Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Flippend Rund
Ik heb een wetenschappelijke studie die aantoont dat legalisering van cannabis leidt tot meer gebruik. Jij hebt de typische pro-cannabis toogpraat. Ongedocumenteerd geleuter dat rondgaat op alle discussie-fora van de wereld en daardoor zijn eigen leven begint te leiden.
|
Jij hebt een artikeltje uit Knack waar je als je geld op inzet.
Ik heb cijfers van cannabisgebruik (weliswaar van 2011). Als je de rechtstreekse bron wil:
https://www.unodc.org/documents/data...onsumption.pdf
Typische VN toogpraat uiteraard?
Kan je me zeggen welk cijfertje er bij Frankrijk staat? Kan je me zeggen welk cijfertje er bij Nederland staat? Wie heeft het strengste beleid? Portugal zit zelfs nog lager, 3,6%.
Empirisch weet je natuurlijk al dat Knack ergens iets geplukt heeft, maar wie een beetje wetenschappelijk geschoold is weet dat één studie de lente nog niet maakt en dat veel afhangt van de onderzoeksmethode.
Voor interessant leesvoer:
http://www.cannabislegal.de/studien/nsw/b58.htm (hier zie je tenminste welke methode gebruikt werd)
Public debate in NSW (and elsewhere in Australia) about the wisdom of the prohibition on cannabis use is usually focussed on the single issue of whether decriminalisation would increase the number of people willing to use the drug. Those who favour prohibition often claim that decriminalisation would 'send the wrong message' on drug use, particularly to young people. Those who oppose prohibition often attempt to counter this 'wrong message' claim by arguing that prohibition has been an expensive failure. Decriminalising cannabis, they maintain, would reduce the enforcement and social costs associated with prohibition without leading to an increase in the prevalence of cannabis use.
The present results suggest that this debate greatly oversimplifies the issues. Prohibition is not the dominant consideration in individual decisions to use or to desist from using the drug. Health considerations and anticipated or actual dislike of the drug are more important factors in preventing or stopping use. The fact that cannabis use is illegal, however, would appear to exert an influence on those who choose not to use the drug or who choose to give it up. Indeed, it was the third most frequently cited reason for non-use or desistance from use. These findings do not sit comfortably with claims that the legalisation of cannabis use would not result in any increase in the number of people using the drug. They reinforce concern that past surveys of changes in the prevalence of cannabis use, consequent upon decriminalisation, may have lacked the requisite sample size to detect such change.
More importantly, debates about the effect of decriminalisation on the prevalence of cannabis use may have missed a key issue. The present results suggest that, even if decriminalisation did not influence the prevalence of cannabis use, it could increase the frequency of cannabis use among existing cannabis users. They raise the possibility, moreover, that the effect of decriminalisation on consumption would be larger for those who presently use cannabis a lot than for those who use it only infrequently. Such effects cannot be viewed with equanimity. As we noted in the introduction, the risk of acute harm associated with cannabis is probably higher among regular users. For this reason there may be more grounds for concern about the prospect of an increase in consumption among regular users than there are about the prospect of an increase in the number of non-users experimenting with the drug.
It could be argued that the benefits of prohibition are not worth the cost of prosecuting and imprisoning cannabis users. The financial cost of prosecuting cannabis users, however, is less than it might appear. While nearly 8,000 people a year are charged with cannabis use and/or possession in NSW, the majority of these people are brought to court for other reasons as well. Less than half this number are brought to court solely on charges of cannabis use or possession. Very few of those convicted solely of cannabis use and/or possession are imprisoned. The potential criminal justice savings which would accrue from decriminalising cannabis use and possession are therefore not large in absolute terms.
The present results nevertheless raise some difficult questions in relation to the current prohibition against cannabis use. Fear of apprehension, fear of being imprisoned, the cost of cannabis or the difficulty in obtaining cannabis do not appear to exert a strong influence on decisions about cannabis consumption, at least amongst the vast majority of 18-29 year olds. Those factors may limit cannabis use among frequent cannabis users but there is no evidence, as yet, to support this conjecture. Prohibition also imposes indirect costs upon the State and affected individuals when, as a result of their conviction, cannabis users suffer unemployment or reduced earnings prospects (Lenton, Christie, Humeniuk, Brooks, Bennett & Heale 1998). The few who are imprisoned solely for cannabis use or possession may feel a legitimate sense of grievance at the misfortune which has befallen them in comparison with other cannabis users, the vast majority of whom will never be reported to police or prosecuted for cannabis use, let alone imprisoned.
Ideally, policy in relation to cannabis should be assessed in terms of whether it provides the most cost-effective means of limiting the harm caused by the drug. In the absence of experiment, however, it is difficult to gauge the most cost-effective policy. In fact, the limited information we have on how to reduce cannabis consumption makes it difficult to identify effective harm reduction policies, let alone the one which is most cost-effective. Policy development in this area would clearly be facilitated if we had a better understanding of the circumstances which would prompt cannabis users to moderate their consumption of the drug. The Bureau is presently conducting a study of young cannabis users designed to provide information bearing on this issue.
------------
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11157425
(enkel abstract van gevonden, sorry)
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Cannabis policy continues to be controversial in North America, Europe and Australia.
AIMS:
To inform this debate, we examine alternative legal regimes for controlling cannabis availability and use.
METHOD:
We review evidence on the effects of cannabis depenalisation in the USA, Australia and The Netherlands. We update and extend our previous (MacCoun & Reuter, 1997) empirical comparison of cannabis prevalence statistics in the USA, The Netherlands and other European nations.
RESULTS:
The available evidence indicates that depenalisation of the possession of small quantities of cannabis does not increase cannabis prevalence. The Dutch experience suggests that commercial promotion and sales may significantly increase cannabis prevalence.
CONCLUSIONS:
Alternatives to an aggressively enforced cannabis prohibition are feasible and merit serious consideration. A model of depenalised possession and personal cultivation has many of the advantages of outright legalisation with few of its risks.
---> Dus concreet: net zoals strenge wetten voor tabaksreclame, zijn ook strenge wetten voor cannabisreclame nodig. En ook alcohol (de stoere Schotten in zwart wit voor William Lawsons bv is voor mij hetzelfde als de Marlboroman)
Zo, mr Cased Closed... Het staat nu al 2-1. Als je er 2-2 van maakt (wat je zeker zal lukken) maak ik er met plezier 4-2 van enzoverder...
Of gaan we terug als volwassen mensen discussiëren?