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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, N. H. (2008). Unified social cognition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Blendon, R. J., & Young, J. T. (1998). The public and the war in illicit drugs. Journal of American Medical Association, 279, 827–832.
Boyum, D. (2001). Prohibition and legalization: Beyond the false dichotomy. Social Research, 68, 865–868.
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.
Courtwright, D. T. (1982). Dark paradise: Opiate addiction in America before 1940. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.
Drug Policy Alliance. (2013). Take action to end the war on drugs. http://www.drugpolicy.org/action. Retrieved August 12, 2013.
Frones, I. (2007). Theorizing indicators: On indicators, signs and trends. Social Indicators Research, 83, 5–23.
Goode, E. (1998). Strange bedfellows: Ideology, politics, and drug legalization. Society, 35, 18–27.
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.
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.
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.
Jenner, M. S. (2011). International drug trafficking: A global problem with a domestic solution. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 18, 901–927.
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.
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.
Michalos, A. C. (2004). Social indicators research and health-related quality of life research. Social Indicators Research, 65, 27–72.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Uchtehagen, A. (2009). Heroin-assisted treatment in Switzerland: A case study in policy change. Addiction, 105, 29–37.
United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission. (2012). Final report of the UK Drug Policy Commission. http://www.ukdpc.org.uk. Retrieved August 8, 2013.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Example of Scenarios
Appendix: Example of Scenarios
South-Calgony is a small republic of 10 million inhabitants.
In South-Calgony, as in the neighboring countries, there is a certain domestic demand for soft drugs and for hard drugs.
The State has, many times in the past, launched campaigns to warn people about the dangers associated with using drugs. The teaching of the risks associated with drug consumption has been made compulsory in all schools and public institutions.
On the one hand, the State has decided to regulate the sale of soft drugs and to ensure their production and distribution. On the other hand, the State 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 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 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.
The quality of soft drugs is guaranteed. The quality of hard drugs is highly variable, and many accidents (accidental overdoses) are reported each year.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Camus, J., Sastre, M.T.M., Sorum, P.C. et al. French People’s Positions Regarding National Policies About Illicit Drugs: A Preliminary Study. Soc Indic Res 118, 1191–1204 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0454-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0454-0