德国大麻政策改革:关于除罪化和管制战略的政治和宪法话语

Pub Date : 2021-06-25 DOI:10.15845/bjclcj.v9i1.3358
Stefanie Kemme, K. Pfeffer, Luise von Rodbertus
{"title":"德国大麻政策改革:关于除罪化和管制战略的政治和宪法话语","authors":"Stefanie Kemme, K. Pfeffer, Luise von Rodbertus","doi":"10.15845/bjclcj.v9i1.3358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"  \nThere is relentless discussion in Germany about the right manner to deal with cannabis and its users. In 1994 and 2004, the Federal Constitutional Court reaffirmed the legal appropriateness of prohibition. However, since then, studies and data about the dangers and effects of cannabis use have quieted alarm, and Europe, alongside the once-prohibitive United States, has had its initial experiences with liberalised use of cannabis. Since the founding of the Schildower Kreis, a network of experts from science and practice, 122 German criminal law professors have petitioned the Bundestag for an Enquête Commission. The aim of this paper is, on the one hand, to provide insight into German narcotics law. On the other hand, the political arguments for sticking to prohibition are contrasted with the numerous empirical findings that are now available. The results of the empirical studies now challenge the Federal Constitutional Court and the legislature to review their previous course and possibly break new ground in drug policy. The basis of the Federal Constitutional Court’s decisions no longer exists. The Narcotics Act and constitutional discourse on cannabis prohibition need to be reviewed, as do political arguments about resources and high costs. Indications of a paradigm shift in drug policy, as required by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, are hesitantly appearing in Germany.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cannabis policy reform in Germany: Political and constitutional discourses on decriminalisation and regulation strategies\",\"authors\":\"Stefanie Kemme, K. Pfeffer, Luise von Rodbertus\",\"doi\":\"10.15845/bjclcj.v9i1.3358\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"  \\nThere is relentless discussion in Germany about the right manner to deal with cannabis and its users. In 1994 and 2004, the Federal Constitutional Court reaffirmed the legal appropriateness of prohibition. However, since then, studies and data about the dangers and effects of cannabis use have quieted alarm, and Europe, alongside the once-prohibitive United States, has had its initial experiences with liberalised use of cannabis. Since the founding of the Schildower Kreis, a network of experts from science and practice, 122 German criminal law professors have petitioned the Bundestag for an Enquête Commission. The aim of this paper is, on the one hand, to provide insight into German narcotics law. On the other hand, the political arguments for sticking to prohibition are contrasted with the numerous empirical findings that are now available. The results of the empirical studies now challenge the Federal Constitutional Court and the legislature to review their previous course and possibly break new ground in drug policy. The basis of the Federal Constitutional Court’s decisions no longer exists. The Narcotics Act and constitutional discourse on cannabis prohibition need to be reviewed, as do political arguments about resources and high costs. Indications of a paradigm shift in drug policy, as required by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, are hesitantly appearing in Germany.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15845/bjclcj.v9i1.3358\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15845/bjclcj.v9i1.3358","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在德国,关于如何正确对待大麻及其使用者的讨论一直在进行。1994年和2004年,联邦宪法法院重申了禁令在法律上的适当性。然而,从那以后,关于大麻使用的危险和影响的研究和数据平息了恐慌,欧洲和曾经禁止使用大麻的美国一起,已经有了放开使用大麻的初步经验。自Schildower Kreis(一个由来自科学和实践领域的专家组成的网络)成立以来,122名德国刑法教授向联邦议院请愿,要求成立Enquête委员会。本文的目的是,一方面,提供洞察德国毒品法。另一方面,坚持禁酒令的政治论点与现有的大量实证研究结果形成了对比。经验性研究的结果现在要求联邦宪法法院和立法机构审查其以前的做法,并可能在毒品政策方面开辟新的领域。联邦宪法法院裁决的基础已不复存在。需要审查《麻醉品法》和关于禁止大麻的宪法论述,以及关于资源和高成本的政治争论。按照全球毒品政策委员会的要求,在毒品政策方面发生范式转变的迹象正在德国犹豫地出现。
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
Cannabis policy reform in Germany: Political and constitutional discourses on decriminalisation and regulation strategies
  There is relentless discussion in Germany about the right manner to deal with cannabis and its users. In 1994 and 2004, the Federal Constitutional Court reaffirmed the legal appropriateness of prohibition. However, since then, studies and data about the dangers and effects of cannabis use have quieted alarm, and Europe, alongside the once-prohibitive United States, has had its initial experiences with liberalised use of cannabis. Since the founding of the Schildower Kreis, a network of experts from science and practice, 122 German criminal law professors have petitioned the Bundestag for an Enquête Commission. The aim of this paper is, on the one hand, to provide insight into German narcotics law. On the other hand, the political arguments for sticking to prohibition are contrasted with the numerous empirical findings that are now available. The results of the empirical studies now challenge the Federal Constitutional Court and the legislature to review their previous course and possibly break new ground in drug policy. The basis of the Federal Constitutional Court’s decisions no longer exists. The Narcotics Act and constitutional discourse on cannabis prohibition need to be reviewed, as do political arguments about resources and high costs. Indications of a paradigm shift in drug policy, as required by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, are hesitantly appearing in Germany.
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
×
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