RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      대마사용의 비범죄화 주장에 대한 이론적 검토

      한글로보기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      The Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. classifies marijuana as an illegal drug, strictly prohibiting manufacturing, importing and exporting, trading, assisting in trade of, giving or receiving, carrying, possessing, or using cannabis. Marijuana has been managed as illegal drugs in international society as well. However, such severe punishment policy globally faces changes. From January 2014, Colorado in the U.S. allowed purchase of marijuana for purpose of smoking, and states decriminalizing marijuana continue to tend to increase. In addition to the U.S., Australia, Holland, U.K., Canada, etc. decriminalized marijuana or prepare places for active discussion on decriminalization of it. In the midst of this global trend, this paper attempted to review the discussion of decriminalization of the use of marijuana which is still strictly forbidden. Given that the world has been showing gradually changed attitude toward marijuana since intensified debate on the decriminalization of marijuana in Korea about a decade ago, this study examined the decision of the Korean Constitutional Court on how marijuana was illegalized. In addition, the legal theory concerning the justification of marijuana regulation was analyzed in this study. As a result, it was concluded that the rulings of the Korean Constitutional Court lack persuasion and reasoning to be still maintained today. It was also found that maleficence of marijuana, gateway effect, relationship with violent crimes, and issues comparing to cigarette and alcohol all of which were presented as the grounds for the regulation of marijuana in the Korean Constitutional Court were difficult to be admitted any more. In addition, when examining the regulation of marijuana in right of the self-determination, the principle of prohibition of excessive and the princple of equality, the legitimacy of the regulation of marijuana is sorely shaken, and cannot be maintained any more. The need to debate on the decriminalization of marijuana again, therefore, seems to be sufficient now.
      번역하기

      The Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. classifies marijuana as an illegal drug, strictly prohibiting manufacturing, importing and exporting, trading, assisting in trade of, giving or receiving, carrying, possessing, or using cannabis. Marijuana has...

      The Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. classifies marijuana as an illegal drug, strictly prohibiting manufacturing, importing and exporting, trading, assisting in trade of, giving or receiving, carrying, possessing, or using cannabis. Marijuana has been managed as illegal drugs in international society as well. However, such severe punishment policy globally faces changes. From January 2014, Colorado in the U.S. allowed purchase of marijuana for purpose of smoking, and states decriminalizing marijuana continue to tend to increase. In addition to the U.S., Australia, Holland, U.K., Canada, etc. decriminalized marijuana or prepare places for active discussion on decriminalization of it. In the midst of this global trend, this paper attempted to review the discussion of decriminalization of the use of marijuana which is still strictly forbidden. Given that the world has been showing gradually changed attitude toward marijuana since intensified debate on the decriminalization of marijuana in Korea about a decade ago, this study examined the decision of the Korean Constitutional Court on how marijuana was illegalized. In addition, the legal theory concerning the justification of marijuana regulation was analyzed in this study. As a result, it was concluded that the rulings of the Korean Constitutional Court lack persuasion and reasoning to be still maintained today. It was also found that maleficence of marijuana, gateway effect, relationship with violent crimes, and issues comparing to cigarette and alcohol all of which were presented as the grounds for the regulation of marijuana in the Korean Constitutional Court were difficult to be admitted any more. In addition, when examining the regulation of marijuana in right of the self-determination, the principle of prohibition of excessive and the princple of equality, the legitimacy of the regulation of marijuana is sorely shaken, and cannot be maintained any more. The need to debate on the decriminalization of marijuana again, therefore, seems to be sufficient now.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 박상기, "형사정책" 한국형사정책연구원 2005

      2 전지연, "형법형성에서의 법치국가적 원리" 연세대학교 연세법학연구회 3 : 665-688, 1995

      3 김일수, "형법총론" 박영사 2007

      4 이재상, "형법총론" 박영사 2007

      5 임웅, "형법총론" 법문사 2003

      6 손동권, "형법총론" 율곡출판사 2006

      7 이용식, "형법에 있어서의 이익형량" 법학연구소 48 (48): 1-30, 2007

      8 오영근, "형법각론" 박영사 2009

      9 배종대, "형법, 형벌, 양형 - 성매매특별법의 경우 -" 한국형사정책연구원 17 (17): 437-470, 2006

      10 이재상, "현행의 주류적 약물통제정책과 약물자유화 논의에 관한 고찰" (9) : 215-249, 1997

      1 박상기, "형사정책" 한국형사정책연구원 2005

      2 전지연, "형법형성에서의 법치국가적 원리" 연세대학교 연세법학연구회 3 : 665-688, 1995

      3 김일수, "형법총론" 박영사 2007

      4 이재상, "형법총론" 박영사 2007

      5 임웅, "형법총론" 법문사 2003

      6 손동권, "형법총론" 율곡출판사 2006

      7 이용식, "형법에 있어서의 이익형량" 법학연구소 48 (48): 1-30, 2007

      8 오영근, "형법각론" 박영사 2009

      9 배종대, "형법, 형벌, 양형 - 성매매특별법의 경우 -" 한국형사정책연구원 17 (17): 437-470, 2006

      10 이재상, "현행의 주류적 약물통제정책과 약물자유화 논의에 관한 고찰" (9) : 215-249, 1997

      11 권영성, "헌법학원론" 법문사 312-, 2011

      12 허일태, "헌법에 비추어 본 형사실체법의 문제점과 개선방안" 한국형사법학회 (25) : 1-26, 2006

      13 민병로, "헌법상 자기결정권과 후견주의" 법학연구소 32 (32): 149-174, 2012

      14 양천수, "한국형법학의 새로운 지평 (심온 김일수 교수 화갑기념 논문집)" 박영사 2006

      15 전현욱, "중독(中毒)에 대한 정당한 형사정책의 기준과 한계: 불법과 그 주관적 귀속에 관한 형법이론을 중심으로" 한국형사정책연구원 24 (24): 187-211, 2013

      16 강태수, "자기위해행위의 제한에 관한 헌법적 고찰" 법학연구소 43 (43): 17-44, 2008

      17 황태정, "자기결정의 자유와 한계와 관한 형법적 관점" 12 (12): 191-233, 2009

      18 이얼, "자기결정권 법리의 체계화를 위한 형법학의 과제" 법학연구소 54 (54): 261-288, 2013

      19 오세혁, "법적 후견주의 ― 개념분석적 고찰 ―" 한국법철학회 12 (12): 153-182, 2009

      20 이보영, "마약범죄 처벌의 정당성" 한국법학회 (47) : 217-238, 2012

      21 윤명숙, "대마사용자에 대한 낙인과 편견 그리고 논쟁들" 291-312, 2005

      22 김주일, "대마사용의 가벌성에 관한 비판적 검토: 독일사례를 중심으로" 한국형사정책학회 28 (28): 181-218, 2016

      23 기광도, "교통관련 범죄의 비범죄화에 관한 연구" 한국형사정책연구원 41-, 2000

      24 Morral, A. R., "Using Marijuana May Not Raise the Risk of Using Harder Drugs" RAND Corporation

      25 Chen K., "The natural history of drug use from adolescences to the mid-thirties in a general population sample" 85 : 41-47, 1995

      26 Donnelly, N., "NCADA Monograph Series No. 27" Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service 1994

      27 Good, E., "Marijuana: Effects on Human Behavior" Academy Press 303-338, 1974

      28 Kandel D.B., "Marijuana users in young adulthood" 41 : 200-209, 1984

      29 Hull, H. G., "Lost in the Weeds of Pot Law: The Role of Legal Ethics in the Movement to Legalize Marijuana" 119 : 333-360, 2014

      30 NIDA, "Is Marijuana a Gateway Drug?, Marijuana Research Report Series"

      31 Levitan, D., "Is Marijuana Really a 'Gateway Drug'?" FactCheck.Org

      32 Taylor, M., "Is Cannabis a Gateway Drug?" The Guardian

      33 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, "Initiation of Marijuana Use: Trends, Patterns and Implications" SAMHSA 2002

      34 Lynskey, M. T., "Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls" 289 (289): 427-433, 2003

      35 Kleinman, M., "Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results" 1992

      36 대검찰청, "2015 마약류범죄백서" 대검찰청 2015

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2028 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2022-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2020-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2017-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2016-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재후보
      2015-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재후보
      2014-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재후보
      2013-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2012-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (기타) KCI등재후보
      2011-02-15 학회명변경 한글명 : 법학연구소 -> 법학연구원 KCI등재후보
      2011-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2010-01-01 평가 신청제한 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2009-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보2차) KCI등재후보
      2008-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2006-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.67 0.67 0.55
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.52 0.49 0.682 0.2
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼