The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 94, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 836-842

  Reinarman, Craig ^a   Cohen, Peter D A ^b   Kaal, Hendrien L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANNABIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CANNABIS ADDICTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; DRUG ABUSE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NETHERLANDS; ONSET AGE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 2342433060     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.94.5.836     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Engelsman EL. Dutch policy on the management of drug-related problems. Br J Addiction. 1989;84:211-218.
2. Leuw E, Marshall IH, eds. Between Prohibition and Legalization: The Dutch Experiment in Drug Policy. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Kugler Publications; 1994.
3. Cohen PDA. The case of the two Dutch drug policy commissions: an exercise in harm reduction, 1968-1976. In: Erickson PG, Riley DM, Cheung YW, O'Hare PA, eds. Harm Reduction: A New Direction for Drug Policies and Programs. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press; 1997:17-31.
4. Musto D. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotics Control. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 1973.
5. Bruun K, Pan L, Rexed I. The Gentlemen's Club: International Control of Drugs and Alcohol. Chicago, III: University of Chicago Press; 1975.
6. Bewley-Taylor D. The United States and International Drug Control, 1909-1997. London, England: Continuum; 2001.
7. Federal Bureau of lnvestigation. Uniform Crime Report: Crime in the United States, 2001. Washington, DC: US Dept of Justice; 2002.
8. Murphy DE. California: medicinal marijuana raid. New York Times. September 6, 2002:A20.
9. Office of National Drug Control Policy. An open letter to parents about marijuana. New York Times. September 18, 2002:A23.
10. Office of National Drug Control Policy. My child is not an honor student. New York Times. October 7, 2002:A5.
11. Kandel DB, Yamaguchi K, Chen K. Stages of progression in drug involvement from adolescence to adulthood: further evidence for the gateway theory. J Stud Alcohol. 1992;53:447-457.
12. Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. Cigarettes, Alcohol, and Marijuana: Gateways to Illicit Drugs. New York, NY: Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse; 1995.
13. Hall W, Solowij N, Lemon J. The Health and Psychological Consequences of Cannabis Use. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1994.
14. National Institute on Drug Use (NIDA). Marijuana: What Parents Need to Know. Rockville, Md: NIDA;1995.
15. Swan N. Marijuana antagonist reveals evidence of THC dependence in rats. NIDA Notes. 1995;10:1-2.
16. Office of National Drug Control Policy. Drug Facts: Marijuana. Available at htlp://www.whitehousedrugpolicy. gov. Accessed May 16, 2003.
17. Christie N. Scandinavian experience in legislation and control. National Conference on Legal Issues in Alcoholism and Alcohol Usage, Swampscott, Mass, 17-19 June 1965. Boston, Mass: Law-Medicine Institute, Boston University; 1965.
18. Becker HS. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York, NY: Free Press; 1963.
19. Dickson DT. Bureaucracy and morality: an organizational perspective on a moral crusade. Soc Problems. 1968;16:143-156.
20. Bonnie RJ, Whitebread CH. The Marihuana Conviction: A History of Marihuana Prohibition in the United States. Charlottesville, Va: University of Virginia Press; 1974.
21. Himmelstein JL. The Strange Career of Marihuana: Politics and Ideology of Drug Control in America. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press; 1983.
22. Nadelmann EA. Drug prohibition in the US: costs, consequences, and alternatives. Science. 1989;245:939-947.
23. MacCoun RJ, Reuter P. Interpreting Dutch cannabis policy: reasoning by analogy in the legalization debate. Science. 1997;278:47-52.
24. Bieleman B, Goeree P. Coffee Shops Geteld: Aantallen Verkooppunten van Cannabis in Nederland [Coffee Shops Counted: Numbers of Points of Sale of Cannabis in the Netherlands]. Groningen, the Netherlands: Stichting Intraval; 2000.
25. Sandwijk PJ, Cohen PDA, Musterd S, Langemeijer MPS. Licit and Illicit Drug Use in Amsterdam Vol II. University of Amsterdam, Centre for Drug Research, 1995.
26. Cohen PDA, Sas A. Patterns of Cannabis Use in Amsterdam Among Experienced Users. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: University of Amsterdam, Centre for Drug Research; 1997.
27. Cohen PDA, Kaal H. The Irrelevance of Drug Policy: Patterns and Careers ofExperienced Cannabis Use in the Populations of Amsterdam, San Francisco, and Bremen. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: University of Amsterdam, Centre for Drug Research; 2001.
28. Piazza, T, Cheng, Y. Sampling Methods and Field Results of the San Francisco Drug Use Study. Berkeley, Calif: University of California, Survey Research Center; 1999. Technical Report 44.
29. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Preliminary Estimates From the 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Rockville, Md: US Dept of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies; 1995.
30. MacAndrew C, Edgerton R. Drunken Comportment: A Social Explanation. Chicago, Ill: Aldine; 1969.
31. Alasutari P. Desire and Craving: A Cultural Theory of Alcoholism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 1992.
32. Morningstar P, Chitwood D. The Patterns of Cocaine Use. Rockville, Md: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1983.
33. Crusky WR, Berger LH, Richardson AH. The effects of marijuana decriminalization on drug use patterns. Contempor Drug Problems. 1978;7:491-532.
34. Johnston LD, Bachman JG, O'Malley PM. Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth, 1975-1980. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan, Insttute for Social Research; 1981. Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper 13.
35. Single EW. The impact of marijuana decriminalization. Res Adv Alcohol Drug Problems. 1981;6:405-424.
36. Maloff D. A review of the effects of the decriminalization of marijuana. Contempor Drug Problems. 1981;10:307-322.
37. Becker HS, History, culture, and subjective experience: an exploration of the social bases of drug-induced experiences. J Health Soc Behav. 1967;8:162-176.
38. Maloff D, Becker HS, Fonaroff A, Rodin J. Informal social controls and their influence on substance use. In: Zinberg NE, Harding WM, eds. Control Over Intoxicant Use, Pharmacological, Psychological, and Social Considerations. New York, NY: Human Sciences Press; 1982:53-76.
39. Zinberg NH. Drug, Set, and Setting: The Basis for Controlled Intoxicant Use. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 1984.