As such, it may be that in the absence of legally available chemical controls growers were choosing allowable, biologically derived products or alternative strategies such as natural enemy augmentation and sanitation. Our survey population was perhaps biased toward non-chemical pest management — the organizations we contacted for participant recruitment included some that were formed to share and promote sustainability practices. Or, it may be that respondents were reluctant to report using synthetic chemicals or products not licensed for cannabis plants. The only other published data on water application rates for cannabis cultivation in California we are aware of is from Bauer et al. , who used estimates for Humboldt County of 6 gallons per day per plant for outdoor cultivation over the growing season . Grower reported estimates of cannabis water use in this survey were similar to this rate in the peak growing season , but was otherwise lower. Due to the small sample size, we cannot say that groundwater is the primary water source for most cannabis growers in California or that few use surface water diversions. However, Dillis et al. found similar results on groundwater being a major water source for cannabis growers, at least in northwest California. If the irrigation practices reported in our survey represent patterns in California cannabis cultivation, best management practices would be helpful in limiting impacts to freshwater organisms and ecosystems. For example, where groundwater pumping has timely and proximate impacts to surface waters, limiting dry season groundwater extraction by storing groundwater or surface water in the wet season may be beneficial ,indoor grow rack though this will likely require increases in storage capacity. The recently adopted Cannabis Cultivation Policy requires a mandatory dry season forbearance period for surface water diversions, though not for groundwater pumping. Our survey results indicate that the practical constraints on adding storage may be a significant barrier for compliance with mandatory forbearance periods for many growers.
More in-depth research with growers and workers is needed to explore the characteristics of the cannabis labor force and the trajectory of the cannabis labor market, especially in light of legalization. Several growers commented on experiencing labor shortages, a notable finding given that recent market analyses of the cannabis industry suggest that labor compliance costs are the most significant of all of the direct regulatory costs for growers . Higher rates of licensing compliance among medium and large farms is not surprising given the likelihood that they are better able to pay permitting costs. Yet, that the majority of respondents indicated they had not applied for a license to grow cannabis, with over half noting some income from cannabis sales, indicates potentially significant effects if these growers remain excluded from the legalization process. More research is needed to understand the socioeconomic impacts of legalization, which likely extend beyond those accounted for in the state’s economic impact analysis, which primarily focuses on economic contributions that a legalized market will bring to the state . Bodwitch et al. report that surveyed growers characterized legalization as a process that has excluded small farmers, altered local economies and given rise to illicit markets. The environmental impacts of cannabis production have received attention because of expansion into remote areas near sensitive natural habitats. The negative impacts are likely not because cannabis production is inherently detrimental to the environment, but rather due to siting decisions and cultivation practices. In the absence of regulation and best management practices based on research, it is no surprise that there have been instances of negative impacts on the environment. At the same time, many growers appear to have adopted an environmentally proactive approach to production and created networks to share and promote best management practices.
Although widely used in discussions regarding alternative marijuana policy regimes, decriminalization is a policy that to date has gone largely undefined in the international policy arena. The term literally implies a reduction in the criminal status of marijuana possession offences; however, numerous countries and sub-jurisdictions that are recognized as having decriminalized marijuana in fact merely reduce the penalties associated with possession of specified amounts. Hence, the term marijuana depenalization has evolved in the scientific literature as a more accurate term reflecting the diversity in policies that exist across countries . Decriminalization, nonetheless, remains a common term used in policy discussions and debates. The ubiquitous use of the term decriminalization does more than obscure meaningful policy differences that exist across countries; it has led to the development and interpretation of policy research that is myopically focused on evaluating the impact of a single dichotomous indicator that is inconsistently defined within and across countries . Thus, it is not surprising that the literature does not provide a clear, consistent conclusion regarding the impact of decriminalization on marijuana use, its harmful consequences, and arrests when these different studies are in fact evaluating different policies. Although all developed countries today prohibit in some fashion the possession, use, cultivation, distribution and/or sale of marijuana and marijuana products, the countries differ tremendously in the types of behaviours that are allowed, the resources devoted to enforcing the laws, the penalties that are imposed on those who break these laws, and their citizens’ knowledge of these policies. Variations in laws, how they are enforced, and the penalties imposed together determine the policy and the public’s understanding of the policy . Hence, those interested in evaluating the impact of specific policies like marijuana decriminalization need to consider more than just the law and a simple binary label for its penalty structure. They must also consider how and to what degree specific policies get enforced in relevant jurisdictions.
This paper provides a framework for understanding what decriminalization means within the broader context of depenalization. To illustrate these concepts, it provides a detailed discussion of a range of depenalization policies observed in developed countries, highlighting for each country a distinct issue that influences how the policy is implemented and its potential impact. Those interested in analyzing or evaluating the impact of these policies can then use this information to better frame analyses so that policies can be evaluated and compared in a more meaningful way. The paper then demonstrates the problem of using a simple dichotomous indicator, such as “decriminalization”, to differentiate policies within a single country using the United States as the example. It shows that presumed differences in knowledge and enforcement of these laws, factors that should be related to a policy of decriminalization, are not consistent with the current labels that have been given to specific states. Decriminalization and depenalization are both terms that represent a range of policies targeting marijuana users in countries where the supply of marijuana for the purpose of recreational use is statutorily prohibited.Hence, these policies do not relate to how the suppliers of marijuana get treated in specific countries. They only differentiate how those caught in possession get treated.Just as apples are a type of fruit, decriminalization is a specific type of depenalization policy. In this paper, depenalization refers to any policy that reduces the penalties associated with possession or use of marijuana. For example,indoor farming equipment policies that retain the criminal status of possession offences but remove or reduce the amount of incarceration imposed as a penalty would be examples of depenalization policies. Decriminalization, on the other hand, refers specifically to depenalization policies that change the criminal status of possession offences from that of a crime to that of a non-criminal offence. Because penalties are usually graduated with the level of crime, a change in the criminal status of an offence will also imply a reduction in the level and type of penalties imposed with that offence, which is why decriminalization policies may be viewed as a special form of depenalization policies. A country that is interested in reducing the criminal justice burden associated with marijuana possession offences could do so in one of at least two ways: retain the criminal status of the offence, but remove any jail time imposed for these offences , or eliminate the criminal status of the offence, which will also eliminate the jail time imposed with this offence .The first method results in an incremental reduction in the burden for the criminal justice system mainly due to reduced incarceration costs, as court resources may still be required to adjudicate cases depending on the legal structure of the jurisdiction. The second method also generates savings due to incarceration, but may produce larger savings if the resources involved in enforcing and processing civil offences are less intensive than those used to enforce and process criminal offences. If this is not the case, then the non-incarceration savings associated with a change in the criminal status of marijuana would simply reflect a redistribution of these costs from the criminal justice system to another government agency.
Fundamentally, the primary difference between these two methods has to do with the outcome for users. Although the specific penalties imposed on users in each of these cases could be structured identically , depenalization retains the criminal status of the offence while decriminalization does not. The importance of a criminal charge depends on the jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, criminal charges can influence an individual’s ability to obtain and/or retain work, student loans, and public assistance; hence decriminalization can substantially reduce the personal cost associated with getting charged with possession offences. In other, more rehabilitative jurisdictions, criminal charges do not impose these sort of additional personal burdens.There are a variety of different depenalization models that have been adopted in developed countries. Even within specific countries, important variations to the model can exist. Many countries have adopted a policy of “partial depenalization,” in which the penalties for individual users vary on the basis of the quantity of marijuana that they possess and their number of prior offences. For example, first-time offenders who are caught in possession of small amounts of marijuana might receive civil penalties while those caught in possession of larger quantities or are repeat offenders may face criminal charges. Variants of this policy are seen in Australia, Germany and the United States. Other countries have adopted a policy of “full decriminalization,” where the simple possession or use of any amount of marijuana is not a crime regardless of the number of prior offences. These offences remain illegal but have civil sanctions, typically involving mandatory treatment and a fine. Examples of European countries that have adopted policies of full decriminalization include Italy, which initially adopted its policy in 1975 and reinstated it after a brief period of re-criminalization from 1990-1993, Spain, which adopted its policy in 1983, and Portugal, which only recently adopted its policy in 2001.The Netherlands represents the single biggest outlier to marijuana policy models experimented with thus far, as it is the only country that has allowed a small, regulated market to develop. Even in this case, however, the market is severely limited and stiff penalties remain for individuals caught in possession of large quantities of the drug.Since 1986, the goal of Australia’s national drug strategy has been to “minimize the harmful effects of drugs on Australian society” . Efforts to achieve this goal include the provision of education, a significant expansion of treatment and the collection of national data on drug use and drug-related harms . In the Australian Federal system, states and territories are responsible for enacting legislation and implementing drug policies while the Federal government can influence national policy by tying funding for drug programs to compliance with broadly agreed national goals. Consequently, although harm minimization has been the national drug policy goal, there has been no uniform approach to marijuana and several Australian states and territories have experimented with their own marijuana policies . Since the mid- 1980s, five Australian territories have replaced the criminal penalties associated with minor marijuana offences with administrative fines . South Australia was the first to adopt the Cannabis Expiation Notice system in 1987, eight years after the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs recommended that marijuana use not be treated as a criminal offence . In 1992 and 1996, the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory, respectively, adopted similar systems. Western Australia has just recently made the change in 2003. Other states in Australia have retained the criminal status of these minor marijuana offences, although diversion to education and treatment are now the most common outcome for first offenders in all states.