Assessing options for cannabis law reform: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) with stakeholders in New Zealand.
Cannabis
Cannabis law reform
Cannabis legalization
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
Journal
The International journal on drug policy
ISSN: 1873-4758
Titre abrégé: Int J Drug Policy
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9014759
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
received:
17
09
2021
revised:
18
04
2022
accepted:
20
04
2022
pubmed:
11
5
2022
medline:
29
6
2022
entrez:
10
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A number of jurisdictions are considering or implementing different options for cannabis law reform, including New Zealand. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) helps facilitate the resolution of complex policy decisions by breaking them down into key criteria and drawing on the combined knowledge of experts from various backgrounds. To rank cannabis law reform options by facilitating expert stakeholders to express preferences for projected reform outcomes using MCDA. A group of cannabis policy experts projected the outcomes of eight cannabis policy options (i.e., prohibition, decriminalization, social clubs, government monopoly, not-for-profit trusts, strict regulation, light regulation, and unrestricted market) based on five criteria (i.e., health and social harm, illegal market size, arrests, tax income, treatment services). A facilitated workshop of 42 key national stakeholders expressed preferences for different reform outcomes and doing so generated relative weights for each criterion and level. The resulting weights were then used to rank the eight policy options. The relative weighting of the criteria were: "reducing health and social harm" (46%), "reducing arrests" (31%), "reducing the illegal market" (13%), "expanding treatment" (8%) and "earning tax" (2%). The top ranked reform options were: "government monopoly" (81%), "not-for-profit" (73%) and "strict market regulation" (65%). These three received higher scores due to their projected lower impact on health and social harm, medium reduction in arrests, and medium reduction in the illegal market. The "lightly regulated market" option scored lower largely due its projected greater increase in health and social harm. "Prohibition" ranked lowest due to its lack of impact on reducing the number of arrests or size of the illegal market. Strictly regulated legal market options were ranked higher than both the current prohibition, and alternatively, more lightly regulated legal market options, as they were projected to minimize health and social harms while substantially reducing arrests and the illegal market.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A number of jurisdictions are considering or implementing different options for cannabis law reform, including New Zealand. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) helps facilitate the resolution of complex policy decisions by breaking them down into key criteria and drawing on the combined knowledge of experts from various backgrounds.
AIMS
To rank cannabis law reform options by facilitating expert stakeholders to express preferences for projected reform outcomes using MCDA.
METHODS
A group of cannabis policy experts projected the outcomes of eight cannabis policy options (i.e., prohibition, decriminalization, social clubs, government monopoly, not-for-profit trusts, strict regulation, light regulation, and unrestricted market) based on five criteria (i.e., health and social harm, illegal market size, arrests, tax income, treatment services). A facilitated workshop of 42 key national stakeholders expressed preferences for different reform outcomes and doing so generated relative weights for each criterion and level. The resulting weights were then used to rank the eight policy options.
RESULTS
The relative weighting of the criteria were: "reducing health and social harm" (46%), "reducing arrests" (31%), "reducing the illegal market" (13%), "expanding treatment" (8%) and "earning tax" (2%). The top ranked reform options were: "government monopoly" (81%), "not-for-profit" (73%) and "strict market regulation" (65%). These three received higher scores due to their projected lower impact on health and social harm, medium reduction in arrests, and medium reduction in the illegal market. The "lightly regulated market" option scored lower largely due its projected greater increase in health and social harm. "Prohibition" ranked lowest due to its lack of impact on reducing the number of arrests or size of the illegal market.
CONCLUSION
Strictly regulated legal market options were ranked higher than both the current prohibition, and alternatively, more lightly regulated legal market options, as they were projected to minimize health and social harms while substantially reducing arrests and the illegal market.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35537275
pii: S0955-3959(22)00131-1
doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2022.103712
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
103712Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declarations of Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.