Jump to content
Toggle menu
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Since 7 October 2026 every request to landrace.wiki passes through Cloudflare, a security service brought in after a denial-of-service attack made the site unreachable. The Privacy policy now explains what this means for your data.

Research:2026-02-20/Journal article/echoes-of-the-past-in-the-present-the-political-uses-and-abuses-of-history-in-contemporary-cannabis-debates-in

From Landrace.wiki
ResearchJournal article20 February 2026
Echoes of the Past in the Present: The Political Uses and Abuses of History in Contemporary Cannabis Debates in Latin America
Contemporary Drug Problems
Compares how history is used in debates on recreational cannabis reform in Uruguay, Mexico and Chile. Legislative debates in Uruguay and Mexico invoked precedents, past presidents and policy precursors, while historical referents did not feature prominently in Chile. Alcohol Prohibition was invoked throughout, and other examples depended on national context. The author argues that advocates often misuse the past, exaggerating precedents and losing nuance for political ends. Its evidence concerns how reform debates use history; it is not a source for the historical events they invoke.
Record created 15 October 2026maintained by landrace.wiki editorspage history

2026-02-20 2026-10-15 Echoes of the Past in the Present: The Political Uses and Abuses of History in Contemporary Cannabis Debates in Latin America Journal article Policy and law Jonas von Hoffmann Contemporary Drug Problems 2026 10.1177/00914509261424476 https://doi.org/10.1177/00914509261424476 Compares how history is used in debates on recreational cannabis reform in Uruguay, Mexico and Chile. Legislative debates in Uruguay and Mexico invoked precedents, past presidents and policy precursors, while historical referents did not feature prominently in Chile. Alcohol Prohibition was invoked throughout, and other examples depended on national context. The author argues that advocates often misuse the past, exaggerating precedents and losing nuance for political ends. Its evidence concerns how reform debates use history; it is not a source for the historical events they invoke.