Where to look when considering cannabis policy lessons

This is evidence of federalism in action, reaching its touted potential of sub-national entities being laboratories of policy experimentation. The ACT is a key player and good at this game having made a similar move with same-sex marriage laws, euthanasia, and event pill-testing. As was the case with all of these, we know the Commonwealth can void the territory's laws or pass it all to the High Court to manage. This is the game of Australian Federalism.

Michael Pettersson's amendment bill debated on Wednesday in the ACT's legislative assembly cites two key international cases to justify why the ACT's laws should be brought forward to 21st century standards. These are the USA and Canada. Canada legalised nationally in 2018, whereas the US has now in piecemeal fashion legalised recreational use in 10 states - including its capital Washington D.C.

As progressive as the ACT might be after this bill, I would highly recommend politicians follow Canada's example and open up a national debate and then take a national decision after public consultation on cannabis legalisation/decriminalisation, versus the ad-hoc state by state policy transfer approach that has occurred in the US. Why?

Cannabis laws should be about legalisation and regulation. While each province and territory in Canada has their own laws, they cannot deviate from the minimum national standards set in Bill C-45, which is national. What this means is that home grown restrictions may vary, but possession limits do not, and most importantly, the production, cultivation, and quality of the product now being consumed recreationally is regulated federally.

This means quality control - serious quality control. No fungus, no pesticides, THC and CBD levels labelled with federal health warnings like your everyday package of cigarettes. Canada's National Ministry of Health also invested $45 million in youth education about the harms of cannabis use when the country relaxed possession laws to 30 grams per person.

READ MORE:

None of the touted benefits cited in Pettersson's amendment bill such as educating the public and youth, or reducing the burden on the Criminal Justice System, or reducing cannabis related crime (money laundering, organised crime etc.) can be realised without national leadership and a national decision. Trust me, ask a few US cannabis experts how legal enforcement, labour-use laws, and reducing cannabis-related organised crime is going in the US without national legislation.

The Australian Commonwealth is already involved, but clearly doesn't want to be linked to personal use discussions because of electoral and political risk. The Morrison government is however promoting the development of a medicinal cannabis industry. So far, the National Office of Drug Control has issued 69 licenses for the production, cultivation, and manufacturing of medicinal cannabis in Australia. While the ACT might be the current policy leader with their newfound leniency on personal cannabis possession and homegrown cultivation, Queensland is going to be Australia's cannabis cash-cow when it comes to taxing the profits of production.

As a federal country, Canada and the US's lessons in cannabis best practice are already written. When it comes to cannabis as social policy, the states and territories cannot manage consumer demand, health and community effects, push for decriminalisation to alleviate the burden of police enforcement, protect the youth, and educate the public - all while the Commonwealth in parallel fashion is promoting the development of the cannabis industry as economic development policy to be exported to Asia-Pacific. I really hope the ACT's actions open up a national debate. Regardless, when they need cannabis policy lessons please look North, I mean really far North.