Between Prohibition And Legalization

In a period of two decades Dutch drug policy has evolved in partial opposition to the internationally dominant ideology of prohibitionism. The "normalizing" home policy, together with the compliance to law enforcement in the international arena, make up a rather complicated and ambivalent Dutch position in drug policy. The Dutch drug policy is fully in line with the international control practices against wholesale drug trafficking. In regards to its social drug policy, however, it has become a rare dissenter within an increasingly unifying and compelling international drug policy context. This book gives an account of the national Dutch drug control strategy.

Defenders of marijuana use may seize on the ambiguity or absence of evidence for such damage and ignore any other effects on education or safety; those opposed to marijuana use may emphasize the possibility of chronic disease that is suggested by some laboratory findings and ignore the social, political, and economic costs of fighting a well-established custom. The Committee wishes to make clear what it regards as the limits of this report for the selection of policy alteratives. Scientific judgment can estimate the prevalence of different kinds of use, risks to health, economic costs, and the like under current policies and can try to project such estimates for new policies. It can come to some conclusions based on those estimates. But selection of an alternative is always a value-governed choice, which can ultimately be made only by the political process.

In the United States today, the use or possession of many drugs is a criminal offense. Can these criminal laws be justified? What are the best reasons to punish or not to punish drug users? These are the fundamental issues debated in this book by two prominent philosophers of law. Douglas Husak argues in favor of drug decriminalization, by clarifying the meaning of crucial terms, such as legalize, decriminalize, and drugs; and by identifying the standards by which alternative drug policies should be assessed. He critically examines the reasons typically offered in favor of our current approach and explains why decriminalization is preferable. Peter de Marneffe argues against drug legalization, demonstrating why drug prohibition, especially the prohibition of heroin, is necessary to protect young people from self-destructive drug use. If the empirical assumptions of this argument are sound, he reasons, drug prohibition is perfectly compatible with our rights to liberty.

Should drugs be legalized? A few years ago this question was not taken seriously by mainstream opinion, but more recently an increasing number of leading figures have spoken out for legalization, and polls show that a growing percentage of the public favors legalization. This book gives a fair and balanced presentation of both sides in the debate over drug legalization, as well as some of the intermediate positions. It contains the most important articles to have appeared from the beginning of the legalization controversy and clearly sets out all the key arguments on both sides. - Back cover.

Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know provides readers with a non-partisan primer covering everything from the risks and benefits of using marijuana to what is happening with marijuana laws around the world. This book serves as the price of admission for any serious discussion about marijuana legalization.

The place of cannabis in global drug prohibition is in crisis, opening up new directions for socially engaged cannabis research. The Routledge Handbook of Post-Prohibition Cannabis Research invites readers to explore new landscapes of cannabis research under conditions of legalization with, not after, prohibition: "post-prohibition." The chapters are organized into five multidisciplinary sections: Governance, Public Health, Markets and Society, Ecology and the Environment, and Culture and Social Change. Case studies from the United States, Uruguay, Morocco, and the United Kingdom show readers alternative ways of thinking about human–cannabis relationships that move beyond questions of legality and illegality. Representing a cross-section of cannabis scholarship, the contributors provide readers with critical perspectives on legalization that are not based upon orthodoxies of prohibition. While legalization signals a global shift in the legitimacy of cannabis research, this collection identifies openings for academics, policy makers, and the public interested in ending the drug war, as well as a way to address broader social problems evident in the age of neoliberal governance within which prohibition has been entangled.

A collection of writing on the drug war debate, based on a Cato Institute conference of the same title, containing twelve essays by Cato employees, academics, drug-policy experts, and government officials.

In More Harm Than Good, Carter, Boyd and MacPherson take a critical look at the current state of Canadian drug policy and raise key questions about the effects of Canada’s increasing involvement in and commitment to the “war on drugs.” A primer on Canadian drug policy, the analysis in More Harm Than Good is shaped by critical sociology and feminist perspectives on drugs and incorporates insights not only from individuals who are on the front lines of drug policy in Canada — treatment and service workers — but also from those who live with the consequences of that policy on a daily basis — people who use criminalized drugs. Finally, the authors propose realistic alternatives to today’s failed policy approach. “Your book really expanded thinking and understanding and had a big influence on students critical and reflective thought. Readings sparked rich conversations about their own hopes and wishes for the field, broader social and political responses and the impact on youth and families affected by substances.” - Stephanie McCune, University of Victoria Please note: an error occurred with the printing of this book, and one of the sidebars was not printed. It is available to download here. We sincerely apologize for this oversight.