Ole Rogeberg1, Daniel Bergsvik2, Lawrence D Phillips3, Jan van Amsterdam4, Niamh Eastwood5, Graeme Henderson6, Micheal Lynskey7, Fiona Measham8, Rhys Ponton9, Steve Rolles10, Anne Katrin Schlag11, Polly Taylor12, David Nutt13. 1. Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research, Norway. Electronic address: ole.rogeberg@frisch.uio.no. 2. Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research, Norway; Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Norway. Electronic address: daniel.bergsvik@fhi.no. 3. London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom. Electronic address: larry_phillips@msn.com. 4. Academic Medical Center (AMC), University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Electronic address: jan.van.amsterdam@amc.uva.nl. 5. Release, United Kingdom. Electronic address: niamh@release.org.uk. 6. University of Bristol, United Kingdom. Electronic address: graeme.henderson@bris.ac.uk. 7. King's College London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: michael.lynskey@kcl.ac.uk. 8. Durham University, United Kingdom. Electronic address: f.measham@durham.ac.uk. 9. University of Auckland, New Zealand. Electronic address: r.ponton@auckland.ac.nz. 10. Transform Drug Policy Foundation, United Kingdom. Electronic address: steve@tdpf.org.uk. 11. King's College London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: anne.schlag@kcl.ac.uk. 12. Independent Consultant in Veterinary Anaesthesia, United Kingdom. Electronic address: polly@taylormonroe.co.uk. 13. Imperial College London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: d.nutt@imperial.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Drug policy, whether for legal or illegal substances, is a controversial field that encompasses many complex issues. Policies can have effects on a myriad of outcomes and stakeholders differ in the outcomes they consider and value, while relevant knowledge on policy effects is dispersed across multiple research disciplines making integrated judgements difficult. METHODS: Experts on drug harms, addiction, criminology and drug policy were invited to a decision conference to develop a multi-criterion decision analysis (MCDA) model for appraising alternative regulatory regimes. Participants collectively defined regulatory regimes and identified outcome criteria reflecting ethical and normative concerns. For cannabis and alcohol separately, participants evaluated each regulatory regime on each criterion and weighted the criteria to provide summary scores for comparing different regimes. RESULTS: Four generic regulatory regimes were defined: absolute prohibition, decriminalisation, state control and free market. Participants also identified 27 relevant criteria which were organised into seven thematically related clusters. State control was the preferred regime for both alcohol and cannabis. The ranking of the regimes was robust to variations in the criterion-specific weights. CONCLUSION: The MCDA process allowed the participants to deconstruct complex drug policy issues into a set of simpler judgements that led to consensus about the results.
BACKGROUND: Drug policy, whether for legal or illegal substances, is a controversial field that encompasses many complex issues. Policies can have effects on a myriad of outcomes and stakeholders differ in the outcomes they consider and value, while relevant knowledge on policy effects is dispersed across multiple research disciplines making integrated judgements difficult. METHODS: Experts on drug harms, addiction, criminology and drug policy were invited to a decision conference to develop a multi-criterion decision analysis (MCDA) model for appraising alternative regulatory regimes. Participants collectively defined regulatory regimes and identified outcome criteria reflecting ethical and normative concerns. For cannabis and alcohol separately, participants evaluated each regulatory regime on each criterion and weighted the criteria to provide summary scores for comparing different regimes. RESULTS: Four generic regulatory regimes were defined: absolute prohibition, decriminalisation, state control and free market. Participants also identified 27 relevant criteria which were organised into seven thematically related clusters. State control was the preferred regime for both alcohol and cannabis. The ranking of the regimes was robust to variations in the criterion-specific weights. CONCLUSION: The MCDA process allowed the participants to deconstruct complex drug policy issues into a set of simpler judgements that led to consensus about the results.
Authors: Jan van Amsterdam; Gjalt-Jorn Ygram Peters; Ed Pennings; Tom Blickman; Kaj Hollemans; Joost J Jacobus Breeksema; Johannes G Ramaekers; Cees Maris; Floor van Bakkum; Ton Nabben; Willem Scholten; Tjibbe Reitsma; Judith Noijen; Raoul Koning; Wim van den Brink Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 4.153