|Titre :||Pot politics. Marijuana and the costs of prohibition|
|Auteurs :||M. EARLEYWINE|
|Type de document :||Livre|
|Editeur :||Oxford - New York : Oxford University Press, 2007|
|Format :||382 p. / index.|
|Note générale :||New York, Oxford University Press, 2007, 382 p.|
|Discipline :||SHS (Sciences humaines et sociales / Human and social sciences)|
Thésaurus TOXIBASEDECRIMINALISATION ; CANNABIS ; PROHIBITION ; COUT ; POLITIQUE ; DEPISTAGE ; MILIEU PROFESSIONNEL ; CONDUITE DE VEHICULE ; TYPE D'USAGE ; MEDIA ; POTENTIEL ADDICTIF ; ADDICTION ; ETHIQUE ; RELIGION ; PREVENTION ; COUT SOCIAL
Marijuana use continues to attract interest and fuel controversy. Big, green pot leaves have adorned the covers of Time, National Review, and Forbes. Almost 100 million Americans have tried marijuana at least once. Groups such as The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana (NORML) and The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) have tens of thousands of members. Polls suggest that 70-80% of Americans support medical marijuana. At least 11 US states have experimented with decriminalisation and medical marijuana laws, with new initiatives appearing each year. Meanwhile, other groups such as Partnership for a Drug Free America and Mothers Against Drugs protest legalisation. Clearly, debate about marijuana policy shows no sign of abating.
In his earlier book, «Understanding Marijuana», Mitch Earlywine forced researchers, policy makers, and citizens to avoid oversimplification, separate empirical findings from their interpretations, and understand that some things may be neither good nor evil. «Pot Politics» continues with these same themes, showing multiple perspectives from a variety of experts on an important problem with vast implications. The volume presents ethical, religious, economic, psychological, and political arguments for cannabis policies that range from prohibition to unrestricted legalisation.
By presenting a unique perspective on overlapping issues, each chapter demonstrates how even recognised experts draw markedly different conclusions from the same data. Some contributors evaluate policy by weighing the costs and benefits of control while others eschew policy by presenting moral arguments against our attempts at control. (Editor's abstract)
|Domaine :||Drogues illicites / Illicit drugs|
|Affiliation :||University at Albany, State University of New York Etats-Unis. United States.|
|Centre Emetteur :||13 OFDT|