美國(guó)大麻政策研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-12-11 08:49
【摘要】：隨著社會(huì)史研究的勃興與國(guó)內(nèi)毒品問(wèn)題的日趨嚴(yán)重,綜合地運(yùn)用歷史學(xué)、政治學(xué)、法學(xué)、醫(yī)學(xué)、社會(huì)學(xué)的方法研究美國(guó)毒品問(wèn)題和政策顯得尤為重要。論文選取美國(guó)大麻政策為個(gè)案,將其置于國(guó)家與社會(huì)、憲政機(jī)制、國(guó)際視域和美國(guó)毒品政策的整體變遷四個(gè)層面給予多面相的考察,歷史地“深描”政策的起源、演進(jìn)和特征。 美國(guó)大麻經(jīng)歷了3個(gè)多世紀(jì)的合法化時(shí)代之后,20世紀(jì)初,美國(guó)西南部地區(qū)出于對(duì)大麻的恐懼,率先出臺(tái)了地方性的管制大麻的立法,進(jìn)而鼓動(dòng)聯(lián)邦政府采取相應(yīng)的行動(dòng)。大麻的形象日漸被“妖魔化”,大麻問(wèn)題亦山區(qū)域性問(wèn)題上升為“全國(guó)性的威脅”。出于應(yīng)對(duì)危機(jī)的需要,以聯(lián)邦麻醉品局為首的聯(lián)邦機(jī)構(gòu)敦促?lài)?guó)會(huì)頒布了《1937年大麻稅法》,標(biāo)志著大麻管制“聯(lián)邦化”的形成。第二次世界大戰(zhàn)時(shí)期,出于“大麻為了勝利”的考慮,聯(lián)邦政府動(dòng)員公眾種植大麻,生產(chǎn)纖維,然而這種鼓勵(lì)政策是與聯(lián)邦麻醉品局嚴(yán)密的管理政策緊密結(jié)合的。隨著戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的結(jié)束,聯(lián)邦麻醉品局和其同盟者最終把工業(yè)大麻和醫(yī)用大麻“去合法化”。聯(lián)邦麻醉品局的管制權(quán)限得到了進(jìn)一步的擴(kuò)張,大麻管制升級(jí)為“完全禁止”。戰(zhàn)后初期,聯(lián)邦麻醉品局和其同盟者變換策略,將毒品政策、冷戰(zhàn)與本土主義相結(jié)合,大麻政策隨著麻醉品管制的強(qiáng)化而強(qiáng)化,滋生出大麻政策的“極端化”。 然而,物極必反。60年代初,“安斯林格時(shí)代”的終結(jié)為政策的調(diào)整提供了良機(jī),而大麻使用者的日漸“資產(chǎn)階級(jí)化”更為政策的弱化添加了催化劑,改革大麻政策勢(shì)在必行。而福特政府提出的“去重視”政策和卡特政府公開(kāi)宣稱(chēng)的“去刑罰化”政策,則進(jìn)一步開(kāi)創(chuàng)了大麻政策史上的“容忍年代”�？墒�,政策的弱化并不是解決大麻問(wèn)題的良方,反而令問(wèn)題進(jìn)一步惡化,要求強(qiáng)化管制的家長(zhǎng)運(yùn)動(dòng)隨之興起,加之聯(lián)邦權(quán)力的更迭,這些力量的復(fù)合把美國(guó)社會(huì)帶入了一個(gè)新保守時(shí)期,大麻政策由弱化轉(zhuǎn)向強(qiáng)化,是為“新懲治時(shí)代”。 研究發(fā)現(xiàn),美國(guó)大麻政策的變遷與管制理念的轉(zhuǎn)換是諸多因素“合力”的作用,既包括國(guó)家與社會(huì)的互動(dòng)、憲政機(jī)制內(nèi)行為體的相互博弈與妥協(xié),還包括國(guó)內(nèi)與國(guó)際政策的交互作用。
[Abstract]:With the development of the study of social history and the increasingly serious domestic drug problem, it is very important to study the drug problem and policy in the United States by using the methods of history, politics, law, medicine and sociology. This paper selects American cannabis policy as a case study, puts it at four levels of state and society, constitutional mechanism, international perspective and the overall change of American drug policy to give a multi-faceted investigation, and describes the origin, evolution and characteristics of the policy in history. After more than three centuries of legalization, in the early 20th century, the southwestern part of the United States, out of fear of cannabis, first introduced local legislation to regulate cannabis, and then encouraged the federal government to take corresponding action. The image of cannabis has been demonized, and the problem of cannabis has become a national threat. In response to the crisis, federal agencies led by the Federal Narcotics Office urged Congress to enact the 1937 marijuana tax Act, marking the formation of "federalization" of cannabis control. During World War II, the federal government mobilized the public to grow cannabis and produce fiber for the sake of "cannabis for victory," but this incentive policy was closely linked to the Federal Narcotics Office's tight regulatory policy. With the end of the war, the Federal Narcotics Office and its allies eventually decriminalized industrial and medical marijuana. The authority of the Federal Narcotics Office has been further expanded, and cannabis control has been upgraded to a "total ban." In the early postwar period, the Federal Narcotics Bureau and its allies changed tactics, combining drug policy, cold war and nativism. With the intensification of drug control, cannabis policy intensified and led to the "extreme" of cannabis policy. However, in the early 1960s, the end of the "An-Slinger era" provided a good opportunity for the policy adjustment, and the increasing "bourgeoisie" of cannabis users added a catalyst to the weakening of policy, so it is imperative to reform the cannabis policy. The policy of "paying attention to" put forward by Ford government and the policy of "decriminalization" declared publicly by Carter administration further opened up the "era of tolerance" in the history of cannabis policy. However, the weakening of policy is not a good solution to the problem of cannabis, but to make the problem worse, and the emergence of a movement of parents who want to strengthen regulation, coupled with the change of federal power. The combination of these forces brought American society into a new conservative period, and the cannabis policy changed from weakening to strengthening for the "new punishment era". It is found that the change of American cannabis policy and the transformation of the concept of regulation are the functions of many factors, including the interaction between the state and society, the mutual game and compromise among the actors in the constitutional mechanism. It also includes the interaction of domestic and international policies.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2005
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：K712.5
本文編號(hào)：2372258
[Abstract]:With the development of the study of social history and the increasingly serious domestic drug problem, it is very important to study the drug problem and policy in the United States by using the methods of history, politics, law, medicine and sociology. This paper selects American cannabis policy as a case study, puts it at four levels of state and society, constitutional mechanism, international perspective and the overall change of American drug policy to give a multi-faceted investigation, and describes the origin, evolution and characteristics of the policy in history. After more than three centuries of legalization, in the early 20th century, the southwestern part of the United States, out of fear of cannabis, first introduced local legislation to regulate cannabis, and then encouraged the federal government to take corresponding action. The image of cannabis has been demonized, and the problem of cannabis has become a national threat. In response to the crisis, federal agencies led by the Federal Narcotics Office urged Congress to enact the 1937 marijuana tax Act, marking the formation of "federalization" of cannabis control. During World War II, the federal government mobilized the public to grow cannabis and produce fiber for the sake of "cannabis for victory," but this incentive policy was closely linked to the Federal Narcotics Office's tight regulatory policy. With the end of the war, the Federal Narcotics Office and its allies eventually decriminalized industrial and medical marijuana. The authority of the Federal Narcotics Office has been further expanded, and cannabis control has been upgraded to a "total ban." In the early postwar period, the Federal Narcotics Bureau and its allies changed tactics, combining drug policy, cold war and nativism. With the intensification of drug control, cannabis policy intensified and led to the "extreme" of cannabis policy. However, in the early 1960s, the end of the "An-Slinger era" provided a good opportunity for the policy adjustment, and the increasing "bourgeoisie" of cannabis users added a catalyst to the weakening of policy, so it is imperative to reform the cannabis policy. The policy of "paying attention to" put forward by Ford government and the policy of "decriminalization" declared publicly by Carter administration further opened up the "era of tolerance" in the history of cannabis policy. However, the weakening of policy is not a good solution to the problem of cannabis, but to make the problem worse, and the emergence of a movement of parents who want to strengthen regulation, coupled with the change of federal power. The combination of these forces brought American society into a new conservative period, and the cannabis policy changed from weakening to strengthening for the "new punishment era". It is found that the change of American cannabis policy and the transformation of the concept of regulation are the functions of many factors, including the interaction between the state and society, the mutual game and compromise among the actors in the constitutional mechanism. It also includes the interaction of domestic and international policies.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2005
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：K712.5
【引證文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條
1 陳新錦;早期美國(guó)毒品控制模式研究[D];福建師范大學(xué);2011年
2 李世清;毒品犯罪的刑罰問(wèn)題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2007年
，本文編號(hào)：2372258
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/shekelunwen/xifanglishiwenhua/2372258.html
最近更新
教材專(zhuān)著
