Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 118, Issue 3, pp 1191–1204 | Cite as

French People’s Positions Regarding National Policies About Illicit Drugs: A Preliminary Study

  • Julie Camus
  • Maria Teresa Munoz Sastre
  • Paul Clay Sorum
  • Etienne MulletEmail author
Article

Abstract

French people’s positions regarding actual and potential drug policies were examined. Adults (N = 225) aged 18–81 were presented with 28 vignettes that were composed according to a three within-subject orthogonal factor design: (a) demand for drugs in the country, (b) information campaigns regarding their dangerousness, and (c) current state policy regarding soft and hard drugs, from “laissez faire” policy for all drugs to complete prohibition of all drugs. Participants rated the level of acceptability of each policy. Three clusters were identified. The first one (32 % of participants) was called “Radical Constructionists” because participants considered that all policies were unacceptable. The second one (26 %) was called “Prohibitionists” because only one drug policy was considered fully acceptable: Complete prohibition with the condition that information campaigns are conducted. The third cluster (42 %) was called “Regulationists” because only one drug policy was considered as fully acceptable: Complete state regulation (with the same condition). In all clusters, the “laissez-faire” policy was always judged as the least acceptable one, even when it was just about soft drugs. The strongest opposition observed was not between prohibition and regulation but between “laissez-faire” on the one hand and regulation and prohibition on the other hand. Methodological implications and implications for decision-makers are discussed.

Keywords

Drug policy Public perception France 

References

  1. Anderson, N. H. (2008). Unified social cognition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blendon, R. J., & Young, J. T. (1998). The public and the war in illicit drugs. Journal of American Medical Association, 279, 827–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyum, D. (2001). Prohibition and legalization: Beyond the false dichotomy. Social Research, 68, 865–868.Google Scholar
  4. Costes, J. M., Le Nézet, O., Spilka, S., & Lafitteau, C. (2010). Dix ans d’évolution des perceptions et des opinons de Français sur les drogues (1999–2008). Tendances, 71, 1–6.Google Scholar
  5. Courtwright, D. T. (1982). Dark paradise: Opiate addiction in America before 1940. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cruts, G., Buster, M., Vicente, J., Deerenberg, I., & van Laar, M. (2008). Estimating the total mortality among problem drug users. Substance Use and Misuse, 43, 733–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drug Policy Alliance. (2013). Take action to end the war on drugs. http://www.drugpolicy.org/action. Retrieved August 12, 2013.
  8. Frones, I. (2007). Theorizing indicators: On indicators, signs and trends. Social Indicators Research, 83, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goode, E. (1998). Strange bedfellows: Ideology, politics, and drug legalization. Society, 35, 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hofmans, J., & Mullet, E. (2013). Towards unveiling individual differences in different stages of information processing: A clustering-based approach. Quality and Quantity, 47, 555–564.Google Scholar
  11. Hopwood, M., Brener, L., Frankland, A., & Treloar, C. (2010). Assessing community support for harm reduction services: Comparing two measures. Drug and Alcohol Review, 29, 385–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jelsma, 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.Google Scholar
  13. Jenner, M. S. (2011). International drug trafficking: A global problem with a domestic solution. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 18, 901–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 89, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lopez Lopez, W., & Pineda Marin, C. (2013, June). Colombian people’s views regarding national policies about illicit drugs: A pilot study. Poster presented at the Fourth Meeting on Functional Measurement and Information Integration Theory, Coimbra, Portugal.Google Scholar
  16. Michalos, A. C. (2004). Social indicators research and health-related quality of life research. Social Indicators Research, 65, 27–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Millhorn, M., Monaghan, M., Montero, D., Reyes, M., Roman, T., Tollasken, R., et al. (2009). North Americans’ attitudes toward illegal drugs. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19, 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Observatoire français des drogues et des toxicomanies. (2012). National report (2011 data) to the European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction by the reitox national focal point. Saint-Denis: OFDT.Google Scholar
  19. Timberlake, J. M., Lock, E. D., & Rasinski, K. A. (2003). How should we wage the war on drugs? Determinants of public preferences for drug control alternatives. The Policy Studies Journal, 31, 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Timberlake, J. M., Rasinski, K. A., & Lock, E. D. (2001). Effects of conservative sociopolitical attitudes on public support for drug rehabilitation spending. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 184–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Treloar, C., & Fraser, S. (2007). Public opinion on needle and syringe programmes: Avoiding assumptions for policy and practice. Drug and Alcohol Review, 26, 355–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Uchtehagen, A. (2009). Heroin-assisted treatment in Switzerland: A case study in policy change. Addiction, 105, 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission. (2012). Final report of the UK Drug Policy Commission. http://www.ukdpc.org.uk. Retrieved August 8, 2013.
  24. Wälti, S., Kübler, D., & Papadopoulos, Y. (2004). How democratic is “governance”? Lessons from Swiss drug policy. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 17, 83–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Werb, 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. http://www.icsdp.org. Retrieved August 1, 2013.
  26. Wood, E. (2010). Evidence-based policy for illicit drugs: An ethical obligation for those working in the field of drug addiction. British Medical Journal, 341, 107–108.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie Camus
    • 1
  • Maria Teresa Munoz Sastre
    • 1
  • Paul Clay Sorum
    • 2
  • Etienne Mullet
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Mirail UniversityToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Albany Medical CollegeAlbanyUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Advanced Studies (EPHE)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations