Literature DB >> 14670525

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

Douglas B Marlowe1, Amiram Elwork, David S Festinger, A Thomas McLellan.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14670525     DOI: 10.1016/s0740-5472(03)00122-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat        ISSN: 0740-5472


  10 in total

1.  Incorporating a public health approach in drug law: lessons from local expansion of treatment capacity and access under California's Proposition 36.

Authors:  Dorie Klein; Robin E Miller; Amanda Noble; Richard Speiglman
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.911

2.  Matching Judicial Supervision to Clients' Risk Status in Drug Court.

Authors:  Douglas B Marlowe; David S Festinger; Patricia A Lee; Karen L Dugosh; Kathleen M Benasutti
Journal:  Crime Delinq       Date:  2006

3.  Outcomes in a Sample of Opiod-Dependent Clients Treated Under California's Proposition 36.

Authors:  Jongserl Chun; Joseph R Guydish; James L Sorensen; Nancy A Haug; Siara Andrews; Larry Nelson
Journal:  J Drug Issues       Date:  2007-07-01

4.  Treatment entry barriers among California's Proposition 36 offenders.

Authors:  Elizabeth Evans; Libo Li; Yih-Ing Hser
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2008-06-02

5.  Comparative Effectiveness of California's Proposition 36 and Drug Court Programs Before and After Propensity Score Matching.

Authors:  Elizabeth Evans; Libo Li; Darren Urada; M Douglas Anglin
Journal:  Crime Delinq       Date:  2014-09

6.  A Randomized Trial of Probation Case Management for Drug-Involved Women Offenders.

Authors:  Joseph Guydish; Monica Chan; Alan Bostrom; Martha Jessup; Thomas Davis; Cheryl Marsh
Journal:  Crime Delinq       Date:  2011-03

7.  Interventions for female drug-using offenders.

Authors:  Amanda E Perry; Marrissa Martyn-St James; Lucy Burns; Catherine Hewitt; Julie M Glanville; Anne Aboaja; Pratish Thakkar; Keshava Murthy Santosh Kumar; Caroline Pearson; Kath Wright
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-12-13

Review 8.  Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.

Authors:  Amanda E Perry; Marrissa Martyn-St James; Lucy Burns; Catherine Hewitt; Julie M Glanville; Anne Aboaja; Pratish Thakkar; Keshava Murthy Santosh Kumar; Caroline Pearson; Kath Wright; Shilpi Swami
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-10-07

9.  Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems: a systematic review and economic appraisal.

Authors:  Rebecca Woodhouse; Matthew Neilson; Marrissa Martyn-St James; Julie Glanville; Catherine Hewitt; Amanda E Perry
Journal:  Health Justice       Date:  2016-09-13

Review 10.  Are Non-Pharmacological Interventions Effective in Reducing Drug Use and Criminality? A Systematic and Meta-Analytical Review with an Economic Appraisal of These Interventions.

Authors:  Amanda E Perry; Rebecca Woodhouse; Matthew Neilson; Marrissa Martyn St James; Julie Glanville; Catherine Hewitt; Dominic Trépel
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 3.390

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.