Postmaterialism and referenda voting to legalize marijuana

Frendreis, John P.; Tatalovich, Raymond

doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.11.003

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Latin America, the traditional framing has been crime, security, and drug trafficking (CICAD [Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission], 2019; Nieto & Morini, 2014), and drug legalization has been posited as a solution to these problems. This is in sharp contrast with the U.S. case, where advocates for drug legalization have framed the issue around individual liberties and somewhat post-materialistic opinions, as has been corroborated by Frendreis and Tatalovich (2020: 5–6) using voting data from referenda. In the case of Latin America, however, persons more concerned with crime, security, and drug trafficking will be more supportive of drug legalization (Cruz et al, 2016: 3).…”

Section: Attitudes Toward Policymentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Currently, 32 U.S. states have authorized medical marijuana, while 10 states have further legalized recreational use. Among these, 17 medical marijuana laws (53%) and nine recreational marijuana laws (90%) have been enacted by popular vote (Frendreis & Tatalovich, 2020: 1). The flip-side of this coin is that policy on other drugs has not changed (Reuter, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Drug Legalization, Elite Support, and Government Effectiveness in Latin America

Bohigues

Fernández‐i‐Marín

2021

Journal of Drug Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Latin America, the legalization of drugs—where it occurred—has been driven mainly by elites, although much attention has been placed on public opinion. Considering that efforts toward legalization have been top-down, analysis should concentrate on opinions of the governing elites. To undertake such an analysis, we draw on data from surveys conducted in 18 Latin American parliaments (2012–2018), and we examine elite perspectives on the legalization of all drugs. Results from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic analysis show that in countries where the government is less effective, and where public health problems persist, legislators are less likely to support legalization. We argue that this is due to a lack of trust by MPs in legalization as a solution to trafficking. Wherever those concerned with drug trafficking see the current government as problematic, they will be less likely to support so challenging and complex a policy as drug legalization.

show abstract

Section: Attitudes Toward Policymentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drug Legalization, Elite Support, and Government Effectiveness in Latin America

Bohigues

Fernández‐i‐Marín

2021

Journal of Drug Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the bonds between social group membership and politics have progressively weakened, issues have filled the gap and become more prominent in shaping political behaviour. Moreover, in terms of the issues that matter, there has been a pronounced move away from economic issues, such as taxation and employment, and towards non‐economic issues, such as human rights, euthanasia and drug policy [45].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Social Attitudes and Pill Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of public opinion and politics on attitudes towards pill testing: Results from the 2019 Australian Election Study

McAllister

Makkai

2020

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction and Aims Following several deaths due to drug overdoses at music festivals in Australia, pill testing (or drug checking) has been proposed as a means of reducing the risk to young people. However, pill testing is a politically controversial policy in Australia. This paper examines the political dimension to the debate, its relationship with other social issues and how it divides party supporters. Design and Methods The data come from the 2019 Australian Election Study survey—a large (n = 2179), nationally weighted representative probability survey conducted immediately after the federal election. Bivariate and multivariate analyses are used to identify the social groups, attitudes and vote preferences most associated with public views about pill testing. Results Almost two‐thirds of the public support pill testing at music festivals. The young and those who do not attend church are most likely to express support. Supporters of other liberal social opinions, such as the legalisation of marijuana, are also strongly supportive of pill testing. Those who vote for one of the two main conservative parties are less likely to support pill testing. Discussion and Conclusions While a majority of the public support pill testing, beyond the Australian Capital Territory this has not translated into policy in other jurisdictions. The results show that there is a high level of political polarisation surrounding opinions among both voters and political elites. This issue must be addressed if the policy is to be advanced as part of an overall harm reduction approach to drug use.

show abstract

“…A number of policy issues have been identified by researchers as morality policy, whether it be alcohol (Gusfield, 1986 [1963]; Robert, 2020), gambling (Ferraiolo, 2013), gun control (Whitehead et al, 2018), abortion (Saurette & Gordon, 2013), capital punishment (Stolz, 1983), or sexual preferences (Mucciaroni, 2011). Cannabis legalization and policy is thought to be part of this subcategory of policy (Ferraiolo, 2014; Frendreis & Tatalovich, 2020; Schwartz & Tatalovich, 2018, 2019). Debates around cannabis usually involve conceptions of right and wrong and often opinions about the role of states in regulating judgments and behaviors (Abalo, 2019; Brekken & Fenley, 2021; Routh, 2017; Weinstock, 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From right or wrong to true or false: Moral and epistemic framing in debates over cannabis policy reformulation

Lévesque

2022

Politics & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cannabis legalization is often referred to as a moral issue.However, given the limits of morality policy as a distinct policy subcategory and the contemporary dominance of technocratic politics, one could wonder if it is really framed as such within political institutions. In this article, I ask how moral frames compete and interact with other frames in debates over morality policy. Working with a moral/epistemic dichotomy, I conduct framing analysis on parliamentary debates in Quebec, Ontario, and Maine, which have recently reformulated their cannabis policy. Although trends in framing vary across cases, moral frames are consistently less salient than epistemic frames. Furthermore, a pattern of complementary framing is found, whereby actors combine moral and epistemic frames. Overall, this study shows that cannabis policy is often framed as nonmoral, and that its moral component is nonexclusive. I conclude by discussing some implications of these findings in the post-legalization landscape.

show abstract

Postmaterialism and referenda voting to legalize marijuana

Cited by 5 publications

References 46 publications

Drug Legalization, Elite Support, and Government Effectiveness in Latin America

Drug Legalization, Elite Support, and Government Effectiveness in Latin America

The effect of public opinion and politics on attitudes towards pill testing: Results from the 2019 Australian Election Study

From right or wrong to true or false: Moral and epistemic framing in debates over cannabis policy reformulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About