An Examination of Racial Disparities in Misdemeanor Marijuana Possession Arrests Following Reforms in Four U.S. Jurisdictions

Using data from New York, NY; Los Angeles, CA; Prince George’s County, MD; and Louisville, KY, we examine trends in racial disparities in the enforcement of misdemeanor marijuana possessionbefore and after marijuana reforms. In these jurisdictions, we find that changes to marijuana enforcement were associated with reductions in arrest rates for Black, Hispanic, and White people, though the rate of decline varied by jurisdiction. Black people were arrested at the highest rates in relation to their proportion of the population. In three of the four jurisdictions where issuing criminal citations was an enforcement option, racial/ethnic disparities in arrest rates increased post-reforms; legalization and the option to issue a civil citation were associated with reductions in racial/ethnic disparities. Trends in this study provide policymakers with information to implement effective reforms that target racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests.

Don’t Let the COVID-19 Crisis Go to Waste: Breaking Through the Status Quo & Flattening the Opioid Epidemic Curve

The objective of the paper is to understand the impact of the COVID-19 focusing event that resulted in a distinctive response by the Federal government. The paper focuses on the rapid deregulation that occurred in the opioid use disorder treatments. We frame the narrative using primarily the economic literature on deregulation during a crisis. The temporary deregulation has significantly increased access to treatment and medications and allows for the discovering of a different equilibrium. We also suggest other deregulations that need to be considered. In this paper, we suggest that the provisional deregulations should be made permanent to improve the outcome of the patients who abuse opioids.

Did the 2018 Farm Bill’s Hemp Provisions Decriminalize Marijuana?

In 2014, Congress removed industrial hemp with a concentration of ≥0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) dry weight from the definition of marijuana in the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Hemp production was authorized in a limited pilot program until 2018, when Congress passed the Agricultural Improvement Act (Farm Bill) that expanded the program to anyone licensed to produce hemp by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or by a USDA-approved State or Indian tribe. Hemp’s greatest value is in two of its 80-plus molecules: cannabidiol (CBD) and THC. These molecules, present in all forms of Cannabis sativa L. (cannabis), including hemp, have medicinal and recreational uses. By removing hemp from the CSA, the Farm Bill altered the legal status of hemp’s extracts, including CBD and THC. In 2018, Epidiolex®, the world’s first and only CBD-based medicine, was approved in the U.S. The drug was placed in Schedule V of the CSA to comply with an international drug treaty requiring control of cannabis and all its extracts. In April 2020, Epidiolex was removed from the CSA schedules. This occurred, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), because with a THC content below 0.3%, Epidiolex no longer met the Farm Bill’s criteria as a controlled substance. This review discusses the Farm Bill’s hemp provisions and how they have affected the legal status of hemp derivatives CBD and THC. The review also discusses a loophole in the Farm Bill that decriminalizes the production of marijuana by negligent hemp farmers. In passing, we discuss how lobbying by the hemp/CBD industry influenced passage of the Farm Bill.

Problematising ‘Recovery’ in Drug Policy within Great Britain: A Comparative Policy Analysis Between England, Wales and Scotland

Drug strategies in Great Britain emphasize the notion of recovery, with the concept being central in England, Wales and Scotland. There are however tensions, with recovery being defined differently across jurisdictions. In this study we address this dilemma by critically interrogating how the term recovery is represented, how these presentations are shaped and what effects are subsequently had. We applied an adapted version of Bacchi's What's the Problem Represented to Be? (WPR) policy analysis approach to the 2017 UK Drug Strategy, the 2008–2018 Welsh Drug Strategy and the 2008 Scottish Drug Strategy notions of service user responsibility; (b) recovery as ‘a problem of product quality’, shaped by the implicit notion of service provider responsibility and the disease model of addiction; (c) recovery as ‘a problem of service collaboration and teamwork’, underpinned by the bio-psycho-social model of addiction. We conclude that the problematisations found in GB’s current drug policies have the ability to shape the drug policy-making process which may limit mainstream knowledge of recovery, and thereby unintentionally contribute to a narrow understanding of how to effectively support the service user community in their recovery from problematic drug use.

“Where Commerce Meets a Revolution” the Complex Relationship Between the Marijuana Legalization Movement and the Cannabis Industry

Abstract“Where Commerce Meets a Revolution” is the motto of the National Cannabis Industry Association and its annual meetings. “Commerce” clearly refers to the developing for-profit cannabis industry. “Revolution” refers to the ongoing legalization of the drug. “Meets” is more ambiguous: It may suggest an encounter between two similar things, a possible clash of opposites, or something in between. The ambiguity here provides an opportunity to examine how a social movement that understood itself as promoting freedom and social justice thinks about and engages a profit-making industry that its own success has created, acknowledging conflicting values, while also trying to find ways to manage this conflict. Drawing on interviews with major movement actors, I use the concepts of institutional logics and institutional entrepreneurship to examine the relationship between the legalization movement and the cannabis industry.

Implementing Frequent Substance Use Testing with Swift-Certain-Fair Sanctions: Stakeholder Insights from a Pilot Program with Volunteer Probationers

Reducing substance use among individuals subject to community supervision is an important goal for many judges and community corrections officers. Some jurisdictions have had success by ordering justice-involved individuals to frequent substance use testing with swift, certain, and fair (SCF) sanctions for non-compliance. South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety program is one example of a SCF program that has also been adopted statewide in Montana, North Dakota, and other jurisdictions. As other entities outside the Great Plains attempt to adopt the 24/7 approach, there is a need to examine how the program is implemented. This paper examines a 24/7-inspired pilot program that was implemented in a southwestern county in the US in 2018. Data on participation rates and testing results for the 6-month pilot program were examined. Using a semi-structured interview protocol with questions that were adapted from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) interview guide, we interviewed nine individuals from six stakeholder groups: 1) Court, 2) District Attorney, 3) Public Defender, 4) Probation, 5) Sheriff, and 6) the non-profit organization that administered the testing. There were important differences in how the program was implemented in the county versus South Dakota’s 24/7 program—namely, there was a different target population, participation was voluntary, and testing was conducted in a different setting which increased costs. While county stakeholders decided to discontinue the program after the pilot period, it was able to implement a SCF program and overcome many of the challenges it confronted. There is some interest in exploring implementation of the SCF with those arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in the county. For jurisdictions considering the implementation of an SCF program, it makes sense to start with a pilot program with pre-determined objectives and timeline for consistency. It is also crucial to hold regular meetings with all relevant stakeholders before and during the pilot to address context-specific challenges. Conducting an implementation analysis of this process based on the CFIR guide can be useful for understanding why the pilot was a success or failure, and how it may be improved.

Waking up from Dreamland: Opioid Addiction Precipitance and Support for Redistributive Drug Treatment

Motivated by the historical components of the ongoing U.S. opioid epidemic, this study examines how public support for redistributive drug treatment changes with awareness that someone’s opioid addiction started with a legally acquired prescription. Using different versions of a vignette, we vary in a randomized design whether someone’s addiction to painkillers started with a legally acquired prescription or with the decision to take pills from a friend. After reading the vignette, participants expressed their level of support for a policy that uses income redistribution to fund a program that provides the person in the vignette with drug treatment. We find that participants are less likely to support redistributive drug treatment when a prescription precipitates the addiction. The results imply that emphasizing the medical establishment’s role in the opioid epidemic may actually make people less likely to favor using redistributive drug treatment to provide support.

Conflicting Laws and Priorities as Drug Policy Implementation Barriers: A Qualitative Analysis of Police Perspectives in Tijuana, Mexico

Background and AimsDrug policy reforms typically seek to improve health among people who use drugs (PWUD), but flawed implementation impedes potential benefits. Mexico’s 2009 drug policy reform emphasized public health-oriented measures to address addiction. Implementation has been deficient, however. We explored the role of municipal police officers’ (MPOs) enforcement decision-making and local systems as barriers to reform operationalization.MethodsBetween February-June 2016, 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted with MPOs in Tijuana. Interviews were transcribed, translated and coded using a consensus-based approach. Emergent themes, trends and frameworks were analyzed through a hermeneutic grounded theory protocol.ResultsIn conceptualizing their orientation towards municipal (not state) law, MPOs reported prioritizing enforcement of nebulous anti-vice ordinances to control PWUD activity. Local laws were seen as conflicting with drug policy reforms. Incentives within the police organization were aligned with ordinance enforcement, generating pressure through quotas and reinforced by judges. Driven by discretion, fuzzy understanding of procedures, and incentives to sanitize space, detention of PWUD for minor infractions was systematic.ConclusionsFailure to harmonize policies and priorities at different levels of government undermine effective operationalization of health-oriented drug policy. Implementation must address local priorities and administrative pressures shaping MPO decision-making and enforcement practice.

Deploying Plural Drug Policies after the ‘War on Drugs’: A Geographical Perspective

There is a growing consensus that acknowledges the failings of the prohibitionist ‘war on drugs’ model of international drug policy. Concomitant drug policy reform literatures have been characterized by the advocacy of policy pluralism, experimentation, evidence gathering/evaluation and the avoidance of drug fetishization. This paper builds upon these literatures and explores some of the complexities of drug policy pluralization, including challenges associated with drug policy asymmetries and repatriation and the, largely unexplored, potentials of deploying drug policies in combination. It argues that the drug policy reform literature has tended to favour evaluation of policy alternatives over discussion of their geographical deployment under a more plural international policy regime. It considers models to inform the deployment of plural drug policies. Conceptually this paper draws on geographical literatures and attempts to rethink drug markets and drug policy reform in geographically sensitive, regional and relational ways, highlighting scalar and relational challenges to drug policy pluralization. It concludes by outlining an extensive set of research priorities that speak directly to the challenges identified through this geographical lens.