dc.creatorLópez López, Wilson
dc.creatorPineda Marín, Claudia
dc.creatorSorum, Paul C.
dc.creatorMullet, Etienne
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-04T14:11:33Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-28T14:29:50Z
dc.date.available2019-12-04T14:11:33Z
dc.date.available2022-09-28T14:29:50Z
dc.date.created2019-12-04T14:11:33Z
dc.date.issued2015-02-15
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11634/20108
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0908-7
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/3660201
dc.description.abstractColombian laypersons’ perspectives regarding actual and potential drug policies were examined. Adults (N = 395) aged 18–68 and living in Bogota were presented with 24 vignettes that were composed according to two within-subject orthogonal factor designs: (a) Demand for drugs in the country 9 Current government policy regarding soft and hard drugs (from ‘‘laissez faire’’ policy for all drugs to complete prohibition of all drugs) and (b) Information campaigns regarding the dangerousness of drugs 9 Current policy. Participants rated the level of acceptability of each policy. Seven different perspectives were identified that can be grouped into five broad views. The first one (50 % of participants) was called ‘‘radical constructionists’’ because participants considered that all policies were unacceptable. The second one (19 %) was called ‘‘cultural conservatives’’ because only one drug policy was considered fully acceptable: complete prohibition (although half of the members of this group were willing to allow soft drugs to be sold freely). The third one (14 %) was called ‘‘progressive prohibitionists’’ because the preferred policies in this group were either complete prohibition or complete regulation by the government. The fourth one (8 %) was called ‘‘free trade libertarians’’ because the dominant opinion was that the drug market should be free. The last one (5 %) was called ‘‘progressive advocates of legalization’’ because the preferred policy in this group was complete regulation of all substances. In most cases, the presence of information campaigns was highly valued. Methodological implications and implications for decisionmakers are discussed.
dc.relationAgrawal, S., Everett, W. W., & Sharma, S. (2010). Medical students’ views of substance abuse treatment, policy and training. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 17, 587–602.
dc.relationBlendon, R. J., & Young, J. T. (1998). The public and the war in illicit drugs. Journal of American Medical Association, 279, 827–832.
dc.relationBoyum, D. (2001). Prohibition and legalization: Beyond the false dichotomy. Social Research, 68, 865–868.
dc.relationCamus, J., Mun˜oz Sastre, M. T., Sorum, P. C., & Mullet, E. (2014). French people’s positions regarding national policies about illicit drugs: A preliminary study. Social Indicators Research, 118, 1191–1204.
dc.relationDRCNet. (2001). Colombian legalization movement. Retrieved on September 12th, 2014 from http://www. november.org/razorwire/rzold/26/page9.html
dc.relationElejalde, B. R. (1975). Marijuana and genetic studies in Colombia. In V. Rubin (Ed.), Cannabis and culture (pp. 327–344). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
dc.relationFriedman, M. (1991). Interview on the drug of war. Retrieved on February 6th, 2014 from http://www. druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/friedm1.htm
dc.relationGamelin, A., Mun˜oz Sastre, M. T., Sorum, P. C., & Mullet, E. (2006). Eliciting utilities using functional methodology: People’s disutilities for the adverse outcomes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Quality of Life Research, 15, 429–439.
dc.relationHeimann, M., Mullet, E., & Bonnefon, J. F. (2014, in press). People’s views about the acceptability of remuneration policies and executive bonuses. Journal of Business Ethics.
dc.relationJelsma, M. (2011). The development of international drug control: Lessons learned and strategic challenges for the future. Working paper prepared for the first meeting of the Global Commission on Drug policy.
dc.relationLambert, E. G., Ventura, L. A., Baker, D. N., & Jenkins, M. (2006). Drug views: Does race matter? Journal of Ethnicity and Criminal Justice, 4, 93–111.
dc.relationMillhorn, M., Monaghan, M., Montero, D., Reyes, M., Roman, T., Tollasken, R., & Walls, R. (2009). North Americans’ attitudes toward illegal drugs. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19, 125–141.
dc.relationNeto, F., Pinto, C., & Mullet, E. (2013). The acceptability of military humanitarian interventions. International Perspectives in Psychology, 2, 73–84.
dc.relationOlivari, C., Munoz Sastre, M. T., Guedj, M., Sorum, P. C., & Mullet, E. (2011). Breaking patient confidentiality: Comparing Chilean and French viewpoints regarding the conditions of its acceptability. Universitas Psychologica: Pan American Journal of Psychology, 10, 13–26.
dc.relationPlowman, T. (1979). Botanical perspectives in coca. Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, 11, 103–117.
dc.relationThoumi, F. E. (2002). Illegal drugs in Colombia: From illegal economic boom to social crisis. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 582, 102–116.
dc.relationUchtehagen, A. (2009). Heroin-assisted treatment in Switzerland: A case study in policy change. Addiction, 105, 29–37.
dc.relationVan Laar, M., Cruts, G., van Gageldonk, A., van Ooyen-Houben, M., Croes, E., Meijer, R., & Ketelaars, T. (2007). Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox national focal point: The Netherlands. Retrieved February 6th, 2014 from http://www.trimbos.nl/webwinkel/productoverzicht-webwinkel/feiten—cijfers—beleid/ af/*/media/files/gratis%20downloads/af0817%20the%20netherlands%20drug%20situation%202007% 20compleet.ashx
dc.relationWerb, D., Rowell, G., Guyatt, G., Kerr, T., Montaner, J., & Wood, E. (2010). Effect of drug law enforcement on drug-related violence: Evidence from a scientific review. Vancouver: International Centre for Science in Drug Policy. Retrieved on February 6th, 2014 from http://www.icsdp.org
dc.relationZorro, C. (2011). Políticas de desarrollo alternativo en Colombia (1982–2009). In A. Gaviria & D. Mejía (Eds.), Políticas antidroga en Colombia: Éxitos, fracasos y extravíos (pp. 91–120). Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes. [Alternative development policies in Colombia].
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/co/
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 2.5 Colombia
dc.titleProhibition, regulation or free market: a mapping of Colombian people’s perspectives regarding national drug policies
dc.typeGeneración de Nuevo Conocimiento: Artículos publicados en revistas especializadas - Electrónicos


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución