Why and how to
Regulate cannabis?

Why doesn’t prohibition work?

In all legislation relating to intoxicating substances, you must first realize that intoxicants cause harms. Cannabis has a negative effect on the health of those who use it, which will be discussed later on this page. It also generates costs for society in the form of healthcare costs.

It is important to understand this logic: 

Harm caused by intoxicants are increased, if they are not regulated, whether the unregulated market is legal or illegal.

This can be easily visualized through the graph below (source, original graph edited and supplemented)

Coel Thomas’ Model
for Regulating Cannabis

In this section I offer my own suggestion for how cannabis should be legalized and put under strict regulation.

This model is based on either suggested or existing models of regulation and on my own approach to the relationship between the state and markets. Originally, this model was developed for my home country of Finland, but could be implemented in other contexts as well.

A general misconception in this debate is that the legalization of cannabis would mean “freeing” cannabis. Legalization, especially in this model I offer, would actually mean strict regulation.

The model has 9+1 parts.

1. The Regulating Authority

• In order to enforce this model, a governmental institution that enforces this framework must be created. Their goal shall be to:

  • Enforce the regulations in this model

  • Attempt to reduce the use of cannabis

  • Report on information relating to cannabis

2. Producing Cannabis

• A license must be acquired for the production of intoxicating cannabis for commercial purposes. Getting this licence shall not be made excessively expensive.

• Intoxicating cannabis is defined as cannabis plants with over 1% tetrahydrocannabinol (TCH)

• A business cannot produce and sell cannabis on the same premises.

• Dried and fresh cannabis, cannabis plants, as well as seeds should be legalized first.

• Regulatory authorities can later give permission for the sales of other kinds of products, such as edible products and cannabis-infused drinks, if they are deemed safe. The development and production of them would be legal however.

• Some cannabis products should remain illegal, like products mixed with tobacco or alcohol, products made very strong on purpose and high-risk products like eye drops.

• Intoxicating products made for animals would also remain forbidden. Getting animals into a state of intoxication would also remain punishable

3. Selling Cannabis

• A license for selling cannabis must be acquired, but it should not be made excessively expensive

• Selling or distributing cannabis for people under the age of 20 shall be punishable.

• Businesses selling cannabis cannot sell alcohol or tobacco.

• Products must have clear labels for what they contain, as well as health warning labels. Packages cannot be branded, but they can have the information of the producer on them.

• Cannabis cannot be sold for a discount.

• You cannot sell cannabis to clearly intoxicated individuals.

• The staff for businesses that sell cannabis must be trained in issues like spotting harmful use.

• A pigovian tax, which is a tax based on societal harms, must be levied on cannabis, as is done with alcohol or tobacco.

4. Using Cannabis

• Individuals over the age of 20 may legally use cannabis and carry up to 20 grams of cannabis.

• It shall be permitted to use cannabis in licenced premises or in private apartments, with regards to rules of the residence.

• Businesses must get a separate licence for operating rooms for the consumption of cannabis. In addition to private residences, keeping in mind residential rules relating to smoking, it is only allowed to consume cannabis in these licenced rooms for consumption. 

• These spaces must also serve food and drinks, but alcohol and tobacco are not allowed.

5. Marketing Cannabis

• Advertising cannabis and sponsorship deals shall remain forbidden.

• Products clearly marketed to children or young people must be forbidden.

• Businesses cannot lie about the effects of their products.

6. Rights of Municipalities

• Municipal governments must be able to intervene in the opening of businesses and spaces for the use, sales or production of cannabis in their respective municipality.

• Municipalities must be able to prevent the establishment of these businesses in the proximity of certain places, like schools and kindergartens, through zoning.

7. Quality Control

• The regulatory authority must test, or require testing from the producer, for all cannabis before it is sold.

• Products of a higher risk category, like cannabis extremely high in THC-content, edible products, or similar products, must undergo more rigorous testing.

• The quality of cannabis must be controlled, for example through limiting, or regulating, its cannabinoid profile.

8. Homegrowing

• The cultivation of cannabis in private residences shall be allowed so that one household may legally grow up to five plants.

• An individual may store the cannabis produced by these plants where they have grown them, even if it surpasses the limit of possession of 20 grams, up to 300 grams.

• Self-grown cannabis cannot be sold, served in circumstances of commercial activity or events that charge an entrance fee.

9. Limits of legality

• Under 20 year-olds that are caught in possession of cannabis are directed into social welfare programs, or are given a fine (but not given a criminal record)

• Possessing over 20 grams of cannabis in public is also an fineable offense (but does not result in a criminal record)

• It would remain punishable to:

  • Use cannabis in public

  • Possess over 20 grams

  • Growing more than 5 plants

  • Growing cannabis in public

  • Giving/selling cannabis to under 20 year-olds or predisposing them to cannabis smoke

  • Selling cannabis without a licence

  • Being intoxicated in situations like employment or while driving.

+Decriminalization and Expanding Support Services

The legalization and regulation of cannabis would be smart to be included in a larger reform of laws governing intoxicating substances. This would include:

• Decriminalizing the of use of all illegal drugs

• Health authorities should be able to create places where illegal, especially intravenous, drugs can be used safely. These would be places where people addicted to illegal drugs can have a safe space for using drugs, which prevents deaths and the transmission of diseases. This is also a way to get people to receive help for their problems.

• Mental health and substance services are badly underfunded in most places around the world. The tax income gained from cannabis should be directed to these services, education and other public services.

• A therapy guarantee must be implemented, where people can receive psychotherapy session

• It must be possible to get help for mental health issues, even if you use any substance to get intoxicated. 

Reasoning for the Numbers Suggested in this Model

The age limit is set at 20, because this would give a signal from the state that cannabis is not a substance that young people should use. This could also limit the ability for underage individuals to acquire cannabis, when their 18- and 19-year-old friends cannot buy it for them. The age limit could also be higher than this.

The limit for personal possession is quite trivial, because it could be 10, 30 or even 50 instead of 20. It is important for the state to make some kind of limit, to signal that there are dangers in consuming a lot of cannabis and to limit its use. In North America, the limit is usually around 30 grams. 20 grams is the suggested amount here, because it’s the same number as the suggested age limit.

The amount of plants allowed to be grown in private residences is limited to five, but this could also be more or less. This is a common limit in North America and it is also the same amount that has been decriminalized in the Netherlands. The limit for cannabis that can be stored in a private residence is set to 300 grams. It is possible for a cannabis plant that is grown inside to produce 25-28 grams, so five plants may produce way more than the 20 grams that are allowed for possession in public. This limit of 300 grams is easily more than that of two possible harvests and it's a convenient round number.

What about a State-run Cannabis Monopoly?

A state-run monopoly is often suggested as an alternative model for a regulated free market model, especially in Finland. It has also been suggested that already state-run alcohol monopolies, which are common in Nordic countries, could just take on selling cannabis as well. I do not think these are good ideas.

If cannabis sales were started at the same time in for example the over 350 Alko stores (Finnish state-run alcohol monopoly that sells all alcohol with over 5.5% alcohol content), the availability of cannabis would increase by a lot. The state should also not encourage mixing cannabis and alcohol, which is something it would indirectly be doing, if it sold cannabis and strong liquor in the same place. It would also be odd to create a new state-run monopoly, which would in essence have the goal of upholding the availability of cannabis throughout the country.

The Finnish state does not have a monopoly for alcohol under 5.5% or cigarettes and the Finnish state still makes over 2.5 billion euros in taxes every year from these two sources combined. A state-run cannabis monopoly is not necessary. Businesses that sell cannabis should also have a space for using cannabis, which would not be possible in state-run alcohol stores.

It is understandable that individuals raised in a context, where the state attempts to control substance issues by monopolizing alcohol, would also want to do the same with cannabis. I believe that the role of alcohol monopolies are questionable in quelling problems relating to alcohol and would not want to see this model extended to cannabis. The Canadian system, where production is controlled by the state, has also had a lot of problems in getting rid of the illegal market for cannabis. A regulated free market model would not have these same problems.

Founding a state-run company, that would for example produce cannabis and operate in the free market without having a monopoly, would not be a bad idea. Finland has a state-run company Altia, which operates in this way in regards to alcohol.

Doesn’t Prohibition Reduce the Harms of Cannabis?

Cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug in the world and it is not going anywhere.

In this part, I look at the negative health effects of cannabis and the negative effects of cannabis prohibition.

The Negative Health Effects of Cannabis Use

Consuming cannabis has negative effects, especially for young people. These possible negative effects for individuals must be understood so that they can be minimized. Often the negative effects of cannabis are downplayed by anti-prohibitionists and exaggerated by prohibitionists. It should be noted that due to the widespread use of cannabis, negative health consequences caused by cannabis already exist and are not going anywhere, because prohibition has failed to decrease the use of cannabis.

Cannabis has a negative effect on the development of the brain for young people. It may cause problems relating to mental health and cognitive performance. Smoking cannabis can cause health issues in the lungs and consuming cannabis during pregnancy can have negative effects on the fetus. Mental issues have been diagnosed with people who have had a prior diagnosis or a genetic predisposition. These are real problems that exist right now. Prohibition does not decrease use, so it does not decrease the harms of cannabis either. On the contrary, use of cannabis has just increased under prohibition. In addition, prohibition itself causes a myriad of issues.

The Negative Effects of Prohibition

Cannabis prohibition is often justified with the idea that it would prevent many issues related to cannabis.

However, most of these issues are actually caused by prohibition.

Cannabis is Easily Accessible for Children and Young People

In many situations, it can be easier for underage individuals to buy cannabis than it is to buy alcohol, because the law does not force sellers on the street or internet to ask for ID. Reducing cannabis use among children and youth is especially important, because the health consequences seem to be more severe, if cannabis use starts at a younger age. For example, cannabis legalization in the United States has not increased the rate of use among young people (*).

Now it’s easier for young people to get high than it is to get help.

Prohibition Makes Cannabis Stronger

Cannabis has been bred over decades to be much stronger(*). Without government regulation, growers can breed extremely strong cannabis. A stronger intoxicant is a convenient thing to have during prohibition, because you can sell it in smaller amounts. Because of this, alcohol prohibitions also lead to the sales and consumption of much stronger alcohol.

In practice, stronger cannabis means that it has a higher level of THC. A higher level of THC may increase the risk for cannabis-induced psychosis (), especially if use starts at a young age. A greater level of THC tends to correlate with a lower level of CBD (*). CBD may reduce the effect of THC and lower the risk of psychosis (*).

If cannabis was regulated by the state, levels of THC and CBD could be mandated to be within a certain range, which would reduce the public health consequences of cannabis. Illegally sold cannabis may also include other kinds of impurities, which can have different kinds of effects for people who consume it.

Punishments Create Social Exclusion and Inequality

Most punishments for the use of illegal drugs are for cannabis. If you get caught, police records may record your punishment for a long time. A mark of use has a negative effect on the lives of young people and creates social exclusion, when it prevents individuals from being admitted to schools of gaining employment.

The risk of getting caught for the use of cannabis is very unequal. For example, people with lower incomes tend to live in neighborhoods that are more often patrolled by the police. Almost all people that use cannabis will not get caught for it. The likelihood for getting caught, fined or getting a record may depend on an individuals income, place of residence or skin color. This is very evident in the United States, where societal inequality is very pronounced. This same mechanism can be generalized to more egalitarian societies as well though.

If you live in a house in nice suburb, it is not as likely for you to get caught smoking cannabis as if you live in a city apartment with no balcony. The police tends to have a lot of flexibility when it comes to actually enforcing the law, which allows for prejudices of officers to have an influence on the fate of individuals. There can also be very large geographical differences on the implementation of laws. Police in some cities have a much more relaxed attitude towards cannabis use.

When the risk of getting caught is unequal, the effects of the law are also unequal, especially when cannabis use is so common.

The criminalization of cannabis also causes stigma, even though its use is quite common. This can lead to people being afraid to admit using cannabis, which can be crucial in certain treatment, like mental health treatment. You may not even be able to get help for mental health issues if you admit to using cannabis.

This is not good for reducing the possible negative consequences of cannabis, when someone seeking help cannot admit they have a substance abuse problem, because they are afraid of being labelled as a criminal. This fear does not help anyone, but shuts individuals outside of help, whether it's for substance abuse or mental health issues.

Criminalization is a problem in the context of other illegal drugs as well. This problem is somewhat pronounced for cannabis, because it is so widely used. Access to substance abuse treatment is much more important in the context of stronger and more addictive intoxicants.

Access to Medical Cannabis is Limited

Many jurisdictions, like Finland, already allow the use of medical cannabis, but it may be very difficult to acquire prescriptions even for people who desperately need them. Legalizing and regulating cannabis would make it easier to prescribe cannabis, because it would reduce the stigma of the medicine among doctors and civil servants.

If individuals that need cannabis as a medicine cannot get it legally, they are forced to be criminals. Cannabis purchased on the street is often not the type of product that they would need, because there is no one to regulate it. Overall, legalization would make it easier for patients to receive their medicine.

The Police Waste Resources

Legalizing cannabis would free police resources that could be used to enforce other laws. The police confiscates millions of plants yearly in the EU alone (3.2 million in 2018 *). A lot of resources have been used to find out where these plants are grown and for the work that comes after this, such as getting rid of the plants.

The justice system spends a lot of money prosecuting people. Society also pays for imprisoning criminals. This is all done in an sector of the economy that has been legalized in many jurisdictions around the world.

The police and justice system have not had an impact on the availability of cannabis, as they didn’t during the prohibition of alcohol. We use massive amounts of money to uphold cannabis prohibition without any results. Use is on the rise and so are the profits of organized crime. Police resources should be used to combat serious crime and take the cannabis market away from criminals.

Prohibition is a Complete Failure

Prohibition attempts to reduce the harms of cannabis by reducing its use.

It fails to reduce use and makes cannabis a more damaging intoxicant for individuals and society.

So prohibition fails in its one goal and creates a lot of new completely unnecessary problems.