1/ Formal legalisation without real-world access
increases illicit demand.

Here is the argument made in the @FreshleafA submission on over-the-counter CBD reforms in Australia

thread

2/ From a public health perspective, creating a new Schedule 3 entry for low-dose CBD without taking the steps necessary to actually facilitate access to these products would be counterproductive.

3/ A good example of this is the formal legalisation of Schedule 8 cannabis medicines in 2016. The SUSMP was amended and Australians expected that amendment to produce a certain outcome regarding the availability of those medicines.

4/ But patient access regulation and administration then required extensive and ongoing amendments in order to meet community expectations. And the community was not shy about publicly voicing frustrations.

5/ A general perception developed that “the government” hadn’t really wanted to “legalise” medical cannabis and
were dragging their feet while thousands experienced unnecessary suffering and hardship. Thanks to ongoing lobbying the media frequently covered these stories.

6/ This created a combination of sudden and immense public interest on one hand and, on the other, a framework not set up to facilitate the scale of access expected by the public.

7/ When the public perceives the government has “legalised” a product, but they are unable to
actually purchase and consume that product, they will be emboldened to seek out illicit products instead.

8/ In their eyes it’s already legal, and if they can’t buy it from a shop, why shouldn’t they buy it online instead?