Drug Legalization, Democracy and Public Health: Canadian Stakeholders’ Opinions and Values with Respect to the Legalization of Cannabis

IF 1.4 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Marianne Rochette, Matt J. Valiquette, C. Barned, E. Racine
{"title":"Drug Legalization, Democracy and Public Health: Canadian Stakeholders’ Opinions and Values with Respect to the Legalization of Cannabis","authors":"Marianne Rochette, Matt J. Valiquette, C. Barned, E. Racine","doi":"10.1093/phe/phad016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The legalization of cannabis in Canada instantiates principles of harm-reduction and safe supply. However, in-depth understanding of values at stake and attitudes toward legalization were not part of extensive democratic deliberation. Through a qualitative exploratory study, we undertook 48 semi-structured interviews with three Canadian stakeholder groups to explore opinions and values with respect to the legalization of cannabis: (1) members of the general public, (2) people with lived experience of addiction and (3) clinicians with experience treating patients with addiction. Across all groups, participants tended to be in favor of legalization, but particular opinions rested on their viewpoint as stakeholders. Clinicians considered the way legalization would affect an individual’s health and its potential for increasing rates of addiction on a larger scale. People with lived experience of addiction cited personal autonomy more than other groups and stressed the need to have access to quality information to make truly informed decisions. Alternatively, members of the public considered legalization positive or negative in light of whether one’s addiction affected others. We elaborate on and discuss how scientific evidence about drug use impact values relates and how can different arguments play in democratic debates about legalization.","PeriodicalId":49136,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phad016","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The legalization of cannabis in Canada instantiates principles of harm-reduction and safe supply. However, in-depth understanding of values at stake and attitudes toward legalization were not part of extensive democratic deliberation. Through a qualitative exploratory study, we undertook 48 semi-structured interviews with three Canadian stakeholder groups to explore opinions and values with respect to the legalization of cannabis: (1) members of the general public, (2) people with lived experience of addiction and (3) clinicians with experience treating patients with addiction. Across all groups, participants tended to be in favor of legalization, but particular opinions rested on their viewpoint as stakeholders. Clinicians considered the way legalization would affect an individual’s health and its potential for increasing rates of addiction on a larger scale. People with lived experience of addiction cited personal autonomy more than other groups and stressed the need to have access to quality information to make truly informed decisions. Alternatively, members of the public considered legalization positive or negative in light of whether one’s addiction affected others. We elaborate on and discuss how scientific evidence about drug use impact values relates and how can different arguments play in democratic debates about legalization.
毒品合法化、民主和公共卫生:加拿大利益攸关方对大麻合法化的意见和价值观
加拿大大麻合法化体现了减少危害和安全供应的原则。然而,深入了解利害攸关的价值观和对合法化的态度并不是广泛民主审议的一部分。通过定性探索性研究,我们对三个加拿大利益相关者群体进行了48次半结构化访谈,以探讨他们对大麻合法化的看法和价值观:(1)普通公众,(2)有成瘾生活经历的人,(3)有治疗成瘾患者经验的临床医生。在所有群体中,参与者倾向于支持合法化,但特定意见取决于他们作为利益相关者的观点。临床医生认为,大麻合法化会影响个人健康,并有可能在更大范围内增加成瘾率。有过成瘾经历的人比其他群体更多地提到了个人自主权,并强调需要获得高质量的信息来做出真正明智的决定。另一方面,公众认为合法化是积极的还是消极的,根据一个人的成瘾是否影响到其他人。我们详细阐述和讨论了关于吸毒影响价值的科学证据是如何关联的,以及不同的论点如何在关于合法化的民主辩论中发挥作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Public Health Ethics
Public Health Ethics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-MEDICAL ETHICS
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
28
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Health Ethics invites submission of papers on any topic that is relevant for ethical reflection about public health practice and theory. Our aim is to publish readable papers of high scientific quality which will stimulate debate and discussion about ethical issues relating to all aspects of public health. Our main criteria for grading manuscripts include originality and potential impact, quality of philosophical analysis, and relevance to debates in public health ethics and practice. Manuscripts are accepted for publication on the understanding that they have been submitted solely to Public Health Ethics and that they have not been previously published either in whole or in part. Authors may not submit papers that are under consideration for publication elsewhere, and, if an author decides to offer a submitted paper to another journal, the paper must be withdrawn from Public Health Ethics before the new submission is made. The editorial office will make every effort to deal with submissions to the journal as quickly as possible. All papers will be acknowledged on receipt by email and will receive preliminary editorial review within 2 weeks. Papers of high interest will be sent out for external review. Authors will normally be notified of acceptance, rejection, or need for revision within 8 weeks of submission. Contributors will be provided with electronic access to their proof via email; corrections should be returned within 48 hours.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信