My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0193.096 2006-2008
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2006-2008
>
COM 0193.096 2006-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2008 12:50:18 AM
Creation date
5/8/2008 5:49:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2006-2008
Communication
0193
Point
096
Author
Lawrence W. Boyd, PH.D.
Communications - Referred To
N/A
Document Relationships
BIL 060 Draft 04 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2006-2008
COM 0193.000 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2006-2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
A <br /> Reseazch on the effects of mazijuana decriminalization has tended to find either <br /> W <br /> no relationship or a weak positive relationship between marijuana decriminalization and <br /> drug use. Johnston, O'Malley, and Bachman (1981) use data from Monitoring the Future, <br /> an annual survey of U. S. high school seniors, to see whether there were difference over <br /> time in marijuana use between states that decriminalized and those that did not. They <br /> found little difference. Thies and Register (1993) use data from the National Longitudinal <br /> Survey of Youth between 1984 and 1988 to analyze differences in use of alcohol, <br /> marijuana and cocaine among states who decriminalized and those that did not. They also <br /> find little evidence of any effect. In addition DiNardo and Lemieux (1992) find no effect <br /> of decriminalization on use. <br /> Some studies have found a correlation between decriminalization and use. Model <br /> (1993) finds a statistically significant and positive result from decriminalization, but <br /> because he used hospital emergency room drug mentions these results are difficult to <br /> interpret. It might simply reflect attitudes on the part of the population in decriminalized <br /> states towazd drug use, which could correlate with the establishment of decriminalization. <br /> Other studies that relied on cross-state variation in decriminalization status using recent <br /> data and showing a positive and statistically significant effect were Saffer and Chaloupka <br /> (1999); Chaloupka et al (1999); and Chaloupka, Grossman and Taurus (1999). Again <br /> these are difficult to interpret because they used a measure that assumed decriminalized <br /> state laws were identical and fundamentally different from criminalized states. The <br /> measure used could also reflect attitudes on the part of the population towards drug use. <br /> Pacula, Chriqui and King (2003) found that attitudes on the part of the population <br /> r. towards drug use could play a role. They included actual legal dimensions such as <br /> penalties and found that these did not diminish the association between decriminalization <br /> and recent use. They conclude that their results tend to indicate that attitudes toward drug <br /> ~ use simply tended to be more tolerant in decriminalized states leading to the positive <br /> association found in some studies between decriminalization and marijuana use. In other <br /> words, decriminalization did not cause increased drug use, but that it existed <br /> "r independently of the decriminalization statutes. They also demonstrate the extent to <br /> which non-decriminalized states have reduced penalties associated with possession of <br /> ~ small amounts of marijuana as early as 1989, and call into question the interpretation of <br /> <br /> r <br /> 13 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.