Copeland, J., Swift, W., & Martin, G. (2012) · Drug and Alcohol Review · doi:10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00313.x · Cited by 113 · see citing works
The Toxicology of Cannabis and Cannabis Prohibition
Grotenhermen, F. (2007) · Chemistry & Biodiversity · doi:10.1002/cbdv.200790151 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Anthony, E., Akinmoladun, D., Anochie, D., & Oluyemi, ;. (2001) · doi:10.2307/j.ctt9qgr90.12 · Cited by 95
What can we learn from the Dutch cannabis coffeeshop system?
MacCoun, R. (2011) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x · Cited by 93
“Reuter and I have suggested that the Dutch cannabis system emerged in two phases, with distinct effects [17,27]—an initial ‘depenalization’ phase with no detectable effects on cannabis use, and a second phase (approximately 1984 and 1996) in which the percentage of 18–20-year-olds who had ever used cannabis rose from…”
Self-citationSimons‐Morton, B. G., Pickett, W., Boyce, W., ter Bogt, T., & Vollebergh, W. (2009) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.02.003 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Feldman, Y. (2018) · doi:10.1017/9781316480328 · Cited by 79
Cannabis Liberalization and Adolescent Cannabis Use: A Cross-National Study in 38 Countries
Shi, Y.-Y., Lenzi, M., & An, R. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143562 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Arrests and convictions for cannabis related offences in a New Zealand birth cohort.
Fergusson, D., Swain-Campbell, N., & Horwood, L. (2003) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/s0376-8716(02)00336-8 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
“cannabis (Hall and Solowij, 1997; Lenton, 2001; MacCoun and Reuter, 2001; Swift et al.,”
BackgroundInfluentialCaulkins, J., & Kilmer, B. (2016) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.13289 · Cited by 72
“We do not discuss the Dutch model because it has been discussed thoroughly in the literature [16–19].”
Smyth, B., James, P., Cullen, W., & Darker, C. (2015) · The International journal on drug policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.05.021 · Cited by 68
Hollingsworth, A., Wing, C., & Bradford, A. C. (2020) · Journal law and economy · doi:10.1086/721267 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
“For studies of marijuana regulation in the Netherlands, see Korf (1995), Monshouwer et al. (2004), MacCoun and Reuter (2001), and MacCoun (2010).”
Young people's access to tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs
Ogilvie, D., Gruer, L., & Haw, S. (2005) · British medical journal · doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7513.393 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Cannabis for Therapeutic Purposes and public health and safety: A systematic and critical review
Sznitman, S. R., & Zolotov, Y. (2014) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.09.005 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Miech, R., Patrick, M. E., O'Malley, P., & Johnston, L. D. (2017) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2017.303745 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Farrell, M., & Ritson, B. (2001) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.178.2.98 · Cited by 48
What Can Be Learned from Cross-National Comparisons of Data on Illegal Drugs?
Kilmer, B., Reuter, P., & Giommoni, L. (2015) · Crime and Justice · doi:10.1086/681552 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Self-citationAccess to Licensed Cannabis Supply and the Separation of Markets Policy in the Netherlands
Wouters, M., & Korf, D. (2009) · doi:10.1177/002204260903900308 · Cited by 37
Substance abuse in adolescents: a complex conundrum for the clinician.
Greydanus, D., & Patel, D. R. (2003) · The Pediatric clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/s0031-3955(03)00079-8 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Treatment of adolescent tobacco smokers: issues and opportunities for exposure reduction approaches
Moolchan, E. T., Aung, A., & Henningfield, J. E. (2003) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/s0376-8716(03)00012-7 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Swiss adolescents' and adults' perceptions of cannabis use: a qualitative study.
Menghrajani, P., Klaue, K., Dubois-arber, F., & Michaud, P. (2005) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/cyh003 · Cited by 35
Perspectives on Cannabis Legalization Among Canadian Recreational Users
Osborne, G. B., & Fogel, C. A. (2017) · Contemporary Drug Problems · doi:10.1177/0091450916670393 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
“However, a number of studies have found that decriminalization and legalization have had little or no impact on consumption patterns (Atkinson & McDonald, 1995; MacCoun & Reuter, 2001; Maloff, 1981; Single, 1989; Single, Christie, & Ali, 2000; Thies & Register, 1993).”
BackgroundPer se drugged driving laws and traffic fatalities
Anderson, D. M., & Rees, D. I. (2015) · International Review of Law and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.irle.2015.02.004 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Drug policy, harm and human rights: A rationalist approach
Stevens, A. (2011) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.02.003 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Miech, R., Johnston, L. A., O'Malley, P., Bachman, J., Schulenberg, J., & Patrick, M. E. (2015) · The International journal on drug policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.01.009 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Ancrum, C., & Treadwell, J. (2017) · Crime Media Culture An International Journal · doi:10.1177/1741659016646414 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“The history of Dutch decriminalisation is well documented elsewhere (e.g. see MacCoun and Reuter, 1997, 2001), however it is worth briefly revisiting here.”
BackgroundMdege, N. D., Meader, N., Lloyd, C., Parrott, S., & McCambridge, J. (2017) · Public Health Research · doi:10.3310/phr05040 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
“The changing context of developments in drug policies Legal prohibition of drug possession has been the cornerstone of the societal response to illicit drugs for a century.(1027) Although a public health approach to drugs is often counterpoised to that of law enforcement, this can be regarded as a false dichotomy, as…”
BackgroundLegalization of marijuana: potential impact on youth.
Joffe, A., & Yancy, W. (2004) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1825 · Cited by 23
Fischer, B., Daldegan-Bueno, D., & Reuter, P. (2020) · Contemporary Drug Problems · doi:10.1177/0091450920977976 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“A longstanding controversy concerns whether the criminalization of cannabis has resulted in lowered prevalence of cannabis use (Boyum & Kleiman, 2001; Caulkins et al., 2016; MacCoun & Reuter, 2001; Weatherburn & Jones, 2001).”
Self-citationCannabis policy and the uptake of treatment for cannabis‐related problems
Adam, C., & Raschzok, A. (2017) · Drug and Alcohol Review · doi:10.1111/dar.12401 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Ashton, H. (2002) · doi:10.1097/00132980-200201040-00008 · Cited by 22
Fischer, B., Rehm, J., & Crépault, J.-F. (2016) · The International journal on drug policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.06.014 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
“While the severity of penalties are reduced, cannabis use will be maintained as a violation of (some kind of) law, as has been the case in existing decriminalization regimes (MacCoun & Reuter, 2001; Pacula et al., 2005).”
BackgroundPolicy Displacement and Disparate Sanctioning from Policing Cannabis in Denmark
Møller, K. (2010) · Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention · doi:10.1080/14043858.2010.502014 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
“Also, the use of cannabis is not associated with the levels of violence, deaths, acquisitive crime, and deviance as is the use of ‘harder’ and more expensive drugs (MacCoun and Reuter 2001; Williams 2004; Bennett and Holloway 2009; Pedersen and Skardhamar 2009).”
MethodFischer, B., Daldegan‐Bueno, D., & Boden, J. M. (2020) · Drug and Alcohol Review · doi:10.1111/dar.13087 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Explaining trends in addictive behaviour policy--the role of policy coherence.
Adam, C., & Raschzok, A. (2014) · The International journal on drug policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.02.013 · Cited by 20
Revisiting Deterrence: Legal Knowledge, Use Context and Arrest Perception for Cannabis
Erickson, P., van der Maas, M., & Hathaway, A. (2013) · Czech Sociological Review · doi:10.13060/00380288.2013.49.3.04 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Does cannabis onset trigger cocaine onset? A case‐crossover approach
O’Brien, M. S., Comment, L. A., Liang, K., & Anthony, J. C. (2012) · International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1002/mpr.359 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
“Or, are the observed associations stronger or weaker in US states that allow access to medical marijuana (e.g. via clubs; MacCoun and Reuter, 2001).”
BackgroundGoing after the Addiction, Not the Addicted: The Impact of Drug Decriminalization in Portugal
Félix, S., Portugal, P., & Tavares, A. S. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3010673 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Assessing the harms of cannabis cultivation in Belgium.
Paoli, L., Decorte, T., & Kersten, L. (2015) · The International journal on drug policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.12.003 · Cited by 19
Kotlaja, M. M., & Carson, J. (2018) · International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology · doi:10.1177/0306624x18814184 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Prohibition and Cannabis Use in Australia: A Survey of 18- to 29-year-olds
Weatherburn, D., Jones, C. G. A., & Donnelly, N. J. (2003) · doi:10.1375/acri.36.1.77 · Cited by 18
“MacCoun and Reuter (1997, 2001) also cite survey evidence indicating that the long-standing THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY and deliberate “non-enforcement” of prohibitions against cannabis use and possession in the Netherlands has exerted little or no effect on the prevalence…”
BackgroundLynskey, M. (2002) · Addiction · doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00288.x · Cited by 18
PREFACE The Varieties of Drug Control at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century
MacCoun, R., & Reuter, P. (2002) · doi:10.1177/000271620258200101 · Cited by 18
Self-citationHealth, safety, and socioeconomic impacts of cannabis liberalization laws: An evidence and gap map
Sevigny, E. L., Greathouse, J., & Medhin, D. N. (2023) · Campbell Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/cl2.1362 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
van den Brink, W., Montgomery, S. A., van Ree, J. M., & Zwieten-Boot, B. J. V. (2006) · European Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2005.12.003 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“The life-time prevalence rate of cannabis use in the Western world varies between 10% in Finland, through 21% in The Netherlands, and 33% in Australia and the US, with no clear relationship between rates and the nature of the national drug policy (MacCoun and Reuter, 2001).”
Drug Policy and the Public Good: a summary of the book.
Babor, T., Room, R., & Strang, J. (2010) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03049.x · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“Evaluations of such changes [26] suggest that decriminalization makes little difference to prevalence of cannabis use.”
Cannabis use and proximity to coffee shops in the Netherlands
Wouters, M., Benschop, A., van Laar, M. V., & Korf, D. (2012) · European Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1177/1477370812448033 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“Whereas some authors have suggested that the presence of coffee shops causes an increase in the prevalence of use (MacCoun and Reuter, 1997; MacCoun and Reuter, 2001), others have argued that, across Western countries, trends in cannabis prevalence seem to develop independently of drugs policy…”
BackgroundLocal politics and retail cannabis markets: the case of the Dutch coffeeshops.
Wouters, M., Benschop, A., & Korf, D. (2010) · The International journal on drug policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2010.01.003 · Cited by 14
Ashton, H. (2002) · Current Opinion in Psychiatry · doi:10.1097/00001504-200205000-00004 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Leonard, J., & Windle, J. (2020) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102891 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
García, E. C., Pedro, J., & Sánchez, E. (2006) · doi:10.21134/haaj.v6i1.104 · Cited by 11
Abraham, M., Cohen, P. D., & Beukenhorst, D. (2001) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.179.2.175-b · Cited by 11
Do drug policies affect cannabis markets? A natural experiment in Switzerland, 2000-10
Killias, M., Isenring, G. L., Gilliéron, G., & Vuille, J. (2011) · doi:10.1177/1477370811401546 · Cited by 10
“The example cited is usually the United States, where policies are restrictive and punishments harsh, yet levels of use remain consistently high (MacCoun and Reuter, 2001).”
BackgroundDecriminalization: Different Models in Portugal and Spain
Quintas, J., & Araña, X. (2017) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-65361-7_8 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Forum: Decriminalization of cannabis.
van den Brink, W. (2008) · Current Opinion in Psychiatry · doi:10.1097/yco.0b013e3282f57e04 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Mars, S., Ondocsin, J., Holm, N., & Ciccarone, D. (2024) · Harm Reduction Journal · doi:10.1186/s12954-024-00976-1 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“A central rationale of the Dutch ‘separation of markets’ policy of the 1970s onwards [86, 87] is that buying cannabis in this way avoids contact with dealers who may also sell other drugs.”
BackgroundIllicit IV drugs: A public health approach
Haden, M. (2002) · doi:10.17269/cjph.93.390 · Cited by 9
Medical uses of marijuana (Cannabis sativa): fact or fallacy?
Wj, M. (2015) · British Journal of Biomedical Science · doi:10.1080/09674845.2015.11666802 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Hout, M. V., Collins, C., Delargy, Í., & Crowley, D. (2017) · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · doi:10.1007/s11469-016-9710-2 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“^ In countries with a prohibitionist drug policy (for example the US), lifetime experience of cannabis with probability of use of cocaine is higher than in countries such as the Netherlands who have a liberal cannabis policy (Engelsman 1989; MacCoun and Reuter 2001).”
BackgroundConfronting the challenges of conducting a CBA of cannabis policies
Shanahan, M., & Ritter, A. J. (2013) · Drugs Education Prevention and Policy · doi:10.3109/09687637.2013.763906 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“In the face of this debate there are often calls for additional research to quantify the various outcomes as a prerequisite to rational consideration of public policies (Hall & Lynsky, 2009; MacCoun & Reuter, 2001b; Strang, Witton, & Hall, 2000).”
BackgroundKisely, S. (2005) · Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry (Print) · doi:10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01537.x · Cited by 8
“Victoria and Western Australia have introduced cautions for minor cannabis offences.”
BackgroundShould cannabis be taxed and regulated?
Wodak, A., & Cooney, A. (2004) · Drug and Alcohol Review · doi:10.1080/09595230410001704109 · Cited by 8
Drugs, Illicit – Primary Prevention Strategies
Faggiano, F., & Vigna‐Taglianti, F. (2008) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-012373960-5.00357-9 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Does substance use affect academic performance?
Rees, D. (2019) · IZA World of Labor · doi:10.15185/izawol.66.v2 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
MacCoun, R., & Reuter, P. (2001) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.179.4.369-a · Cited by 7
Self-citationFactors associated with awareness of decriminalization of marijuana in Jamaica
Oshi, D., Ricketts-Roomes, T. F., Oshi, S., Campbell-Williams, K. A., Agu, C., Mitchell, G., Whitehorne-Smith, P., Atkinson, U., & Abel, W. (2020) · Journal of Substance Use · doi:10.1080/14659891.2019.1664671 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“…globally, the prohibition of marijuana has been a contentious issue, sparking debates between pro-marijuana advocacy groups and those opposed to softening of aggressive criminal prohibitive policies (Abel, Sewell, & EldermireShearer, 2011; Bewley-Taylor et al., 2014; MacCoun & Reuter, 2001).”
BackgroundBuller, D. B., Woodall, W., Saltz, R., Grayson, A., & Buller, M. (2019) · Journal of Public Health Management and Practice · doi:10.1097/phh.0000000000000843 · Cited by 6
Cannabis - the debate continues : a South African perspective : original article
Perkel, C. (2005) · African Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.4314/ajpsy.v8i1.30181 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“Indeed, trends in cannabis use have evolved independently from drug policy, with recent studies suggesting that the US, cited as the prototypical example of a prohibitionist approach consumes more cannabis per capita than the Netherlands, cited as the prototypical example of antiprohibitionist.(9,13) Dutch policies ma…”
BackgroundMedicinal Cannabis—Hoax or Hope?
Mather, L. (2001) · Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · doi:10.1053/rapm.2001.26965 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Běláčková, V., Petruželka, B., Čihák, J., Michailidu, J., & Mravčík, V. (2025) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2025.104796 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Formal and Informal Control of Cannabis: Regular Users' Experience
Brochu, S., Lépine, P., Patenaude, C., & Erickson, P. (2018) · Substance Use & Misuse · doi:10.1080/10826084.2018.1424911 · Cited by 5
“Studies also support this impression that the law is poorly enforced, while the penalty rates in Canada are low (Brochu et al., 2011, MacCoun & Reuter, 2001, The Dain Commission, 1973).”
ResultLeleu-Chavain, N., Biot, C., Chavatte, P., & Millet, R. (2013) · doi:10.1051/medsci/2013295016 · Cited by 5
“L’utilisation du cannabis médical est de plus en plus tolérée et même légalisée dans certains pays et délivrée sur ordonnance (certains États américains, australiens et européens) [4].”
Jones, S. C., Hall, D., & Cowlin, F. (2008) · Drug and Alcohol Review · doi:10.1080/09595230701710787 · Cited by 5
“However, some studies have shown that decriminalisation of possession and use of cannabis does not increase cannabis use [11–13]”
BackgroundDebbaut, S. (2021) · International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice · doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2021.100508 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
What Can We Learn from the Dutch Cannabis Coffeeshop Experience
MacCoun, R. (2010) · RAND Corporation eBooks · doi:10.7249/wr768 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“As noted earlier, a key part of the rationale for the Dutch coffeeshop system was the hypothesis that "separating the markets" would weaken the statistical "gateway" association between cannabis and hard drug use (see MacCoun & Reuter, 2001 for a more elaborate discussion).”
InfluentialSelf-citationGriffin, K. W., Mahadeo, M., Weinstein, J., & Botvin, G. (2006) · doi:10.21134/haaj.v6i1.102 · Cited by 4
Pragmatic approach to the dangers of cannabis use
Macqueen, A. (2001) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.179.3.270-b · Cited by 4
State adult-use cannabis policy effects on law enforcement efforts to disrupt drug markets.
Montgomery, B., Athimuthu, P., Richardson, N., & Ray, B. R. (2025) · The International journal on drug policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2025.104802 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Los, G. (2023) · Archives of Criminology · doi:10.7420/ak2022.07 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“In recent years, more researchers have been diverting their attention from looking at the outcomes of implemented policy (e.g., Reuband 1998; MacCoun, Reuter 2001; Reinarman, Cohen, Kaal 2004; Hughes, Stevens 2010; Krajewski 2013) towards trying to explain what political and social mechanisms lead…”
BackgroundScarscelli, D., Altopiedi, R., Dameno, R., & Verga, M. (2012) · doi:10.3109/09687637.2012.694085 · Cited by 3
“…characterized by different policies (states with repressive policies and states with more liberal ones) (Kilmer, 2002; Lenton & Heale, 2000; MacCoun & Reuter, 2001; McDonald & Atkinson, 1995; Reinarman, Cohen, & Kaal, 2004; Reuband, 1995; Room, Fischer, Hall, Lenton, & Reuter, 2008;…”
The Case for Policy Reform in Cannabis Control
Kisely, S. (2008) · Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · doi:10.1177/070674370805301203 · Cited by 3
Langzeitschäden durch Cannabis - ein unterschätztes Problem?
Schaub, M., & Stohler, R. (2006) · Swiss Medical Forum ‒ Schweizerisches Medizin-Forum · doi:10.4414/smf.2006.06048 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Introduction: Why Look to Europe for Lessons?
Kelemen, R. (2015) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781483395357.n1 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Vastrad, D., Chaudhary, G., & Ronad, S. V. (1962) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1976.tb140860.x · Cited by 393 · see citing works
Does substance use affect educational outcomes
Rees, D. (2014) · doi:10.15185/izawol.66 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Unintended Negative Social Effects from Policing Cannabis in Copenhagen
Møller, K. (2010) · Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs · doi:10.1177/145507251002700204 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Les dommages à long terme de la consommation du cannabis - un problème sous-estimé?
Schaub, M., & Stohler, R. (2006) · Forum Médical Suisse ‒ Swiss Medical Forum · doi:10.4414/fms.2006.06048 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Legislative Measures’ Impact on the New Psychoactive Substances Market
Beltgens, M. T. (2017) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-65361-7_10 · Cited by 2
Buller, D., Woodall, W., Saltz, R., Grayson, A., Buller, M., Cutter, G., Svendsen, S., & Liu, X. (2021) · Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs · doi:10.15288/jsad.2021.82.204 · Cited by 1
“Marijuana availability has promoted the initiation of use in the past (Miech et al., 2015; Swahn & Hammig, 2000; Swaim, 2003; von Sydow et al., 2002), leading to concerns over legalization (Damrongplasit et al., 2010; Joffe & Yancy, 2004; MacCoun & Reuter, 2001; Pacula et al., 2004).”
BackgroundCannabis Reclassification: What is the Message to the Next Generation of Cannabis Users?
McCrystal, P., & Winning, K. (2009) · Child Care in Practice · doi:10.1080/13575270802504354 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“In the Netherlands, reclassification of cannabis resulted in it being openly sold in ‘‘coffee shops’’ (under controlled conditions), despite remaining an illegal drug.”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- MacCoun, R., & Reuter, P.
- Affiliations
- RAND Corporation (US)
- University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
- Corresponding author
- MacCoun, Robert
- Venue
- British Journal of Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Royal College of Psychiatrists
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 178
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123-128
- ISSN
- 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
- 1472-1465
- OpenAlex
- W2112660815
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 6.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Law and Policy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Keywords
- cannabis policy, cannabis prevalence, cannabis prohibition, self-cultivation, cannabis legalization, drug policy alternatives
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Cannabis, Child, Cocaine, Heroin, Humans, Legislation, Drug, Marijuana Smoking, Netherlands, Illicit Drugs, United States, Prevalence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
