International evidence is accumulating and could shape the future of recreational cannabis regulation in Australia, according to UNSW's Dr Vendula Belackova.
The question of legalising recreational cannabis has surfaced repeatedly in Australian public discourse throughout the year. With the ACT having already legalised personal cultivation, other states and territories may be facing pressure to revisit their own regulatory positions.
The question of which model might work best for Australia, however, remains open.
There is now a substantial and growing pool of research to draw from, including studies conducted in the US, Canada, Uruguay, the Netherlands, and Spain, among others.
What is the status of recreational cannabis legislation?
Across most Australian states and territories, de facto police diversion schemes currently govern how recreational cannabis possession is handled. Under these arrangements, individuals who meet certain criteria — such as being first or second-time offenders carrying only a small quantity — can avoid formal criminal proceedings.
These diversion schemes treat cannabis use as a health or social matter rather than a criminal one, with police typically directing first-time offenders toward education or treatment programs instead of charging them with simple possession.
Among the advantages of such schemes is a reduced burden on police and the broader criminal justice system.
However, because these are de facto measures rather than formal decriminalisation through legislation, the decision to offer a diversion remains at the discretion of individual officers. Police are not obligated to extend that option to everyone found with cannabis and may proceed with a criminal charge instead.
One consequence of this approach is that cannabis use and possession technically remain criminal offences, and disparities in how police discretion is exercised can produce unequal outcomes.
Illicit vs fully legalised – two ends of the spectrum
The production, distribution, and sale of cannabis for recreational purposes is still illegal across all of Australia.
Outside of medicinal production, the cannabis supply chain operates entirely through illicit channels.
An illicit market controlling cannabis production carries significant harms, including a rise in criminal activity, easier access for young people, and no quality oversight — which removes any means of managing physical or mental health risks.
At the other extreme sits the full-legalisation model seen in the US, where commercial, profit-driven cannabis production operates within a private market. This approach has been adopted in 19 states and the District of Columbia.
Commercial legalisation can appeal to businesses and consumers alike, and it opens up tax revenue opportunities.
Yet commercialisation carries its own risks. Government interventions — such as advertising bans or plain packaging requirements — may be necessary to prevent increases in cannabis consumption.
Canada moved to a regulated model four years ago. Unlike the US, no significant increases in cannabis use have been observed there thus far, though it remains too early to draw firm conclusions.
Non-profit model – a middle-ground option
Both illicit and fully legalised markets are, at their core, profit-driven, giving participants strong incentives to maximise revenue through greater consumption. They may also supply cannabis that is cheaper to produce but carries more risk to users — for example, products containing pesticides or other adulterants. Cannabis law reform could instead pursue a middle path through a non-profit, consumer-centred model.
A non-profit model relies on restricted supply and careful regulation, which has the potential to undercut the illicit market and improve the health of people who use cannabis without driving up overall consumption.
This model includes cannabis social clubs, such as those found in Spain and Uruguay. These are private co-operatives in which members collectively grow and distribute cannabis for personal use only. There is no public advertising, no marketing to members, and access is limited to existing users. It is reported that cannabis social clubs now exist in 17 other countries, each adapting the concept to its own legal and policy environment.
Beyond bypassing illicit production, cannabis social clubs offer a public health benefit by giving members access to information about safer use practices.
Policymakers considering recreational cannabis reform would do well to examine the non-profit model and the role cannabis social clubs could play within it.
What's next for cannabis policy reform in Australia?
The policy options for reforming cannabis laws span a wide range — from tolerated personal use through to fully commercialised legal markets.
A survey from the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare shows that more Australians support cannabis legalisation than oppose it, and that backing for removing criminal penalties around cannabis use appears to be growing.
There is clear scope to improve Australia's recreational cannabis policies, and whether decision-makers choose to weigh the available evidence and consider alternative approaches is now their call to make.
- Dr Vendula Belackova works in the Drug Policy Modelling Program at UNSW's Social Policy Research Centre.