Content uploaded by Gabriel V. Lévesque
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gabriel V. Lévesque on Nov 24, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Cannabis Legalization in Canada. Case studies:British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec
Abstract and Figures
SUMMARY
This report analyzes the regulation of cannabis in Canada, as well as the political, economic and social impact of the policies adopted. Using data allowing a comparative analysis of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, we take into account the political choices made by stakeholders at the federal and provincial levels and known effects of these choices since the legalization of recreational cannabis on October 17, 2018. To do this, we rely on both a systematic review of scientific research, a review of relevant institutional documents and a series of 30 interviews conducted with stakeholders of cannabis legalization in the three provinces studied. In the first section, we provide a historical background on cannabis policy in Canada and discuss the initial goals of legalization. In the second section, we compare cannabis policies across Canada, with a particular attention to the three provinces studied. In the third section, we briefly discuss the role of medical cannabis policies. The fourth and fifth sections respectively analyze the development of a legal cannabis industry and the economic effects of legalization across Canada. After discussing the political and economic issues of the legalization, we proceed in the sixth section to an exploratory analysis of
the effects of legalization on public health. In the seventh section, we review the effects of legalization on criminality. In section eight, we describe some of the disparities in the implementation of cannabis policies. The last section concludes the analysis by presenting some preliminary learned lessons. Ultimately, this synthetic work can lay the foundations for more in-depth assessments of the challenges of legalization of cannabis in Canada.
Figures - uploaded by Gabriel V. Lévesque
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Gabriel V. Lévesque
Content may be subject to copyright.
... First, thirty loosely structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders in the summer of 2020 to form a general understanding of implementation across Canada 1 . Key findings from this first round of interviews are presented elsewhere (Lévesque, 2020). From these interviews, a guide for semistructured interviews was developed (see Appendix A). ...
... Various strategies were employed to find relevant documents. Many of them were identified at an earlier stage of this research project (see Lévesque, 2020), and it was thus appropriate to go back to original or updated versions of those documents. Other documents were identified in discussions with the participants, as many of them followed back on the interview with a list of references that they use in their everyday work or that their organization had produced. ...
... Municipalities. Throughout the legalization process, municipalities in Ontario and elsewhere have argued that they would bear most of the enforcement costs without receiving any of its economic benefits (Benoit & Lévesque, 2020;Lévesque, 2020). In response to this issue, the Ontario provincial government established the Cannabis Legalization Implementation Fund, which intended to distribute at least CAD 36 million in four payments. ...
https://en.ofdt.fr/BDD/publications/docs/ASTRACAN_RAPPORT_ONTARIO_GB.pdf.
More than three years after recreational cannabis legalization at the federal level, provinces a mari usque ad mare are now well into the implementation phase. Ontario, the most populous province and largest cannabis market in Canada, is at the forefront of this process. Cannabis policy implementation is a multi-faceted challenge and involves a large set of stakeholders. For one thing, implementation has been a constant process of negotiation between health and economic objectives. From this constant negotiation has stemmed new concerns, and potential shortcomings of the current policies are slowly being revealed. Cannabis policy implementation is an intriguing case of what Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) term the “implementation gap”, i.e., discrepencies and distorsions between the initial policy and its concrete unfolding (Benoit & Lévesque, 2022). Furthermore, it is the ideal field for studying the relationships between actors at multiple levels of governance (federal, provincial, municipal) and from diverse types of organizations (public, for profit, NGOs, etc.). Ultimately, the multiplicity of actors and concerns involved make it a thorny and contentious policy issue.
What is Ontario’s cannabis policy framework and, most importantly, how has it been put into practice? How is the cannabis market structured in Ontario? What are the key trends in the retail space? What are the implementation challenges that stakeholders face with regards to public health, the economy, and vulnerable populations? These are the main questions that this summary report seeks to answer. More broadly, this report attempts to highlight and understand the adverse and unplanned outcomes of legalization in Ontario.
... Ultimately, the beneficiary of such polarization in the case of Quebec might be the CAQ government, since cannabis legalization was met with more popular reluctance than in any other Canadian province (Kurl & Holliday, 2017). As shown elsewhere (Lévesque, 2020), stakeholders of policy implementation in Quebec (e.g., public servants) were also more reluctant to legalize than their counterparts from other provinces. ...
Cannabis legalization is often referred to as a moral issue. However, given the limits of morality policy as a distinct policy subcategory and the contemporary dominance of technocratic politics, one could wonder if it is really framed as such within political institutions. In this article, I ask how moral frames compete and interact with other frames in debates over morality policy. Working with a moral/epistemic dichotomy, I conduct framing analysis on parliamentary debates in Quebec, Ontario, and Maine, which have recently reformulated their cannabis policy. Although trends in framing vary across cases, moral frames are consistently less salient than epistemic frames. Furthermore, a pattern of complementary framing is found, whereby actors combine moral and epistemic frames. Overall, this study shows that cannabis policy is often framed as nonmoral, and that its moral component is nonexclusive. I conclude by discussing some implications of these findings in the post‐legalization landscape.
Related Articles
Branton, Regina, and Ronald J. McGauvran. 2018. “Mary Jane Rocks the Vote: The Impact of Climate Context on Support for Cannabis Initiatives.” Politics & Policy 46(2): 209–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12248.
Brekken, Katheryn C., and Vanessa M. Fenley. 2021. “Part of the Narrative: Generic News Frames in the U.S. Recreational Marijuana Policy Subsystem.” Politics & Policy 49(1): 6–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12388.
Fisk, Jonathan M., Joseph A. Vonasek, and Elvis Davis. 2018. “‘Pot’Reneurial Politics: The Budgetary Highs and Lows of Recreational Marijuana Policy Innovation.” Politics & Policy 46(2): 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12246.
In the last decade, there has been a significant surge in cannabis legalization, with Uruguay (2013), Canada (2018) and 19 U.S. states (2012-2022) having developed recreational cannabis policies. A growing literature analyzes legalization from a policymaking or public health standpoint. Yet only few studies have explored its discursive component . This article contributes to filling this gap by developing conceptual tools for cannabis policy discourse analysis. I first examine the history of cannabis policy in North America and find two main discursive clusters, i.e., moral and epistemic discourse. I then discuss existing typologies of cannabis regulation models and select that of Beauchesne, which distinguishes between three models: prohibition 2.0, public health and harm reduction, and commercialization. At the intersection of discursive clusters and these regulation models, I identify six mutually exclusive frames of cannabis policy: moral panic, medical/health, reparations/vulnerabilities, harm reduction/risk mitigation, laissez-faire/liberalism, and illicit market/revenue.
Cet article se propose d’étudier les enjeux soulevés par les inégalités ethnoraciales face au système de justice pénale dans un contexte démocratique, à partir d’une analyse en deux étapes. Nous esquissons d’abord un portrait de ces inégalités au Canada. Nous mettons ensuite en lumière les conséquences de ces inégalités et, notamment, les manières dont elles contreviennent aux principes structurants de la démocratie libérale. Nous concluons en examinant des pistes de solution identifiées dans la littérature sur le sujet pour contrer ces inégalités et, par extension, pour remédier à la perte de confiance qu’elles peuvent provoquer à l’égard du système de justice pénale et, plus largement, de la société dans laquelle les personnes et les communautés concernées vivent.
Background:
The Canadian government legalized non-medical cannabis use by adults in October 2018 in order to minimize associated harms and re-direct profits from criminals.
Data and methods:
Seven quarters of (NCS) data were combined into two groups: pre- and post-legalization periods - to examine changes in: cannabis use (overall, daily or almost daily (DAD)), source of product, driving after consumption and riding in a vehicle with a driver who had consumed.
Results:
By 2019, overall cannabis use had increased (16.8% vs. 14.9%), particularly among: males, adults aged 25 and older, and in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Alberta. DAD use, at 6.0%, remained stable, as did the prevalence of driving within 2 hours of consumption (13.2%). Riding in a vehicle with a driver who had used declined, overall (from 5.3% to 4.2%) and among: females, persons aged 25 and older, and in Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Alberta. Where Canadians reported obtaining their cannabis also changed, with increasing percentages reporting getting some or all of their cannabis from legal sources, and fewer using illegal sources or relying on friends/family. Some provinces experienced more change than others.
Discussion:
While too soon to observe the longer-term impacts associated with the Cannabis Act, early indications based on data collected in the months surrounding enactment suggests some cautions and also some assurances. Ongoing monitoring will be essential particularly given the 2.0 Act modifications and the ever-changing provincial retail and regulatory landscapes.
en In the early days of cannabis legalization, certain Indigenous communities and businesses are asserting jurisdictional authority and refuse to acknowledge federal and provincial sovereignty on their territories. This has led, in some cases, to police intervention. This article examines jurisdictional contestations on Indigenous lands in relation to cannabis legalization, providing insight on the responses of government and law enforcement. The Canadian approach may have lasting implications for reconciliation and Indigenous relations beyond the cannabis field.
Sommaire
fr Au tout début de la légalisation du cannabis, certaines collectivités et entreprises autochtones exercent leur autorité juridictionnelle et refusent de reconnaître la souveraineté fédérale et provinciale sur leurs territoires. Cela a conduit, dans certains cas, à l’intervention de la police. Cet article étudie les contestations juridictionnelles sur les terres autochtones en ce qui concerne la légalisation du cannabis, et jette de la lumière sur les réponses du gouvernement et des forces de l’ordre. L’approche canadienne pourrait avoir des répercussions durables sur la réconciliation et sur les relations avec les Autochtones, allant au‐delà du domaine du cannabis.
en This article challenges the assumptions underlying the shared federal, provincial, and territorial goals of reducing criminal involvement in the drug trade and preventing substance use by youth. These official government objectives, it is argued, reflect a harmful tendency that continues the tradition of neglecting decades of sociological research on the efficiency of informal sources of control. Rather than continue to prioritize prevention, consistent evidence‐based policy development for cannabis requires articulation of more informed and realistic goals of harm reduction. New educational initiatives need to build on informal controls that more effectively regulate responsible substance use behaviour.
Sommaire
fr Cet article remet en question les hypothèses sous‐tendant les objectifs communs des gouvernements fédéral, provinciaux et territoriaux qui consistent à diminuer l’activité criminelle dans le trafic de la drogue et à prévenir la toxicomanie chez les jeunes. Nous soutenons que ces objectifs gouvernementaux officiels reflètent la tendance néfaste qui persiste dans la tradition de négliger des décennies de recherche sociologique sur l’efficacité de sources de contrôle informelles. Plutôt que de continuer à faire de la prévention une priorité, l’élaboration d’une politique sur le cannabis cohérente et fondée sur des données probantes requiert la définition d’objectifs de la réduction des méfaits qui soient mieux informés et plus réalistes. De nouvelles initiatives éducatives doivent s’appuyer sur des formes de contrôle informelles qui régissent plus efficacement un comportement de toxicomanie responsable.