在哪里、何时以及与谁在一起:大麻的使用、设置和自律规则

IF 2.3 Q3 SUBSTANCE ABUSE Contemporary Drug Problems Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.1177/00914509211033921
Kostas Skliamis, A. Benschop, N. Liebregts, D. Korf
{"title":"在哪里、何时以及与谁在一起:大麻的使用、设置和自律规则","authors":"Kostas Skliamis, A. Benschop, N. Liebregts, D. Korf","doi":"10.1177/00914509211033921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines to what extent and how cannabis users in different countries, with different cannabis legislation and policies practice normalization and self-regulation of cannabis use in everyday life. Data were collected in a survey among a convenience sample of 1,225 last-year cannabis users aged 18–40 from seven European countries, with cannabis policies ranging from relatively liberal to more punitive. Participants were recruited in or in the vicinity of Dutch coffeeshops. We assessed whether cannabis users experience and interpret formal control and informal social norms differently across countries with different cannabis policies. The findings suggest that many cannabis users set boundaries to control their use. Irrespective of national cannabis policy, using cannabis in private settings and setting risk avoidance rules were equally predominant in all countries. This illustrates that many cannabis users are concerned with responsible use, demonstrating the importance that they attach to discretion. Overall, self-regulation was highest in the most liberal country (the Netherlands). This indicates that liberalization does not automatically lead to chaotic or otherwise problematic use as critics of the policy have predicted, as the diminishing of formal control (law enforcement) is accompanied by increased importance of informal norms and stronger self-regulation. In understanding risk-management, societal tolerance of cannabis use seems more important than cross-national differences in cannabis policy. The setting of cannabis use and self-regulation rules were strongly associated with frequency of use. Daily users were less selective in choosing settings of use and less strict in self-regulation rules. Further differences in age, gender, and household status underline the relevance of a differentiated, more nuanced understanding of cannabis normalization.","PeriodicalId":35813,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Drug Problems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/00914509211033921","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Where, When and With Whom: Cannabis Use, Settings and Self-Regulation Rules\",\"authors\":\"Kostas Skliamis, A. Benschop, N. Liebregts, D. Korf\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00914509211033921\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines to what extent and how cannabis users in different countries, with different cannabis legislation and policies practice normalization and self-regulation of cannabis use in everyday life. Data were collected in a survey among a convenience sample of 1,225 last-year cannabis users aged 18–40 from seven European countries, with cannabis policies ranging from relatively liberal to more punitive. Participants were recruited in or in the vicinity of Dutch coffeeshops. We assessed whether cannabis users experience and interpret formal control and informal social norms differently across countries with different cannabis policies. The findings suggest that many cannabis users set boundaries to control their use. Irrespective of national cannabis policy, using cannabis in private settings and setting risk avoidance rules were equally predominant in all countries. This illustrates that many cannabis users are concerned with responsible use, demonstrating the importance that they attach to discretion. Overall, self-regulation was highest in the most liberal country (the Netherlands). This indicates that liberalization does not automatically lead to chaotic or otherwise problematic use as critics of the policy have predicted, as the diminishing of formal control (law enforcement) is accompanied by increased importance of informal norms and stronger self-regulation. In understanding risk-management, societal tolerance of cannabis use seems more important than cross-national differences in cannabis policy. The setting of cannabis use and self-regulation rules were strongly associated with frequency of use. Daily users were less selective in choosing settings of use and less strict in self-regulation rules. Further differences in age, gender, and household status underline the relevance of a differentiated, more nuanced understanding of cannabis normalization.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35813,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Drug Problems\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/00914509211033921\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Drug Problems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00914509211033921\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Drug Problems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00914509211033921","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文探讨了不同国家的大麻使用者在多大程度上以及如何在不同的大麻立法和政策下对日常生活中的大麻使用进行规范化和自我监管。去年,一项调查对来自七个欧洲国家的1225名18-40岁的大麻使用者进行了便利抽样,收集了数据,大麻政策从相对自由到更严厉不等。参与者是在荷兰咖啡店内或附近招募的。我们评估了不同大麻政策国家的大麻使用者对正式控制和非正式社会规范的体验和解释是否不同。研究结果表明,许多大麻使用者设定了控制其使用的界限。无论国家大麻政策如何,在私人环境中使用大麻和制定规避风险规则在所有国家都同样占主导地位。这表明,许多大麻使用者关心负责任的使用,表明他们重视自由裁量权。总体而言,在最自由的国家(荷兰),自我监管最高。这表明,自由化并不会像政策批评者所预测的那样自动导致混乱或其他有问题的使用,因为正式控制(执法)的减少伴随着非正式规范和更强有力的自我监管的重要性增加。在理解风险管理方面,社会对大麻使用的容忍似乎比大麻政策的跨国家差异更重要。大麻使用和自律规则的制定与使用频率密切相关。日常用户在选择使用环境方面没有那么挑剔,在自律规则方面也没有那么严格。年龄、性别和家庭状况的进一步差异突显了对大麻正常化有区别、更细致理解的相关性。
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
Where, When and With Whom: Cannabis Use, Settings and Self-Regulation Rules
This article examines to what extent and how cannabis users in different countries, with different cannabis legislation and policies practice normalization and self-regulation of cannabis use in everyday life. Data were collected in a survey among a convenience sample of 1,225 last-year cannabis users aged 18–40 from seven European countries, with cannabis policies ranging from relatively liberal to more punitive. Participants were recruited in or in the vicinity of Dutch coffeeshops. We assessed whether cannabis users experience and interpret formal control and informal social norms differently across countries with different cannabis policies. The findings suggest that many cannabis users set boundaries to control their use. Irrespective of national cannabis policy, using cannabis in private settings and setting risk avoidance rules were equally predominant in all countries. This illustrates that many cannabis users are concerned with responsible use, demonstrating the importance that they attach to discretion. Overall, self-regulation was highest in the most liberal country (the Netherlands). This indicates that liberalization does not automatically lead to chaotic or otherwise problematic use as critics of the policy have predicted, as the diminishing of formal control (law enforcement) is accompanied by increased importance of informal norms and stronger self-regulation. In understanding risk-management, societal tolerance of cannabis use seems more important than cross-national differences in cannabis policy. The setting of cannabis use and self-regulation rules were strongly associated with frequency of use. Daily users were less selective in choosing settings of use and less strict in self-regulation rules. Further differences in age, gender, and household status underline the relevance of a differentiated, more nuanced understanding of cannabis normalization.
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
Contemporary Drug Problems
Contemporary Drug Problems Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Contemporary Drug Problems is a scholarly journal that publishes peer-reviewed social science research on alcohol and other psychoactive drugs, licit and illicit. The journal’s orientation is multidisciplinary and international; it is open to any research paper that contributes to social, cultural, historical or epidemiological knowledge and theory concerning drug use and related problems. While Contemporary Drug Problems publishes all types of social science research on alcohol and other drugs, it recognizes that innovative or challenging research can sometimes struggle to find a suitable outlet. The journal therefore particularly welcomes original studies for which publication options are limited, including historical research, qualitative studies, and policy and legal analyses. In terms of readership, Contemporary Drug Problems serves a burgeoning constituency of social researchers as well as policy makers and practitioners working in health, welfare, social services, public policy, criminal justice and law enforcement.
期刊最新文献
Ontopolitically-oriented Research on Coca Growing: Integrating Decolonial Knowledges and Latina Feminisms A Citizens’ Wānanga on Alcohol Policy in Aotearoa New Zealand: An Essay on Theoretical Underpinnings and Practical Considerations Performance and Image Enhancing Drug Use Among Australian Women: The Role of Interpersonal Relationships in Facilitating Use Drug Stigma, Consumer Culture, and Corporate Power in the Opioid Crisis Algorithmic Doors to Community and the Trap of Visibility: TikTok for Harm Reduction Activism in the U.S. Overdose Crisis
×
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