Home Business & Economics Do Citizens Know Whether Their State Has Decriminalized Marijuana? Assessing the Perceptual Component of Deterrence Theory
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Do Citizens Know Whether Their State Has Decriminalized Marijuana? Assessing the Perceptual Component of Deterrence Theory

  • Robert MacCoun , Rosalie Liccardo Pacula , Jamie Chriqui , Katherine Harris and Peter Reuter
Published/Copyright: June 17, 2009
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Deterrence theory proposes that legal compliance is influenced by the anticipated risk of legal sanctions. This implies that changes in law will produce corresponding changes in behavior, but the marijuana decriminalization literature finds only fragmentary support for this prediction. But few studies have directly assessed the accuracy of citizens’ perceptions of legal sanctions. The heterogeneity in state statutory penalties for marijuana possession across the United States provides an opportunity to examine this issue. Using national survey data, we find that the percentages who believe they could be jailed for marijuana possession are quite similar in both states that have removed those penalties and those that have not. Our results help to clarify why statistical studies have found inconsistent support for an effect of decriminalization on marijuana possession.

Published Online: 2009-6-17

©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Article
  2. Macroeconomic Instability and Corporate Failure: The Role of the Legal System
  3. Prevention of Crime and the Optimal Standard of Proof in Criminal Law
  4. Does a Rise in Maximal Fines Increase or Decrease the Optimal Level of Deterrence?
  5. Benchmarks and Economic Analysis
  6. Pass a Law, Any Law, Fast! State Legislative Responses to the Kelo Backlash
  7. The Problem of Shared Social Cost
  8. A Cost of Tax Planning
  9. Never Two Without Three: Commons, Anticommons and Semicommons
  10. Unavoidable Accident
  11. Protecting Private Property with Constitutional Judicial Review: A Social Welfare Approach
  12. Measuring Criminal Spillovers: Evidence from Three Strikes
  13. Corruption on the Court: The Causes and Social Consequences of Point-Shaving in NCAA Basketball
  14. Valuation of Quality of Life Losses Associated with Nonfatal Injury: Insights from Jury Verdict Data
  15. Belief in a Just World, Blaming the Victim, and Hate Crime Statutes
  16. Do Citizens Know Whether Their State Has Decriminalized Marijuana? Assessing the Perceptual Component of Deterrence Theory
  17. The Structure of Incremental Liability Rules
  18. Firms' Motivations for Environmental Overcompliance
  19. Contingent Fees, Signaling and Settlement Authority
  20. Rethinking the Economic Model of Deterrence: How Insights from Empirical Social Science Could Affect Policies Towards Crime and Punishment
  21. Crime, Business Conduct and Investment Decisions: Enterprise Survey Evidence from 34 Countries in Europe and Asia
  22. Additive and Non-Additive Risk Factors in Multiple Causation
  23. The Devil Made Me Do It: The Corporate Purchase of Insurance
  24. Factors Affecting the Length of Time a Jury Deliberates: Case Characteristics and Jury Composition
  25. Hybrid Licensing of Product Innovations
  26. The Effect of Endogenous Right-to-Work Laws on Business and Economic Conditions in the United States: A Multivariate Approach
  27. The Choice in the Lawmaking Process: Legal Transplants vs. Indigenous Law
  28. Building Encroachments
  29. Reporter's Privilege and Incentives to Leak
  30. Decision Analysis on Whether to Accept a Remittitur
  31. Deterrence in Rank-Order Tournaments
  32. Self-Defeating Subsidiarity
  33. Do Broader Eminent Domain Powers Increase Government Size?
Downloaded on 13.3.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.2202/1555-5879.1227/html
Scroll to top button