Suppr超能文献

通过全民公投制定毒品政策:这也将成为过去。

Drug policy by popular referendum: This, too, shall pass.

作者信息

Marlowe Douglas B, Elwork Amiram, Festinger David S, McLellan A Thomas

机构信息

Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, 600 Public Ledger Bldg., 150 S. Independence Mall West, 19106-3475, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

出版信息

J Subst Abuse Treat. 2003 Oct;25(3):213-21. doi: 10.1016/s0740-5472(03)00122-3.

Abstract

In formulating policies for drug offenders, lawmakers must decide concrete questions about such matters as legal jurisdiction, burdens of proof, and reporting of progress information. Although these decisions may seem incidental to treatment and beyond the purview of science, they are based on empirically testable assumptions about the behavior of drug abusers and have a direct bearing on the efficacy of drug treatment interventions. Unfortunately, these assumptions have generally not been subjected to empirical inquiry. As a result, drug policy continues to be crafted by non-scientific advocates and subjected to popular vote by an insufficiently informed public. This article identifies several empirically answerable questions that underlie critical decision points in criminal statutes for drug offenders, reviews the available research evidence relevant to these questions, and encourages drug abuse researchers to conduct studies aimed squarely at informing these policy-relevant decisions.

摘要

在制定针对吸毒罪犯的政策时,立法者必须就诸如法律管辖权、举证责任以及进展信息报告等事项做出具体决策。尽管这些决策看似与治疗无关且超出了科学范畴,但它们基于对吸毒者行为的可实证检验的假设,并且对药物治疗干预措施的效果有着直接影响。不幸的是,这些假设通常并未经过实证探究。结果,毒品政策继续由非科学倡导者制定,并由信息不足的公众进行投票表决。本文确定了几个在针对吸毒罪犯的刑事法规关键决策点背后可通过实证回答的问题,回顾了与这些问题相关的现有研究证据,并鼓励药物滥用研究人员开展直接旨在为这些与政策相关的决策提供信息的研究。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验