Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2004 May;94(5):836-42.
doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.5.836.

The limited relevance of drug policy: cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco

Craig Reinarman  1 , Peter D A Cohen, Hendrien L Kaal
Affiliations
Comparative Study

The limited relevance of drug policy: cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco

Craig Reinarman et al. Am J Public Health. 2004 May.

Abstract

Objectives: We tested the premise that punishment for cannabis use deters use and thereby benefits public health.

Methods: We compared representative samples of experienced cannabis users in similar cities with opposing cannabis policies-Amsterdam, the Netherlands (decriminalization), and San Francisco, Calif (criminalization). We compared age at onset, regular and maximum use, frequency and quantity of use over time, intensity and duration of intoxication, career use patterns, and other drug use.

Results: With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.

Conclusions: Drug policies may have less impact on cannabis use than is currently thought.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1—
FIGURE 1—
Frequency of cannabis use for 4 periods, by city (%).a Note. FY = first year of regular use (≥ once per month); MP = maximum-use period; PY = past year; P3M = past 3 months. aAll respondents.
FIGURE 2—
FIGURE 2—
Average quantity of cannabis used per month (%).a Note. FY = first year of regular use (≥ once per month); MP = maximum-use period; PY = last year; P3M = past 3 months. aRespondents who still used at time of survey, for past year and past 3 months.
FIGURE 3—
FIGURE 3—
Intensity of intoxication during typical occasion of cannabis use (%).a Note. FY = first year of regular use (≥ once per month); MP = maximum-use period; PY = past year; P3M = past 3 months. aRespondents who still used at time of survey, for past year and past 3 months.
FIGURE 4—
FIGURE 4—
Duration of high during a typical occasion of cannabis use (%).a Note. FY = first year of regular use (≥ once per month); MP = maximum-use period; PY = past year; P3M = past 3 months. aRespondents who still used at time of survey, for past year and past 3 months.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Engelsman EL. Dutch policy on the management of drug-related problems. Br J Addiction. 1989;84:211–218. - PubMed
    1. Leuw E, Marshall IH, eds. Between Prohibition and Legalization: The Dutch Experiment in Drug Policy. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Kugler Publications; 1994.
    1. Cohen PDA. The case of the two Dutch drug policy commissions: an exercise in harm reduction, 1968–1976. In: Erickson PG, Riley DM, Cheung YW, O’Hare PA, eds. Harm Reduction: A New Direction for Drug Policies and Programs. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press; 1997:17–31.
    1. Musto D. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotics Control. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 1973.
    1. Bruun K, Pan L, Rexed I. The Gentlemen’s Club: International Control of Drugs and Alcohol. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press; 1975.

Publication types