Update on Draft 1.2

I'll try to put a positive spin on the past week's activities. Continuing to work my way through Fosdick and Scott, at a glacial pace. Did a somewhat better job in assimilating the Transform drug reform blueprint. The other two elements of my intended background section, on the Portuguese decriminalization and the defeated California marijuana legalization initiative, remained on the back burner. Continued to try to learn more about self-exclusion, though almost nothing made its way to the blog.

I see the paper as heading more in the buyer licensing and self-exclusion direction. (I now envision the sections of the paper as: (1) Introduction; (2) Background; (3) Licensing; (4) Self-exclusion; (5) Conclusion; and (6) References and Endnotes. The title is evolving, too, with the current version "Toward Drug Control: Buyer Licensing and Self-Exclusion.") In a sense, all drug control regimes (from the point of view of the consumer) can be described as variations on the license theme. What do you have to do, what hoops must you jump through, to acquire the drug legally, to be a licensed user? For alcohol, it is that you must be 21 years of age or older (to purchase); for marijuana, in terms of federal law, there is nothing you can do (except for those four or so remaining federal medical mj users). Other marijuana "licensing" regimes are in existence: in California, you must receive a recommendation from a physician (though you will still bump up against the federal prohibition), while in the Netherlands, you must be 18.

So one issue is what must be done to acquire a license. A second issue is precisely what the license allows, that is, are there limits imposed? In the US, once you are old enough to purchase alcohol, you can buy all the alcohol you want. In the Netherlands, you will be limited to 5 grams of marijuana in a coffee shop. A third issue is whether licensed users can choose their own limits, lower than the legal maximums. A fourth issue is how you can have the license revoked, and reinstated. In the US, some people lose their drinking license as part of a court proceeding, and they either check in regularly for testing or wear one of those fashionable ankle bracelets. I imagine that troublesome users of any drug -- if the trouble is drug-related -- should face the possibility of losing their drug license.

Any drug regulatory system that requires some positive step (beyond becoming sufficiently old) to acquire a license has a built-in self-exclusion system: don't get the license, and you are not a legal buyer. But for drugs (or other vices) that do not require such positive steps, voluntary, enforceable self-exclusion schemes can be useful elements of the regulatory framework -- as they already are for gambling. Self-exclusion programs involve many of the same issues as broader licensing schemes: what do you have to do to self-exclude, how can the exclusion be revoked, are there ways to exclude in a limited way, and so on. Self-exclusion could even be tacked on to the regulatory system for drugs that do require buyer licenses: a person could choose to self-exclude for some time from the option of acquiring a license.

OK, in the coming week I intend to finish up (for the time being) with Fosdick and Scott, and with Transform, and to rewrite the background sections of my paper that involve these contributions. I also want to generate a draft of section 3, on licensing. We'll say how this mini-plan goes....