MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747222858 · doi:10.22037/bhl.v1i2.17885

Criminal Policy of Netherlands and U.S.A on Decriminalization of Soft Drugs

2017· article· en· W2747222858 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seyed Reza Ehsanpour

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth law journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecriminalizationLegalizationMedicineCriminalizationSoft lawCannabisCriminologyPsychiatryLawPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aim: Soft drugs are those drugs are very weak in terms of addiction and the effects are highly treatable. The challenging issue regarding this type of drugs is decriminalization of their use. Criminal policy of some countries such as the Netherlands agrees with the decriminalization and criminal policy of many others such as the United States of America is against it.Materials and Methods: In order to review the reasons and justifications of each of parties for and against soft drug decriminalization, ideas of lawyers and scientific studies in Netherland and the United States have been considered, and criminal poly makers’ ideas will be reviewed.Ethical Considerations: Honesty in the literature and citation analysis and reporting were considered.Findings: To justify soft drug criminalization, two classifications of legal and health reasons and justifications can be cited. Legally, it has been stated that drug issue is a problem related to health and treatment domain, and criminal legal intervention in this area must be considered just as the last weapon. In addition, Penologically, punishing soft drug users is unnecessary, ineffective, without favor and unnecessary. Regarding health, it has been stated that no only using some soft drugs such as cannabis is not the reason for being sick, but also it has an effective role in treating incurable diseases such as multiple sclerosis, AIDS, hepatitis, chronic pain and … .Conclusion: Decriminalization of soft drugs has a theoretical and practical background in countries such as the Netherlands and the United States. Soft drugs like cannabis not only have a lower degree of addictive rate rather than Hard drugs like heroin, but also it has some therapeutic benefits. Legally, decriminalization of soft drugs has root in human rights, penology and criminological justifications.Citation: Ehsanpour SR. Criminal Policy of Netherlands and U.S.A on Decriminalization of Soft Drugs. Bioeth Health Law J. 2017; 1(2):13-22.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0090.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth law journalSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207