Mapping Colombians' positions on national policies to control tobacco and marijuana consumption: a pilot study

Abstract

Background: Public authorities use a variety of control policies, with varying degrees of severity, to reduce the prevalence of health-damaging habits. Since these policies can only succeed if people understand and approve of them, this study mapped Colombians' positions on policies to control tobacco and marijuana consumption.

Method: A sample of 147 adults was presented with 32 vignettes illustrating a control policy. Each vignette contained four items of information: the behavior targeted (smoking tobacco or using marijuana), the nature of preventive measures (e.g., information campaigns), the degree of regulatory measures (e.g., prohibition of use by minors) and the severity of penalties (e.g., imprisonment).

Results: Through cluster analysis, three qualitatively different positions were found in relation to control policies for each substance: Generally unfavorable, irrespective of policy (22% and 17%), Depends on regulation (18% and 22%), and Always favorable, irrespective of policy (23% and 25%). A substantial minority of participants (37% and 36%) expressed no opinion at all.

Conclusion: While qualitatively different positions on the acceptability of national policies to control tobacco and marijuana consumption were indeed observed among Colombian participants, the most frequent response seemed to be indifference (or indeterminacy), with other positions reflecting little more than systematic opposition or blind acquiescence. It would therefore be useful to make citizens aware that their opinions count, that their relative indifference to these issues is in itself a problem, and that it is by taking their perspectives into account that one can truly define and make effective public health policies that are understood and accepted by as many people as possible.

Keywords: Colombia; Control; Marijuana; National policies; Personal positions; Tobacco.

Fig. 1

Decrease in the average distance from the centroid as a function of the number of clusters considered

Fig. 2

Acceptability judgments are on the vertical axis. The three levels of the Information factor are on the horizontal axis (NI = No information campaigns, IPR = Information campaigns targeted at people at risk, MC = Massive information campaigns). The three curves correspond to the three levels of the Regulation factor. Each panel corresponds to one position

Fig. 3

Acceptability judgments are on the vertical axis. The three levels of the Information factor are on the horizontal axis (NI = No information campaigns, IPR = Information campaigns targeted at people at risk, MC = Massive information campaigns). The three curves correspond to the three levels of the Regulation factor. Each panel corresponds to one position