Drug liberalization is the process of eliminating or reducing drug prohibition laws. Variations of drug liberalization include: drug legalization, drug relegalization and drug decriminalization.Whilst many people would argue that decriminalization will only cause an increase in usage, studies from California and Colorado, two states who implemented the policy, found that '"decriminalization" of marijuana possession had little or no impact on rates of use, and found that it was effective in reducing drug usage due to better control.' (Winter, 1989). Drug liberalization may go hand in hand with or include measures to ensure responsible drug use and some state that its challenge is not in criticizing prohibition, but in designing something better.
The 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances made it mandatory for the signatory countries to "adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law" (art. 3, § 1) all the activities related to the production, sale, transport, distribution, etc. of the substances included in the most restricted lists of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Criminalization also applies to the "cultivation of opium poppy, coca bush or cannabis plants for the purpose of the production of narcotic drugs". The Convention distinguishes between the intent to traffic and personal consumption, stating that the latter should also be considered a criminal offence, but "subject to the constitutional principles and the basic concepts of [the state’s] legal system" (art. 3, § 2).
The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) defines decriminalization as the removal of a conduct or activity from the sphere of criminal law; depenalisation signifying merely a relaxation of the penal sanction exacted by law. Decriminalization usually applies to offences related to drug consumption and may include either the imposition of sanctions of a different kind (administrative) or the abolition of all sanctions; other (noncriminal) laws then regulate the conduct or activity that has been decriminalized. Depenalisation usually consists of personal consumption as well as small-scale trading and generally signifies the elimination or reduction of custodial penalties, while the conduct or activity still remains a criminal offence. The term legalization refers to the removal of all drug-related offences from criminal law: use, possession, cultivation, production, trading, etc.
Drug liberalization proponents hold differing reasons to support liberalization, and have differing policy proposals. The two most common positions are drug legalization (or re-legalization), and drug decriminalization.
Drug legalization calls for a return to the pre-20th century situation in which almost all drugs were legal. This would require ending government-enforced prohibition on the distribution or sale and personal use of specified (or all) currently banned drugs. Proposed ideas range from full legalization which would completely remove all forms of government control, to various forms of regulated legalization, where drugs would be legally available, but under a system of government control which might mean for instance:
The regulated legalization system would probably have a range of restrictions for different drugs, depending on their perceived risk, so while some drugs would be sold over the counter in pharmacies or other licensed establishments, drugs with greater risks of harm might only be available for sale on licensed premises where use could be monitored and emergency medical care made available. Examples of drugs with different levels of regulated distribution in most countries include: caffeine (coffee, tea), nicotine (tobacco),and ethyl alcohol (beer, wine, spirits).
Full legalization is often proposed by groups such as libertarians who object to drug laws on moral grounds, while regulated legalization is suggested by groups such as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition who object to the drug laws on the grounds that they fail to achieve their stated aims and instead greatly worsen the problems associated with use of prohibited drugs, but who acknowledge that there are harms associated with currently prohibited drugs which need to be minimized. Not all proponents of drug re-legalization necessarily share a common ethical framework, and people may adopt this viewpoint for a variety of reasons. In particular, favoring drug legalization does not imply approval of drug use.
Drug decriminalization calls for reduced control and penalties compared to existing laws. Proponents of drug decriminalization generally support the use of fines or other punishments to replace prison terms, and often propose systems whereby illegal drug users who are caught would be fined, but would not receive a permanent criminal record as a result. A central feature of drug decriminalization is the concept of harm reduction.
Drug decriminalization is in some ways an intermediate between prohibition and legalization, and has been criticized as being "the worst of both worlds", in that drug sales would still be illegal, thus perpetuating the problems associated with leaving production and distribution of drugs to the criminal underworld, while also failing to discourage illegal drug use by removing the criminal penalties that might otherwise cause some people to choose not to use drugs. However, there are many that argue that the decriminalization of possession of drugs would redirect focus of the law enforcement system of any country to put more effort into arresting dealers and big time criminals, instead of arresting minor criminals for mere possession, and thus be more effective.[ citation needed ]
In 2001 Portugal began treating use and possession of small quantities of drugs as a public health issue.This means rather than incarcerating those in possession they are referred to a treatment program. The drugs are still illegal, the police just handles the situation differently. This also decreases the amount of money the government spends fighting a war on drugs and money spent keeping drug users incarcerated. “As noted by the EMCDDA, across Europe in the last decades, there has been a movement toward “an approach that distinguishes between the drug trafﬁcker, who is viewed as a criminal, and the drug user, who is seen more as a sick person who is in need of treatment” (EMCDDA 2008, 22).6 A number of Latin American countries have similarly moved to reduce the penalties associated with drug use and personal possession” (Laqueur, 2015, p. 748). Portugal is the first country that has decriminalized the possession of small amounts of drugs, to positive results. Anyone caught with any type of drug in Portugal, if it is for personal consumption, will not be imprisoned.
There are numerous economic and social impacts of the criminalization of drugs. Prohibition increases crime (theft, violence, corruption) and drug price and increases potency.In many developing countries the production of drugs offers a way to escape poverty. Milton Friedman estimated that over 10,000 deaths a year in the US are caused by the criminalization of drugs, and if drugs were to be made legal innocent victims such as those shot down in drive by shootings, would cease or decrease. The economic inefficiency and ineffectiveness of such government intervention in preventing drug trade has been fiercely criticised by drug-liberty advocates. The War on Drugs of the United States, that provoked legislation within several other Western governments, has also garnered criticism for these reasons.
Much of the debate surrounding the economics of drug legalization centers on the shape of the demand curve for illegal drugs and the sensitivity of consumers to changes in the prices of illegal drugs. 459 This increase indicates that consumers are responsive to price changes in the cocaine market. There is also evidence that in the long run, consumers are much more responsive to price changes than in the short run, :454 but other studies have led to a wide range of conclusions. :2043Proponents of drug legalization often assume that the quantity of addictive drugs consumed is unresponsive to changes in price; however, studies into addictive, but legal, substances like alcohol and cigarettes, have shown that consumption can be quite responsive to changes in prices. In the same study, economists Michael Grossman and Frank J. Chaloupka estimated that a 10% reduction in the price of cocaine would lead to a 14% increase in the frequency of cocaine use. :
Considering that legalization would likely lead to an increase in the supply of drugs, the standard economic model predicts that the quantity of drugs consumed would rise and the prices would fall. 428 However, Andrew E. Clark, an economist who has studied the effects of drug legalization, suggests that a specific tax, or sin tax, would counteract the increase in consumption. :3:
Proponents of drug prohibition argue that many negative externalities, or third party costs, are associated with the consumption of illegal drugs., 2043 :183 Externalities like violence, environmental effects on neighborhoods, increased health risks and, increased healthcare costs are often associated with the illegal drug market. :3 Opponents of prohibition argue that many of those externalities are created by current drug policies. They believe that much of the violence associated with drug trade is due to the illegal nature of drug trade, where there is no mediating authority to solve disputes peacefully and legally. :3 :177 The illegal nature of the market also affects the health of consumers by making it difficult to acquire syringes, which often leads to needle sharing. :180–181 Prominent economist Milton Friedman argues that prohibition of drugs creates many negative externalities like increased incarceration rates, the undertreatment of chronic pain, corruption, disproportional imprisonment of African Americans, compounding harm to users, the destruction of inner cities and harm to foreign countries. Proponents of legalization also argue that prohibition decrease the quality of the drugs made, which often leads to more physical harm, like accidental overdoses and poisoning, to the drug users. :179 Steven D. Levitt and Ilyana Kuziemko point to the over crowding of prisons as another negative side effect of the war on drugs. They believe that by sending such a large number of drug offenders to prison, the war on drugs has reduced the prison space available for other offenders. This increased incarceration rate not only costs tax payers more to maintain, it could possibly increase crime by crowding violent offenders out of prison cells and replacing them with drug offenders. :2043:
A Harvard economist, Jeffrey Miron, estimated that ending the war on drugs would inject 76.8 billion dollars into the US economy in 2010 alone.He estimates that the government would save $41.3 billion for law enforcement and the government would gain up to $46.7 billion in tax revenue.
Since the war on drugs began under the administration of President Richard Nixon, the federal drug-fighting budget has increased from $100 million in 1970 to $15.1 billion in 2010, with a total cost estimated near 1 trillion dollars over 40 years. In the same time period an estimated 37 million nonviolent drug offenders have been incarcerated. $121 billion was spent to arrest these offenders and $450 billion to incarcerate them.
According to 2013 data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and European crime-fighting agency Europol, the annual global drugs trade is worth around $435 billion a year, with the annual cocaine trade worth $84 billion of that amount.
The cultivation, use and trade of psychoactive and other drugs has occurred since the dawn of civilization. In the 20th century, the United States government led a major renewed surge in drug prohibition called the "War on Drugs." It was only in the 20th Century that Britain and the United States outlawed cannabis. The British had gone to war with China in the 19th Century in what became known as the First and Second Opium Wars to protect their valuable trade in narcotics.
Motivations claimed by supporters of drug prohibition laws across various societies and eras have included religious observance, allegations of violence by racial minorities, and public health concerns. Those who are not proponents of anti-drug legislation characterize these motivations as religious intolerance, racism, and public healthism.
Various proponents of drug liberalization wish to repeal these laws for reasons ranging from individual rights-based defenses of liberty, to consequentialist arguments against the economic and social outcomes of drug prohibition. Starting in the 20th century, large organized movements to overturn existing drug laws formed around the world. The most vocal of these groups exist in liberal democracies, and typically attract liberal and libertarian supporters, although drug liberalization itself is a non-partisan issue and may be supported by adherents of any ideology.
The campaign against alcohol prohibition culminated in the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution repealing prohibition on 5 December 1933, as well as liberalization in Canada, and some but not all of the other countries that enforced prohibition. However, many laws controlling the use of alcohol continue to exist even in these countries.
Current proponents of drug liberalization seek the repeal or softening of drug prohibition laws, most commonly cannabis but also including other controlled substances such as alcohol, tobacco, opiates, stimulants, psychedelics, dissociatives, prescription drugs, and others.[ citation needed ]
In the Czech Republic, until 31 December 1998 only drug possession "for other person" (i.e. intent to sell) was criminal (apart from production, importation, exportation, offering or mediation, which was and remains criminal) while possession for personal use remained legal.
On 1 January 1999, an amendment of the Criminal Code, which was necessitated in order to align the Czech drug rules with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, became effective, criminalizing possession of "amount larger than small" also for personal use (Art. 187a of the Criminal Code) while possession of small amounts for personal use became a misdemeanor.
The judicial practice came to the conclusion that the "amount larger than small" must be five to ten times larger (depending on drug) than a usual single dose of an average consumer.
On 14 December 2009, the Government of the Czech Republic adopted Regulation No. 467/2009 Coll., that took effect on 1 January 2010, and specified what "amount larger than small" under the Criminal Code meant, effectively taking over the amounts that were already established by the previous judicial practice. According to the regulation, a person could possess up to 15 grams of marijuana or 1.5 grams of heroin without facing criminal charges. These amounts were higher (often many times) than in any other European country, possibly making the Czech Republic the most liberal country in the European Union when it comes to drug liberalization, apart from Portugal. Czech Republic has also the highest prevalence of last years cannabis use among young adults (15-34) (18.5% in 2012) among the 30 counties reporting to the EMCDDA.
Under the Regulation No. 467/2009 Coll, possession of the following amounts or less of illicit drugs was to be considered smaller than large for the purposes of the Criminal Code and was to be treated as a misdemeanor subject to a fine equal to a parking ticket:
In 2013, a District Court in Liberec was deciding a case of a person that was accused of criminal possession for having 3.25 grams of methamphetamine (1.9 grams of straight methamphetamine base), well over the Regulation's limit of 2 grams. The court considered that basing a decision on mere Regulation would be unconstitutional and in breach of Article 39 of the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms which states that "only a law may designate which acts constitute a crime and what penalties, or other detriments to rights or property, may be imposed for committing them" and proposed to the Constitutional Court to abolish the Regulation. In line with the District Courts' argument, the Constitutional Court abolished the Regulation effective from 23 August 2013, noting that the "amount larger than small" within the meaning of the Criminal Code may be designated only by the means of an Act of Parliament, and not a Governmental Regulation. Moreover, the Constitutional Court further noted that the Regulation merely took over already existing judicial practice of interpretation of what constitutes "amount larger than small" and thus its abolishment will not really change the criminality of drug possession in the country.Thus, the above-mentioned amounts from the now-not-effective Regulation remain as the base for consideration of police and prosecutors, while courts are not bound by the precise grammage.
Sale of any amount (not purchase) remains a criminal act. Possession of "amount larger than a small" of marijuana can result in a jail sentence of up to one year. For other illicit drugs, the sentence is up to two years. Trafficking as well as production (apart from growing up to five plants of marijuana) offenses carry stiffer sentences.
Medical use of cannabis on prescription has been legal and regulated since 1 April 2013.
Following a contentious debate France opened its first supervised injection centre on 11 October 2016. Marisol Touraine, the Minister of Health, declared that the centre was "a strong political response, for a pragmatic and responsible policy that brings high-risk people back towards the health system rather than stigmatizing them."The centre is located near the Gare du Nord.
In 1994 the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that drug addiction was not a crime, nor was the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use. In 2000 the German narcotic law ("BtmG") was changed to allow for supervised drug injection rooms. In 2002, a pilot study was started in seven German cities to evaluate the effects of heroin-assisted treatment on addicts, compared to methadone-assisted treatment. The positive results of the study led to the inclusion of heroin-assisted treatment into the services of the mandatory health insurance in 2009. On 4 May 2016 the Cabinet of Germany decided to approve the measure for legal cannabis for seriously ill patients who have consulted with a doctor and "have no therapeutic alternative". German Health Minister, Hermann Gröhe, presented the legal draft on the legalization of medical cannabis to the cabinet which is expected to take effect early 2017.
On 2 November 2015, Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, the minister in charge of the National Drugs Strategy, announced that Ireland planned to introduce supervised injection rooms.The minister also referenced that possession of controlled substances will be decriminalized although supply and production will remain criminalized.On July 12, 2017, the Health Committee of the Irish government rejected a bill that would have legalized medical cannabis.
The drug policy of the Netherlands is based on 2 principles:
Cannabis remains a controlled substance in the Netherlands and both possession and production for personal use are still misdemeanors, punishable by fine. Cannabis coffee shops are also illegal according to the statutes.
However, a policy of non-enforcement has led to a situation where reliance upon non-enforcement has become common, and because of this the courts have ruled against the government when individual cases were prosecuted.
On 14 June 2010, the Stoltenberg commission recommended implementing heroin assisted treatment and expanding harm reduction measures.On 18 June 2010, Knut Storberget, Minister of Justice and the Police announced that the ministry was working on new drug policy involving decriminalization by the Portugal model, which was to be introduced to parliament before the next general election. However, Storberget later changed his statements, saying the decriminalization debate is "for academics", instead calling for coerced treatment. In early March 2013, minister of health and care services Jonas Gahr Støre proposed to decriminalize the inhalation of heroin by 2014 as a measure to decrease drug overdoses. In 2011 there were 294 fatal overdoses, in comparison to only 170 traffic related deaths.
In 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession, under Law 30/2000.In addition, drug users were to be provided with therapy rather than prison sentences. Research commissioned by the Cato Institute and led by Glenn Greenwald found that in the five years after the start of decriminalization, illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction had doubled. However, Peter Reuter, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Maryland, College Park, suggests that the heroin usage rates and related deaths may have been due to the cyclical nature of drug epidemics, but conceded that "decriminalization in Portugal has met its central goal. Drug use did not rise."
In the late 2000s and early 2010s, advocacy for drug legalization has increased in Latin America. Spearheading the movement Uruguayan government announced in 2012 plans to legalize state-controlled sales of marijuana in order to fight drug-related crimes. Some countries in this region have already advanced towards depenalization of personal consumption.
In August 2009, the Argentine supreme court declared in a landmark ruling that it was unconstitutional to prosecute citizens for having drugs for their personal use - "adults should be free to make lifestyle decisions without the intervention of the state".The decision affected the second paragraph of Article 14 of the country’s drug control legislation (Law Number 23,737) that punishes the possession of drugs for personal consumption with prison sentences ranging from one month to two years (although education or treatment measures can be substitute penalties). The unconstitutionality of the article concerns cases of drug possession for personal consumption that does not affect others.
In 2002 and 2006, Brazil went through legislative changes, resulting in a partial decriminalization of possession for personal use. Prison sentences no longer applied and were replaced by educational measures and community services.However, the 2006 law does not provide objective means to distinguish between users or traffickers. A disparity exists between the decriminalization of drug use and the increased penalization of selling drugs, punishable with a maximum prison sentences of 5 years for the sale of very minor quantities of drugs. Most of those incarcerated for drug trafficking are offenders caught selling small quantities of drugs, among them drug users who sell drugs to finance their drug habits. Since 2006, there's been a long debate whether the anti-drug law goes against the Constitution and principle of personal freedom. In 2009, the Supreme Federal Court re-opened to vote if the law is Constitutional, or if it goes against the Constitution specifically against personal Freedom of choice. Since each Minister inside the tribunal can take a personal time to evaluate the law, the voting can take years. In fact, the voting was re-opened in 2015, 3 ministers voted in favor, and then the law was again paused by another minister.
Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos proposed the legalization of drugs in an effort to counter the failure of the War on Drugs, which was said to have yielded poor results at a huge cost.On 25 May 2016, the congress approved the legalization of marijuana for medical usage.
Costa Rica has decriminalized drugs for personal consumption. Manufacturing or selling drugs is still a jailable offense.
According to the 2008 Constitution of Ecuador, in its Article 364, the Ecuadorian state does not see drug consumption as a crime but only as a health concern.Since June 2013 the state drugs regulatory office CONSEP has published a table which establishes maximum quantities carried by persons so as to be considered in legal possession and that person as not a seller of drugs. The "CONSEP established, at their latest general meeting, that the following quantities be considered the maximum consumer amounts: 10 grams of marijuana or hash, 4 grams of opiates, 100 milligrams of heroin, 5 grams of cocaine, 0.020 milligrams of LSD, and 80 milligrams of methamphetamine or MDMA".
On 22 February 2008, Honduras President Manuel Zelaya, called on the United States to legalize drugs, in order, he said, to prevent the majority of violent murders occurring in Honduras. Honduras is used by cocaine smugglers as a transiting point between Colombia and the US. Honduras, with a population of 7 million suffers an average of 8–10 murders a day, with an estimated 70% being as a result of this international drug trade. The same problem is occurring in Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Mexico, according to Zelaya.
In April 2009, the Mexican Congress approved changes in the General Health Law that decriminalized the possession of illegal drugs for immediate consumption and personal use allowing a person to possess up to 5 g of marijuana or 500 mg of cocaine. The only restriction is that people in possession of drugs should not be within a 300 meter radius of schools, police departments, or correctional facilities. Opium, heroin, LSD, and other synthetic drugs were also decriminalized, it will not be considered as a crime as long as the dose does not exceed the limit established in the General Health Law. Many question this, as cocaine is as much synthesised as heroin, both are produced as extracts from plants. The law establishes very low amount thresholds and strictly defines personal dosage. For those arrested with more than the threshold allowed by the law this can result in heavy prison sentences, as they will be assumed to be small traffickers even if there are no other indications that the amount was meant for selling.
Uruguay is one of few countries that never criminalized the possession of drugs for personal use. Since 1974, the law establishes no quantity limits, leaving it to the judge’s discretion to determine whether the intent was personal use. Once it is determined by the judge that the amount in possession was meant for personal use, there are no sanctions.
In June 2012, the Uruguayan government announced plans to legalize state-controlled sales of marijuana in order to fight drug-related crimes. The government also stated that they will ask global leaders to do the same.
On 31 July 2013, the Uruguayan House of Representatives approved a bill to legalize the production, distribution, sale, and consumption of marijuana by a vote of 50 to 46. The bill then passed the Senate, where the left-leaning majority coalition, the Broad Front, holds a comfortable majority, the bill was approved by the Senate by 16 to 13 on 10-December-2013.The bill was presented to the President José Mujica, also of the Broad Front coalition, who has supported legalization since June 2012. Relating this vote to the 2012 legalization of marijuana by the U.S. states Colorado and Washington, John Walsh, drug policy expert of the Washington Office on Latin America, stated that "Uruguay's timing is right. Because of last year’s Colorado and Washington State votes to legalize, the U.S. government is in no position to browbeat Uruguay or others who may follow."
In July 2014, government officials announced that part of the implementation of the law (the sale of cannabis through pharmacies) is postponed to 2015, as "there are practical difficulties". Authorities will grow all the cannabis that can be sold legal. Concentration of THC shall be 15% or lower.In August 2014 an opposition presidential candidate, who was not elected in the November 2014 presidential elections, claimed that the new law was never going to be applied, as it was not workable. By the end of 2016 the government announced that the sale through pharmacies will be fully implemented during 2017.
The cultivation of cannabis is currently illegal in Canada, with exceptions only for medical usage or when the THC concentration is low enough to be considered industrial hemp. However, the use of cannabis by the general public is tolerated to a certain degree and varies depending on location and jurisdiction,and a vigorous campaign to legalize cannabis is underway nationwide. The sale of marijuana seeds remains legal.
In 2001, The Globe and Mail reported that a poll found 47% of Canadians agreed with the statement, "The use of marijuana should be legalized" in 2000, compared to 26% in 1975.A more recent poll found that more than half of Canadians supported legalization. However, in 2007 Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government tabled Bill C-26 to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , 1996 to bring forth a more restrictive law with higher minimum penalties for drug crimes. Bill-26 died in committee after the dissolution of the 39th Canadian Parliament in September 2008, but the Bill had subsequently been resurrected by the government twice. In 2016, the Liberal Party of Canada campaigned on a promise to legalize marijuana and has since passed legislation to make marijuana legal across Canada on 17 October 2018.
Throughout the United States, various people and groups have been pushing for the legalization of marijuana for medical reasons. Organizations such as NORML and the Marijuana Policy Project work to decriminalize possession, use, cultivation, and sale of marijuana by adults, even beyond medical uses.In 1996, 56% of California voters voted for California Proposition 215, legalizing the growing and use of marijuana for medical purposes. This created significant legal and policy tensions between federal and state governments. Since then, 20 more states and the District of Columbia have legalized and regulated medical marijuana. State laws in conflict with federal law about cannabis remain valid, and prevent state level prosecution, despite cannabis being illegal under federal law (see Gonzales v. Raich).
On 6 November 2012, Colorado and Washington state legalized possession of small amounts of marijuana for private recreational use, and created a process for writing rules for legal growing and commercial distribution of marijuana within each state.
The 2014 Midterms saw voters in Oregon, Alaska, and Washington, D.C. vote to legalize marijuana for recreational use.
In 2016, California Proposition 64 was passed, legalizing private, recreational use of marijuana for those age 21 or older in the state of California.
Australia has one of the highest percentages of marijuana smokers in the world.In 1993, HEMP (Help End Marijuana Prohibition) was established and continued the fight for law reform. In 2010, HEMP qualified as a political party and will be fielding candidates in elections where possible.
In 2011, the Cannabis Campaign seemed to experience a renaissance in Australia, no doubt due to developments worldwide, with many new groups appearing in different states, using social media as a conduit and forum. Since 1985, the Federal Government has run a declared "War on Drugs" and while initially Australia led the world in 'harm-minimization' approach, they have since lagged. In 2012, the think tank Australia 21, released a report on the decriminalization of drugs in Australia.
'Harm-minimization' approaches towards MDMA and ecstasy have also met opposition. A trial of drug checking at the popular Spilt Milk festival was cancelled in October 2017. While organizers have blamed this on a lack of documentation sources allege that political pressure caused the cancellation.Proponents argue that pill testing is an important service considering Australia having the highest per capita use of ecstasy globally as well as some of the most adulterated pills.
In October 2016, Australia legislated for some medicinal use cannabis.
Many political parties support, to various degrees, and for various reasons, liberalising drug control laws, from liberal parties to far-left movements, as well as some pragmatic right-wing intellectuals. Drug liberalization is fundamental in the platforms of most libertarian parties.
In the UK in March 2016, the Liberal Democrats became the first major political party in the country to support the legalisation of cannabis.
There are also numerous single issue marijuana parties devoted to campaign for the legalisation of cannabis exclusively.
This article originally appeared in the New York Times on March 17, 1988