直接说不?公众对打击阿片类药物流行的支持性和惩罚性政策的态度

IF 1.9 2区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Public Policy Pub Date : 2022-02-09 DOI:10.1017/S0143814X21000155
Steven M. Sylvester, Simon F. Haeder, Timothy Callaghan
{"title":"直接说不?公众对打击阿片类药物流行的支持性和惩罚性政策的态度","authors":"Steven M. Sylvester, Simon F. Haeder, Timothy Callaghan","doi":"10.1017/S0143814X21000155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Using an original demographically representative survey, we estimate the determinants of public support for a set of supportive and punitive policies to combat the opioid epidemic among a sample of 2,131 Americans. Our findings indicate that individuals who attribute blame for the epidemic to the personal choices of individuals, conservatives and those high in racial resentment are consistently more likely to support punitive policies to combat the opioid epidemic and less likely to favour policies to support individuals with substance use disorders. Individuals who have a personal connection to someone struggling with opioid use disorder favour policies to support such individuals but have nuanced attitudes towards punitive policies. Importantly, we find overwhelming support for all supportive policies except supervised injection sites, while roughly 50% of our sample supported the set of punitive policy choices. Our research represents a significant step forward toward understanding public opinion about the opioid epidemic and policies to combat it.","PeriodicalId":47578,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"270 - 297"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Just say no? Public attitudes about supportive and punitive policies to combat the opioid epidemic\",\"authors\":\"Steven M. Sylvester, Simon F. Haeder, Timothy Callaghan\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0143814X21000155\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Using an original demographically representative survey, we estimate the determinants of public support for a set of supportive and punitive policies to combat the opioid epidemic among a sample of 2,131 Americans. Our findings indicate that individuals who attribute blame for the epidemic to the personal choices of individuals, conservatives and those high in racial resentment are consistently more likely to support punitive policies to combat the opioid epidemic and less likely to favour policies to support individuals with substance use disorders. Individuals who have a personal connection to someone struggling with opioid use disorder favour policies to support such individuals but have nuanced attitudes towards punitive policies. Importantly, we find overwhelming support for all supportive policies except supervised injection sites, while roughly 50% of our sample supported the set of punitive policy choices. Our research represents a significant step forward toward understanding public opinion about the opioid epidemic and policies to combat it.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47578,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"270 - 297\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X21000155\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X21000155","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

摘要使用一项具有原始人口学代表性的调查,我们在2131名美国人中估计了公众支持一套支持和惩罚政策以对抗阿片类药物流行的决定因素。我们的研究结果表明,将疫情归咎于个人、保守派和种族仇恨情绪高涨的人的个人选择,他们一贯更有可能支持打击阿片类药物流行的惩罚性政策,而不太可能支持支持支持药物使用障碍者的政策。与阿片类药物使用障碍患者有私人关系的个人倾向于支持这些人的政策,但对惩罚政策的态度却很微妙。重要的是,我们发现,除了监督注射点之外,所有支持性政策都得到了压倒性的支持,而我们的样本中约有50%支持这套惩罚性政策选择。我们的研究代表着朝着理解公众对阿片类药物流行的看法和应对政策迈出了重要一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Just say no? Public attitudes about supportive and punitive policies to combat the opioid epidemic
Abstract Using an original demographically representative survey, we estimate the determinants of public support for a set of supportive and punitive policies to combat the opioid epidemic among a sample of 2,131 Americans. Our findings indicate that individuals who attribute blame for the epidemic to the personal choices of individuals, conservatives and those high in racial resentment are consistently more likely to support punitive policies to combat the opioid epidemic and less likely to favour policies to support individuals with substance use disorders. Individuals who have a personal connection to someone struggling with opioid use disorder favour policies to support such individuals but have nuanced attitudes towards punitive policies. Importantly, we find overwhelming support for all supportive policies except supervised injection sites, while roughly 50% of our sample supported the set of punitive policy choices. Our research represents a significant step forward toward understanding public opinion about the opioid epidemic and policies to combat it.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Policy applies social science theories and concepts to significant political, economic and social issues and to the ways in which public policies are made. Its articles deal with topics of concern to public policy scholars in America, Europe, Japan and other advanced industrial nations. The journal often publishes articles that cut across disciplines, such as environmental issues, international political economy, regulatory policy and European Union processes. Its peer reviewers come from up to a dozen social science disciplines and countries across three continents, thus ensuring both analytic rigour and accuracy in reference to national and policy context.
期刊最新文献
Why are international standards not set? Explaining “weak” cases in shadow banking regulation PUP volume 43 issue 4 Cover and Back matter Policymaking in a plural society: the case of human experiments in medicine in Israel How are policy pilots managed? Findings from the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme in China Social media exposure’s effects on public support toward three-child policy in China: role of cognitive elaboration, perceived negative effects, and institutional trust
×
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