Search results

Where, When and With Whom: Cannabis Use, Settings and Self-Regulation Rules

This article examines to what extent and how cannabis users in different countries, with different cannabis legislation and policies practice normalization and self-regulation of cannabis use in everyday life. Data were collected in a survey among a convenience sample of 1,225 last-year cannabis users aged 18–40 from seven European countries, with cannabis policies ranging from relatively liberal to more punitive. Participants were recruited in or in the vicinity of Dutch coffeeshops. We assessed whether cannabis users experience and interpret formal control and informal social norms differently across countries with different cannabis policies. The findings suggest that many cannabis users set boundaries to control their use. Irrespective of national cannabis policy, using cannabis in private settings and setting risk avoidance rules were equally predominant in all countries. This illustrates that many cannabis users are concerned with responsible use, demonstrating the importance that they attach to discretion. Overall, self-regulation was highest in the most liberal country (the Netherlands). This indicates that liberalization does not automatically lead to chaotic or otherwise problematic use as critics of the policy have predicted, as the diminishing of formal control (law enforcement) is accompanied by increased importance of informal norms and stronger self-regulation. In understanding risk-management, societal tolerance of cannabis use seems more important than cross-national differences in cannabis policy. The setting of cannabis use and self-regulation rules were strongly associated with frequency of use. Daily users were less selective in choosing settings of use and less strict in self-regulation rules. Further differences in age, gender, and household status underline the relevance of a differentiated, more nuanced understanding of cannabis normalization.

Antenne 2019

Antenne Amsterdam 2022

In Antenne Amsterdam wordt sinds 1993 jaarlijks het gebruik vanalcohol, tabak, cannabis en andere drugs in de hoofdstad in kaartgebracht. Dit gebeurt op basis van een combinatie van kwalitatieveen kwantitatieve methoden. In 2022 verzamelden we informatie via(1) interviews met een 24-koppig uitgaanspanel die vanuit insidersperspectief of vanuit hun rol als locatiemanager, organisator ofsecurity vertellen over het trendsettende uitgaansleven; (2) interviewsmet een panel kwetsbare jeugd waarin zes professionals zijnvertegenwoordigd die met buurtjongeren werken; (3) een anoniemesurvey (vragenlijsten) over middelengebruik bij 246 club- enfestivalbezoekers; en (4) analyse van testuitslagen van vijfduizendvrijwillig aangeleverde drugsmonsters bij de Amsterdamse testservices.Hoewel het jaar nog van start ging in een lockdown, werden demaatregelen in de loop van januari al versoepeld en in februarigrotendeels afgeschaft. Na twee zomers zonder festivals, draait hetgehele uitgaansleven in 2022 weer op volle toeren. Dit rapport schetstvanuit verschillende bronnen wat dat betekende voor gebruikspatronen en trends in de Amsterdamse wereld van genotmiddelen.Een wereld waarin alcohol alom aanwezig is, maar rokers in deminderheid raken. En waarin ecstasy weer favoriet is, maar nietiedereen feest met drugs.

Crafting Conflict: Designing Meaningful Interactions in a Smooth Society Or: Beyond Seamless: Creating Impact Through Designed Friction

Our current smart society, where problems and frictions are smoothed out with smart, often invisible technology like AI and smart sensors, calls for designers who unravel and open the smart fabric. Societies are not malleable, and moreover, a smooth society without rough edges is neither desirable nor livable. In this paper we argue for designing friction to enhance a more nuanced debate of smart cities in which conflicting values are better expressed. Based on our experiences with the Moral Design Game, an adversarial design activity, we came to understand the value of creating tangible vessels to highlight conflict and dipartite feelings surrounding smart cities.