Marijuana Legalization: Certainty, Impossibility, Both, or Neither?

Q3 Social Sciences Journal of Drug Policy Analysis Pub Date : 2012-01-10 DOI:10.1515/1941-2851.1035
J. Caulkins, C. Coulson, Christina Farber, Joseph V. Vesely
{"title":"Marijuana Legalization: Certainty, Impossibility, Both, or Neither?","authors":"J. Caulkins, C. Coulson, Christina Farber, Joseph V. Vesely","doi":"10.1515/1941-2851.1035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Legalization has been debated for decades, but California’s Fall 2010 vote on Proposition 19 makes passage seem suddenly more plausible. Proposition 19, which would have legalized not only personal consumption but also production and distribution to supply recreational use, was defeated narrowly (53.5% to 46.5%). This article synthesizes several threads of evidence concerning public support for legalization in the U.S. to shed light on the likelihood some similar effort will pass in the future. The overall conclusion is noncommittal, but the exercise generates a number of insights. In particular, simple what-if exercises suggest that the effects of generational turnover and voting occurring in a presidential vs. an “off” year may be smaller than some thought. The concluding section translates some of the observations into implications for both proponents and opponents of marijuana legalization.","PeriodicalId":38436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","volume":"5 1","pages":"1 - 27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/1941-2851.1035","citationCount":"32","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/1941-2851.1035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 32

Abstract

Legalization has been debated for decades, but California’s Fall 2010 vote on Proposition 19 makes passage seem suddenly more plausible. Proposition 19, which would have legalized not only personal consumption but also production and distribution to supply recreational use, was defeated narrowly (53.5% to 46.5%). This article synthesizes several threads of evidence concerning public support for legalization in the U.S. to shed light on the likelihood some similar effort will pass in the future. The overall conclusion is noncommittal, but the exercise generates a number of insights. In particular, simple what-if exercises suggest that the effects of generational turnover and voting occurring in a presidential vs. an “off” year may be smaller than some thought. The concluding section translates some of the observations into implications for both proponents and opponents of marijuana legalization.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大麻合法化:确定,不可能,两者都有,还是两者都没有?
关于大麻合法化的争论已经持续了几十年,但是加州 2010年秋季对19号提案的投票使得该提案的通过突然变得更有可能。第19号提案以微弱优势(53.5%对46.5%)被否决,该提案不仅将个人消费合法化,还将娱乐用途的生产和分销合法化。本文综合了有关美国公众支持大麻合法化的几个证据线索,以阐明未来通过类似努力的可能性。总的结论是不确定的,但这个练习产生了一些见解。特别是,简单的假设练习表明,代际更替和投票在总统大选与“脱欧”年之间发生的影响可能比一些人想象的要小。结论部分将一些观察结果转化为对大麻合法化的支持者和反对者的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Drug Policy Analysis
Journal of Drug Policy Analysis Social Sciences-Health (social science)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Frontmatter Don’t Let the COVID-19 Crisis Go to Waste: Breaking Through the Status Quo & Flattening the Opioid Epidemic Curve An Examination of Racial Disparities in Misdemeanor Marijuana Possession Arrests Following Reforms in Four U.S. Jurisdictions Did the 2018 Farm Bill’s Hemp Provisions Decriminalize Marijuana? Problematising ‘Recovery’ in Drug Policy within Great Britain: A Comparative Policy Analysis Between England, Wales and Scotland
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1