Attitudes towards drug legalization among drug users.

Affiliated Systems Corporation, Houston, TX 77027, USA.
The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse (Impact Factor: 1.47). 02/2002; 28(1):91-108. DOI: 10.1081/ADA-120001283
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Research shows that support for legalization of drugs varies significantly among different sociodemographic and political groups. Yet there is little research examining the degree of support for legalization of drugs among drug users. This paper examines how frequency and type of drug use affect the support for legalization of drugs after adjusting for the effects of political affiliation and sociodemographic characteristics. A sample of 188 drug users and non-drug users were asked whether they would support the legalization of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. Respondents reported their use of marijuana, crack, cocaine, heroin, speedball, and/or methamphetamines during the previous 30 days. Support for legalization of drugs was analyzed by estimating three separate logistic regressions. The results showed that the support for the legalization of drugs depended on the definition of "drug user" and the type of drug. In general, however, the results showed that marijuana users were more likely to support legalizing marijuana, but they were less likely to support the legalization of cocaine and heroin. On the other hand, users of crack, cocaine, heroin, speedball, and/or methamphetamines were more likely to support legalizing all drugs including cocaine and heroin.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Public opinion polls conducted from 1969 to 2003 found a variety of opinions on the use, possession, and legalization of marijuana. Public opinion about legalizing marijuana use is increasing, but it is also increasing toward harsher penalties for those who possess a small amount of marijuana. Public opinion regarding the legalization of illegal drugs appears to be influenced by the times. The majority of Americans increasingly believe that the country has made some progress in dealing with the problems of illegal drugs, but Americans are also reporting more difficulty within their families related to marijuana. This article examines trends based in public opinion polls on the use of marijuana in the United States and Canada and discusses the social and political history of marijuana and the biophysical effects, medical uses, definitions, and previous research related to marijuana.
    Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 03/2009; 19(2):125-141. DOI:10.1080/10911350802687075
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background This study examines how online discussions on drug policy are formulating an oppositional cannabis discourse in an otherwise prohibitionist country like Sweden. The focus of the paper is to identify demands for an alternative cannabis policy as well as analysing how these demands are linked to governance. Methods The empirical material is 56 discussion-threads from the online message-board Flashback Forum that were active during the first eight months of 2012. Discourse theory was used to locate the discourse, and governmentality theory was used to locate the political belonging of the discourse. Results On Flashback Forum demands for a new cannabis policy are articulated in opposition to Swedish prohibitionist discourse. The oppositional discourse is constructed around the nodal points cannabis, harm, state and freedom that fill legalisation/decriminalisation/liberalisation with meaning. The nodal points are surrounded by policy demands that get their meaning through the particular nodal. These demands originate from neo-liberal and welfarist political rationalities. Neo-liberal and welfarist demands are mixed, and participants are simultaneously asking for state and individual approaches to handle the cannabis issue. Conclusion Swedish online discourse on cannabis widens the scope beyond the confines of drug policy to broader demands such as social justice, individual choice and increased welfare. These demands are not essentially linked together and many are politically contradictory. This is also significant for the discourse; it is not hegemonised by a political ideology. The discourse is negotiated between the neo-liberal version of an alternative policy demanding individual freedom, and the welfarist version demanding social responsibility. This implies the influence of the heritage from the social-democratic discourse, centred on state responsibility, which have been dominating Swedish politics in modern times. Consequently, this study refutes that the demand for a new cannabis policy is strictly neo-liberal.
    The International journal on drug policy 07/2014; 25(4). DOI:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.04.001 · 2.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: This paper applies Welzel and Inglehart's new human development/modernization theory to explain variation of tolerance in soft drug taking. It hypothesizes that tolerance of illegal drugs is linked to the human development and strength of a general cultural axis of nations: survivalism vs. self-expressionism. Methods: Data are from the fourth wave of the World Values Surveys and from the United Nations' Human Development Report 2001. Using Hierarchical Generalized Linear Regression (HGLM), this study examines variation of tolerance in soft drugs in 30 European nations with 38,719 respondents. Results: Results support the hypothesis that residents from nations with higher levels of human development and with higher self-expressionist scores are more tolerant of soft drug use than residents in nations with lower human development levels and lower self-expressionist scores. Conclusions: Our findings point to the troublesome relationship between cosmopolitan culture characteristic of liberal democracy and soft drug tolerance. As liberal democracy empowers ordinary people with civil and political rights, it also nurtures the growth of human freedom, making it evident in the mass liberty aspiration of self-expressionism and self-management. Crown Copyright (c) 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Criminal Justice 09/2012; 40(4):296-305. DOI:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.04.002 · 1.24 Impact Factor