Turning failure into success: what does the case of Western Australia tell us about Canadian cannabis policy-making?

Abstract

Cannabis policy in Canada is a puzzling affair. Since the 1960s and as recently as 2006, several policy windows have opened promising evidence-based cannabis law reform only to be slammed shut before achieving meaningful change. This ‘saga of promise, hesitation, and retreat’ has motivated Canadian cannabis researchers to investigate the reasons behind this policy inertia. These single-jurisdiction analyses have resulted in interesting yet necessarily tenuous findings. Fischer's (1999) Policy Studies article suggests the need for an analysis of Canadian cannabis policy in comparative context and offers Australia as a point of departure. This article addresses this analytic task by examining two recent case studies in cannabis policy. Specifically, borrowing Kingdon's (1995) concept of a policy window, it contrasts Canada's failure to decriminalise minor cannabis offences between 2001 and 2006 with Western Australia's successful decriminalisation of cannabis possession and production for personal use between 2001 and 2004. In particular, it appears that a lack of support from law enforcement and cannabis users, conflicting evidence and risk associated with a lack of an evaluation plan all combined with a weakened electoral mandate for the government to contribute to a perception that cannabis decriminalisation was not politically feasible. Additional variables worthy of further inquiry are also discussed.

Keywords:

• cannabis
• marijuana
• decriminalisation
• depenalisation
• Canada
• Western Australia
• illegal drug policy
• comparative analysis

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Patricia G. Erickson for her insightful commentary and guidance on earlier drafts of this article.

Notes

1. In Canada, removing criminal sanctions for an offence and replacing them with civil penalties is generally referred to as ‘decriminalisation’. In Australia, the terms ‘depenalisation’ or ‘prohibition with civil penalties’ are more common than decriminalisation, however they refer to this same process.

2. Note that a comparison between Western Australian cannabis policy and a nation-state is not unprecedented. For example, Swenson and Crofts (2005) compare the cannabis regulation schemes of Western Australia and that of UK.

3. The maximum penalties for cultivation were increased and penalties were scaled so that they became progressively harsher with the seizure of larger quantities of marijuana plants (Hyshka 2009, p. 5).

4. For a full review of the Canadian cannabis legislative initiatives 2003–2008, see Hyshka 2009.