La legalización del cannabis: un experimento americano de consecuencias globales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolCasi todos los paises del mundo han firmado los tratados internacionales que prohiben la produccion, distribucion y posesion de cannabis. No obstante, algunos han ido despenalizado el uso de estas drogas, llegando incluso a desarrollar formas de legalizacion atenuada. El caso mas conocido es el de Holanda, que implemento una legalizacion de facto desde 1976. Sin embargo, estas tendencias se han mantenido al margen del sistema internacional prohibitivo, que ha liderado Estados Unidos desde sus inicios. Sorprendentemente, en la ultima decada algunos paises americanos han desarrollado importantes procesos para despenalizar el uso y legalizar la produccion y venta de marihuana y sus derivados. Estos cambios legales se restringieron inicialmente a los usos terapeuticos y paliativos, pero recientemente han involucrado tambien el uso libre o “recreativo”. En este articulo revisamos brevemente los procesos de legalizacion que estan teniendo lugar en Uruguay, Canada y Estados Unidos, asi como los principales factores que pueden haberlos facilitado. Luego repasamos los efectos ya perceptibles de estos cambios en lo que concierne a los niveles y patrones de consumo, la percepcion publica de los riesgos y la transformacion de los productos cannabicos y sus formas de administracion. Tambien revisamos los datos disponibles sobre el impacto de estos procesos en el uso de otras drogas, los accidentes de trafico, las intoxicaciones y la delincuencia. Finalmente nos planteamos como estos experimentos americanos podrian afectar al estatus legal y las politicas dominantes en Europa con respecto a las drogas ilegales mas demandadas EnglishMost countries have signed the international treaties banning the production, distribution, and possession of cannabis. Several countries have nevertheless decriminalized the use of these drugs, and even implemented some forms of attenuated or “de facto” legalization, the best-known case being found in the Netherlands since 1976. These trends nonetheless remained marginal to the international prohibitive system, which was headed by the U.S. since its inception. Surprisingly, in the last decade, some American countries have implemented major processes decriminalizing the use and legalizing the production and sale of marijuana and its derivatives. These legal changes were initially restricted to therapeutic and palliative uses, but recently they have involved free or “recreational” use as well. In this paper, we briefly review the legalization processes that are taking place in Uruguay, Canada, and the United States, as well as the main factors that may have facilitated them. Then we review the main aspects of the legalization processes as well as the initial perceptible effects of these changes on consumption levels and patterns, on the public perception of risks, and on the transformation of cannabis products, and their forms of administration. We also appraise the data available on the effect of these processes on the use of other psychoactive drugs, traffic accidents, intoxications and levels of criminality. We conclude by questioning how these American experiments could affect the legal status and the dominant policies in Europe concerning the most widely-demanded of illegal drugs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".