Prohibition, Regulation or Free Market: A Mapping of Colombian People’s Perspectives Regarding National Drug Policies

Abstract

Colombian 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 × 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 × 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 decision-makers are discussed.

Appendix: Example of Scenario

North-Candia is a small republic of 11 million inhabitants. In this, as in the neighboring countries, there is a strong domestic demand for soft drugs and for hard drugs. The country is, however, not a producer of drugs. The government has never launched campaigns to warn people about the dangers associated with using drugs. On the one hand, the government has decided to regulate the sale of soft drugs and to ensure their production and distribution. On the other hand, the government has decided to prohibit completely the sale of hard drugs and to prosecute traffickers. As a result, soft drugs are sold correctly packed up, with exact dosages, in stores controlled by the State. Their quality is guaranteed. Their price is certainly high but not prohibitive, so much so that the traffickers have had to give up this market. Hard drugs, in contrast, are sold clandestinely. Their quality is highly variable, and many accidents (accidental overdoses) are reported each year. Their price is prohibitive and the associated profits generate a certain level of corruption at the very heart of the state and a level of homicides that remains fortunately moderate.