Can you predict cannabis reform?
Anticipating cannabis legalisation across Europe is more of an art than a science. We can’t be certain of future market sizing, or the policy developments that will get us there - but we can evaluate the conditions that help give rise to (or hinder) reform.
Hanway Associates’ ‘Legalisation Matrix’ gives a top-level view of the factors that can influence a country’s path towards cannabis reform, and the shape and pace at which it happens.
On this diagram, factors and themes are broadly ordered by importance; themes from left to right, and the sub-factors within them from top to bottom.
Green boxes represent Positive Indicators - factors that are likely to give positive momentum to cannabis reform.
Red boxes show Negative Indicators - those likely to hinder reform momentum.
Orange boxes represent Influencing Factors, or ‘swing’ indicators. These are factors which are relevant, but could be either positive or negative depending on the situation - or are not necessarily positive or negative in and of themselves. For example, they may impact other factors to amplify or temper their effects and/or relative importance.
While this diagram is a non-exhaustive and simplified outline, it serves as a useful tool to help gauge where on a path to legalisation a particular market sits - and what factors could change to help spur reform.
Which factors influence a country’s path towards cannabis reform?
Drug policy:
National drug policy is a key starting point in assessing a country’s prospects for cannabis reform.
Positive factors include whether a country has already taken steps to re-evaluate cannabis laws through access to medical cannabis, and if wider drug policy tends to adopt a harm reductionist approach rather than a prohibitionist one.
Conversely, in countries where drug use is treated primarily as a ‘criminal’ issue in need of punishment rather than a societal or health concern, reform in the near-term will be less likely.
Other influencing factors include a willingness to be flexible in drug policy - which may allow countries to develop unique ‘fixes’ to challenging problems of legalisation. For example, Switzerland has modelled its recreational pilot as a scientific trial in a manner that allows a range of commercial models to be explored. Conversely, a willingness to ‘fudge’ current policy may reduce the urgency to undertake substantive reform over the longer term: the long-running, quasi-legal Dutch model and Spanish social clubs are examples here.
Another factor to consider is the degree to which current cannabis policies are actually enforced or policed. Countries such as the UK have relatively punitive cannabis laws on paper, but discretion by police forces, public prosecutors and the courts mean that these are often not fully enforced. This type of ‘de facto’ decriminalisation can serve to normalise cannabis use to some degree, boosting pressure to bring laws more in line with social norms - but can also shore up opposition by those who believe a nation is already too ‘soft’ on drugs.
Public Sentiment:
Public sentiment is another highly influential factor when considering the likelihood and timelines for cannabis reform. Current cannabis use rates and demographics should be included here.
Majority public support for legalisation is generally needed before politicians are willing to enact radical change - but it becomes increasingly hard to dismiss cannabis reform as an issue with >50% the public in favour.
While public support is needed to drive reform, polarised opinion can also hamper legalisations’ chances: vocal opposition often attracts media and political attention, which in turn can drive conflict and debate-driven discourse. This makes the topic more contentious, and a politicised issue rather than a practical one.
A nations’ broader societal view on drugs can also be very influential, even if other indicators would lean towards reform: Sweden is a good example here, where a strong cultural aversion to drugs and social rejection of drug use is backed up by a ‘zero tolerance’ drugs policy. Conversely, Portugal’s harm reduction-focused approach to drug use is also reflected in public sentiment, with 45% of those polled by Hanway Associates agreeing one benefit of cannabis legalisation would be to reduce the use of more harmful/illegal drugs.
Politics:
Politics has an obvious impact on the likelihood of cannabis reform. While having a government in favour of legalisation clearly raises the chance of it happening, parliamentary arithmetic also informs the art of the possible. Opposition parties supportive of cannabis can also help lay the groundwork for reform by sparking political debate, and help to shift the Overton Window towards mainstream acceptance.
Traditionally, calls for cannabis reform have come from left-leaning parties such as greens and liberal democrats. However, some right-of-centre parties are starting to view legalisation as a driver of economic opportunity, while others may embrace lessening restrictions on the basis of ‘individualist’-style arguments. National elections can also serve as a flashpoint to advance cannabis up the agenda, as was the case in Canada, and most recently, in Germany.
Legal Framework:
Legal frameworks determine the avenues for cannabis reform in a given country. For instance, referenda provide a useful mechanism to settle contentious issues such as abortion access, EU membership and cannabis legalisation. In some countries these can be initiated by public petition, whereas in others they must be politically instigated.
Countries with written constitutions or an established bill of rights are more likely to see high court challenges and rulings in favour of reform on the grounds of claims like the right to privacy and self-expression. Mexico and South Africa are good examples of cannabis decriminalisation occurring through this route.
Depending on the parties involved and the coalition arithmetic, Proportional Representation voting systems can also fast-track or hold back cannabis reform. One party with a strong preference for or against legalisation may be able to serve as ‘kingmaker’ and exert their preference, or parties may use reform as common ground (as in Germany).
Media:
Media has an influential role in setting the terms of a national cannabis debate. While broadsheet media tends to advance ‘intellectual’ arguments in favour or against cannabis reform, tabloid papers are often more impactful on wider public opinion, and tend to advance topics from a human interest and/or moralistic angle.
Media also tends to frame the cannabis debate around particular topics. In the UK for example, there is frequent coverage of the prevalence of ‘high-strength skunk’ and the negative impact this can have on young user’s brains. While this framing is generally employed against legalisation, it could also be adopted to advocate for better product controls, THC caps and stringent age-gated sales in a legal cannabis market.
Economy:
The economic environment is not often directly linked to cannabis reform, but it can play a part in how the topic is discussed and prioritised. For example, countries as diverse as Zimbabwe, Australia, Denmark and Colombia have viewed medical cannabis as a vehicle for economic development and export earnings potential. While recreational cannabis exports are presently unlikely, the economic contribution of a legal domestic cannabis market may similarly appeal to some nations in the future.
The size of an economy and its current performance may also influence policymaking. A large and well-performing economy may have no financial need to adopt cannabis reform, but a robust economy may create positive and stable political conditions that allow for an ambitious project like legalisation to go ahead. Conversely, it is possible that countries looking for an economic and external investment boost at times of poor performance may be more incentivised to seriously consider reform, once the issue becomes less controversial.
A nation’s economic and structural factors may also affect the success of reform. Countries that can attract capital, are open to international investment and are home to successful complementary sectors (such as ag-tech or CPG) will be able to launch new cannabis markets more swiftly and effectively than those with less supportive infrastructure.
Role in the World:
A country’s size, geographical proximity to other nations that have legalised cannabis and its international relationships are also worth considering in the context of reform.
Countries that are ‘small and nimble’ - such as Uruguay, Luxembourg and Malta - may be able to take political risks that larger economies would face greater pushback on. On the other end of the spectrum, ‘rule makers’ such as the USA (and Germany within an EU context) have significant capacity to set political precedent and exert influence in favour of, or against, reform.
International political capital is also relevant. Arguably, Canada’s strong diplomatic position as a G7 member and involved part of the international community allowed it to pursue legalisation in contravention of UN drug treaties without major consequence (and in fact achieve re-election to the UN Committee on Narcotic Drugs the same year).
And as discussed in our Recreational Europe report, EU membership may add an extra layer of legal complexity for European countries looking to legalise, since EU acquis imposes further legal restrictions on the development of commercial cannabis markets.
Culture and Cultural Attitudes:
Finally, cultural forces and attitudes also influence trajectories for cannabis reform. For example, a country that has enacted gay marriage, abortion access and assisted dying laws has socially liberal characteristics that may underpin calls for cannabis reform.
Nations with a higher concentration of urban populations also tend to advance liberal attitudes, meaning they may be quicker to adopt cannabis reform - whereas countries with ageing populations may face greater opposition from older demographics (who are also those who tend to vote in the highest numbers).
Strong immigration flows can also spur domestic ‘metropolitan’ and progressive politics - but 1st-generation global migrants are often more socially conservative than the native population, and may be less in favour of cannabis reform. Racial tensions across communities can also be exploited by both the media and politicians, and may also undermine public support for reform.
Positive Headwinds
Momentum for cannabis reform continues to grow, and our polling reveals that the majority of Europeans (55%) now back legal and regulated cannabis sales.
You can see how the Legalisation Matrix can be used to assess prospects for cannabis reform across different European markets in Part Two of our blog series.
For further analysis and opinions on how legalisation will progress in Europe, download our latest report now.
