-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
Showing
5 changed files
with
1,343 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ | ||
| @article{Maier2017, | ||
| abstract = {Through 2014 Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data for all 50 U.S. states, this research explores the relationship between decriminalization and recreational and medical marijuana legalization and crime rates and arrests for drug abuse violations. When comparing states that changed their marijuana laws between 2010 and 2014 to states without any change, results indicate that any decrease in crime rate was not dependent upon changes in laws. Results indicate that while the trend is for property and violent crime rates to be higher in states where marijuana remains illegal, the difference is not statistically significant. When comparing states where marijuana has been decriminalized and states where medical marijuana has been legalized to states where it has not, the trend is that property and violent crime rates appear to be lower in both decriminalized and medically legalized states, but the difference is not statistically significant. Analysis also reveals that there are no significant differences in 2014 crime rates based on the degree to which the state has legalized/decriminalized marijuana (completely illegal, decriminalized or medically legal, decriminalized and medically legal). Even when controlling for factors that may lead to crime, the legal status of marijuana in states failed to significantly predict property or violent crime rates in 2014. States may turn to this research when considering their marijuana laws.}, | ||
| author = {Maier, Shana L. and Mannes, Suzanne and Koppenhofer, Emily L.}, | ||
| doi = {10.1177/0091450917708790}, | ||
| file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Usuario/Documents/Doc espa{\~{n}}ol/Marihuana{\_}law/bibliografia/maier2017.pdf:pdf}, | ||
| issn = {21631808}, | ||
| journal = {Contemporary Drug Problems}, | ||
| keywords = {crime rates,drug policy,marijuana,marijuana legalization}, | ||
| number = {2}, | ||
| pages = {125--146}, | ||
| title = {{The Implications of Marijuana Decriminalization and Legalization on Crime in the United States}}, | ||
| volume = {44}, | ||
| year = {2017} | ||
| } | ||
| @article{Morris2014, | ||
| abstract = {BACKGROUND: Debate has surrounded the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes for decades. Some have argued medical marijuana legalization (MML) poses a threat to public health and safety, perhaps also affecting crime rates. In recent years, some U.S. states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes, reigniting political and public interest in the impact of marijuana legalization on a range of outcomes.$\backslash$n$\backslash$nMETHODS: Relying on U.S. state panel data, we analyzed the association between state MML and state crime rates for all Part I offenses collected by the FBI.$\backslash$n$\backslash$nFINDINGS: Results did not indicate a crime exacerbating effect of MML on any of the Part I offenses. Alternatively, state MML may be correlated with a reduction in homicide and assault rates, net of other covariates.$\backslash$n$\backslash$nCONCLUSIONS: These findings run counter to arguments suggesting the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes poses a danger to public health in terms of exposure to violent crime and property crimes.}, | ||
| author = {Morris, Robert G. and TenEyck, Michael and Barnes, J. C. and Kovandzic, Tomislav V.}, | ||
| doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0092816}, | ||
| file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Usuario/Documents/Doc espa{\~{n}}ol/Marihuana{\_}law/bibliografia/morris2014.pdf:pdf}, | ||
| issn = {19326203}, | ||
| journal = {PLoS ONE}, | ||
| number = {3}, | ||
| title = {{The effect of medical marijuana laws on crime: Evidence from state panel data, 1990-2006}}, | ||
| volume = {9}, | ||
| year = {2014} | ||
| } | ||
| @article{Scribner1999, | ||
| abstract = {OBJECTIVE To determine the geographic relation between homicide rate and two competing measures of exposure to alcohol outlets, alcohol outlets per square mile and alcohol outlets per person. METHOD Homicides occurring in 1994 and 1995 and on-sale and off-sale alcohol outlets with active 1995 licenses were geocoded by address for aggregation at the census tract level. Ecologic analysis of the 155 urban residential census tracts in New Orleans was conducted with controls for potential sociodemographic confounders ({\%} black, {\%} adults unemployed, {\%} unmarried households, and ratio males 15-24/males 35-44). RESULTS After logarithmic transformation of all study variables, sociodemographic confounders alone accounted for 58{\%} (R2 = .58) of the variance of homicide rates. Adding off-sale alcohol outlet density to the models, measured (beta +/- SE) either as outlets per square mile (beta = .211 +/- .062) or outlets per person (beta = .244 +/- .063), yielded strong geographic relations with homicide and increased the amount of variance explained (R2 = .62). A 10{\%} higher off-sale outlet density accounted for a 2.4{\%} higher homicide rate. CONCLUSIONS Both off-sale alcohol outlets per square mile and off-sale outlets per person demonstrate strong geographic associations with homicide rates among urban residential census tracts in New Orleans. These findings suggest that communities faced with high rates of assaultive violence might consider policy interventions that address alcohol outlet related factors.}, | ||
| author = {Scribner, R and Cohen, D and Kaplan, S and Allen, S H}, | ||
| issn = {0096-882X}, | ||
| journal = {Journal of studies on alcohol}, | ||
| month = {may}, | ||
| number = {3}, | ||
| pages = {310--6}, | ||
| pmid = {10371257}, | ||
| title = {{Alcohol availability and homicide in New Orleans: conceptual considerations for small area analysis of the effect of alcohol outlet density.}}, | ||
| url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10371257}, | ||
| volume = {60}, | ||
| year = {1999} | ||
| } | ||
| @article{Pedersen2010, | ||
| abstract = {AIM To examine the association between cannabis use during adolescence and young adulthood, and subsequent criminal charges. METHODS Data were obtained from the Young in Norway Longitudinal Study. A population-based sample (n = 1353) was followed from 13 to 27 years of age. Data were gathered on cannabis use, alcohol consumption and alcohol problems, and use of other illegal substances such as amphetamines, cocaine and opiates. In addition, extensive information on socio-demographic, family and personal factors was collected. This data set was linked to individual-level information from official Norwegian crime statistics. FINDINGS We found robust associations between cannabis use and later registered criminal charges, both in adolescence and in young adulthood. These associations were adjusted for a range of confounding factors, such as family socio-economic background, parental support and monitoring, educational achievement and career, previous criminal charges, conduct problems and history of cohabitation and marriage. In separate models, we controlled for alcohol measures and for use of other illegal substances. After adjustment, we still found strong associations between cannabis use and later criminal charges. However, when eliminating all types of drug-specific charges from our models, we no longer observed any significant association with cannabis use. CONCLUSIONS The study suggests that cannabis use in adolescence and early adulthood may be associated with subsequent involvement in criminal activity. However, the bulk of this involvement seems to be related to various types of drug-specific crime. Thus, the association seems to rest on the fact that use, possession and distribution of drugs such as cannabis is illegal. The study strengthens concerns about the laws relating to the use, possession and distribution of cannabis.}, | ||
| author = {Pedersen, Willy and Skardhamar, Torbj{\~{A}}¸rn}, | ||
| doi = {10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02719.x}, | ||
| issn = {09652140}, | ||
| journal = {Addiction}, | ||
| month = {jan}, | ||
| number = {1}, | ||
| pages = {109--118}, | ||
| pmid = {19839964}, | ||
| title = {{Cannabis and crime: findings from a longitudinal study}}, | ||
| url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19839964 http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02719.x}, | ||
| volume = {105}, | ||
| year = {2010} | ||
| } | ||
| @article{Morris2018, | ||
| author = {Morris, Julian}, | ||
| file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Usuario/Documents/Doc espa{\~{n}}ol/Marihuana{\_}law/bibliografia/does-legalizing-marijuana-reduce-crime.pdf:pdf}, | ||
| keywords = {marijuana, cannabis, legalization, decriminalizati}, | ||
| number = {September}, | ||
| title = {{Does Legalizing Marijuana Reduce Crime?}}, | ||
| url = {https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/does-legalizing-marijuana-reduce-crime.pdf}, | ||
| year = {2018} | ||
| } | ||
| @misc{NORML, | ||
| author = {NORML}, | ||
| title = {{United States}}, | ||
| url = {https://norml.org/states}, | ||
| urldate = {2019-07-06} | ||
| } | ||
| @article{Caulkins2016, | ||
| abstract = {BACKGROUND AND AIMS In 2014 the legislature of Vermont, USA passed a law requiring the Secretary of Administration to report on the consequences of legalizing marijuana. The RAND Corporation was commissioned to write that report. This paper summarizes insights from that analysis that are germane to other jurisdictions. METHOD Translation of key findings from the RAND Corporation report to the broader policy debate. RESULTS Marijuana legalization encompasses a wide range of possible regimes, distinguished along at least four dimensions: which organizations are allowed to produce and supply the drug, the regulations under which they operate, the nature of the products that can be distributed and taxes and prices. Vermont's decriminalization had already cut its costs of enforcing marijuana prohibition against adults to about {\$}1 per resident per year. That is probably less than the cost of regulating a legal market. Revenues from taxing residents' purchases after legalization could be many times that amount, so the main fiscal cost of prohibition after decriminalization relative to outright legalization may be foregone tax revenues, not enforcement costs. Approximately 40 times as many users live within 200 miles of Vermont's borders as live within the state; drug tourism and associated tax revenues will be important considerations, as will be the response of other states. Indeed, if another state legalized with lower taxes, that could undermine the ability to collect taxes on even Vermont residents' purchases. CONCLUSIONS Analysis of possible outcomes if Vermont, USA, legalized marijuana reveal that choices about how, and not just whether, to legalize a drug can have profound consequences for the effects on health and social wellbeing, and the choices of one jurisdiction can affect the options and incentives available to other jurisdictions.}, | ||
| author = {Caulkins, Jonathan P. and Kilmer, Beau}, | ||
| doi = {10.1111/add.13289}, | ||
| issn = {09652140}, | ||
| journal = {Addiction}, | ||
| keywords = {Cannabis,decriminalization,drug policy,legalization,markets,policy analysis}, | ||
| month = {dec}, | ||
| number = {12}, | ||
| pages = {2082--2089}, | ||
| pmid = {28075542}, | ||
| title = {{Considering marijuana legalization carefully: insights for other jurisdictions from analysis for Vermont}}, | ||
| url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28075542 http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/add.13289}, | ||
| volume = {111}, | ||
| year = {2016} | ||
| } | ||
| @misc{PewResearchCenter2015, | ||
| author = {{Pew Research Center}}, | ||
| pages = {2}, | ||
| title = {{Why Americans Support or Oppose Legalizing Marijuana}}, | ||
| url = {https://www.people-press.org/2015/04/14/in-debate-over-legalizing-marijuana-disagreement-over-drugs-dangers/}, | ||
| urldate = {2019-07-05}, | ||
| year = {2015} | ||
| } | ||
| @article{Eddy2005, | ||
| abstract = {This report discusses the issue facing Congress on whether to continue to support the executive branch's prosecution of medical marijuana patients and their providers, in accordance with marijuana's status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, or whether to relax federal marijuana prohibition enough to permit the medical use of botanical cannabis products by seriously ill persons, especially in states that have created medical marijuana programs under state law.}, | ||
| author = {Eddy, Mark}, | ||
| file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/Usuario/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Eddy - 2005 - Medical Marijuana Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies.pdf:pdf}, | ||
| keywords = {Drug abuse,Health aspects,Health policy,Marijuana,Medicine,State and local government,State laws}, | ||
| month = {dec}, | ||
| publisher = {Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.}, | ||
| title = {{Medical Marijuana: Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies}}, | ||
| url = {https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8244/}, | ||
| year = {2005} | ||
| } | ||
| @misc{CNN, | ||
| author = {CNN}, | ||
| title = {{Las 10 ciudades m{\'{a}}s peligrosas de EE.UU.}}, | ||
| url = {https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2014/02/04/las-10-ciudades-mas-peligrosas-de-ee-uu/}, | ||
| urldate = {2019-07-10} | ||
| } |
Oops, something went wrong.