Debates Parlamentares - Diário 127, p. 355 (2019-07-16)

O texto apresentado é obtido de forma automática, não levando em conta elementos gráficos e podendo conter erros. Se encontrar algum erro, por favor informe os serviços através da página de contactos.

Não foi possivel carregar a página pretendida. Reportar Erro

91. ibid., Terms of reference, p. x.92. ibid., executive summary, p. 3. 93. ibid., p. 30 and p. 64.94. ibid., p. 25.95. CpsTf (2014) Reducing Tobacco Use and Secondhand Smoke Exposure: Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs [pdf]. atlanta:

Community preventive services Task force. disponível em: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/Tffrs-Tobacco-Comprehensive-Control-programs.pdf (acesso de 11 de fevereiro de 2019).

96. Ghosh, T. et al. (2016) The Public Health Framework of Legalized Marijuana in Colorado. american Journal of public Health, 106(1), pp. 21–27. doi: 10.2105/aJpH.2015.302875. Consultar também: pacula, r. l. et al. (2014) developing public Health regulations for Marijuana: lessons from alcohol and Tobacco. american Journal of public Health, 104(6), pp. 1021–1028. doi: 10.2105/aJpH.2013.301766.

97. Hughes, B. & Winstock, a. r. (2012) Controlling new drugs under marketing regulations. addiction, 107(11), 2012, pp. 1894–1899, p. 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03620.x

98. reuter, p. (2011) Options for regulating new psychoactive drugs: a review of recent experiences [pdf]. londres: uK drug policy Commission, p. 24. disponível em: https://www.ukdpc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/evidence review - options for regulating new psychoactive drugs_ a review of recent experience.pdf (acesso de 11 de fevereiro de 2019).

99. ibid., p. 4.100. united Kingdom (2016) 2016 Psychoactive Substances Act. londres: Crown, parág. 2. disponível em: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/

ukpga/2016/2/section/2/enacted (acesso de 12 de fevereiro de 2019)101. stevens, a. et al. (2015) Legally flawed, scientifically problematic, potentially harmful: The UK Psychoactive Substance Bill.

international Journal of drug policy, 26(12), pp. 1167–1170. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.10.005.102. ibid.103. npsrep (2014) New Psychoactive Substances Review - Report of the Expert Panel [pdf]. united Kingdom: The new psychoactive

substances review expert panel, p 38. disponível em: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/368583/npsexpertreviewpanelreport.pdf (acesso de 13 de fevereiro de 2019)

104. stevens, a. et al. (2015) Legally flawed, scientifically problematic, potentially harmful: The UK Psychoactive Substance Bill. international Journal of drug policy, 26(12), pp. 1168. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.10.005.

105. Hughes, B. & Winstock, a. r. (2012) Controlling new drugs under marketing regulations. addiction, 107(11), 2012, pp. 1894–1899, p. 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03620.x

106. ibid.107. reuter, p. e pardo, B. (2017) New psychoactive substances: Are there any good options for regulating new psychoactive substances?

international Journal of drug policy. (new psychoactive substances and Human enhancement drugs), 40, pp. 117–122. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.10.020.

108. Hughes, B. & Winstock, a. r. (2012) Controlling new drugs under marketing regulations. addiction, 107(11), 2012, pp. 1894–1899, p. 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03620.x

109. reuter, p. e pardo, B. (2017) New psychoactive substances: Are there any good options for regulating new psychoactive substances? international Journal of drug policy. (new psychoactive substances and Human enhancement drugs), 40, pp. 117–122. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.10.020.

110. Wilkins, C. et al. (2013) The new psychoactive substances regime in New Zealand: a different approach to regulation. Journal of Psychopharmacology (oxford, england), 27(7), pp. 584–589. doi: 10.1177/0269881113491441.

111. ibid., p. 587.112. ibid.113. rychert, M. e Wilkins, C. (2016) Legal high industry business and lobbying strategies under a legal market for new psychoactive

substances (nps, “legal highs”) in new Zealand. international Journal of drug policy, 37, pp. 90–97. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.08.011.

114. ibid., p. 90.115. davis, C. s. e anderson, e. d. (2010) Breaking the Cycle of Preventable Suffering: Fulfilling the Principle of Balance. Temple

International & Comparative Law Journal, Vol. 24, no. 2, p. 329. Temple university legal studies research paper. disponível em ssrn: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2011197

116. danenberg, e. et al. (2013) Modernizing methodology for the WHO assessment of substances for the international drug control conventions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 131(3), pp. 175–181. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.032.

117. inCB (1995) Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1994 [pdf] Viena: Conselho internacional para o Controlo de estupefacientes, p. 6. disponível em: https://www.incb.org/documents/publications/annualreports/ar1994/ar_1994_e.pdf (acesso de 25 de fevereiro de 2019).

118. Jelsma, M. (2017) unGass 2016: Prospects for Treaty Reform and UN System-Wide Coherence on Drug Policy. Journal of drug policy analysis, 10(1). doi: 10.1515/jdpa-2015-0021.

119. oMs (2010) Guidance on the WHO Review of Psychoactive Substances for International Control [pdf]. Genebra: organização Mundial da saúde, p. 30. disponível em: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s17538en/s17538en.pdf (acesso de 25 de fevereiro de 2019).

120. Walsh, J. et al (2019) The WHO’s First-Ever Critical Review of Cannabis: A Mixture of Obvious Recommendations Deserving Support and Dubious Methods and Outcomes Requiring Scrutiny [pdf] amesterdão: Transnational institute. disponível em: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/who-cannabis-wola_tni_gdpo-march_2019.pdf (acesso de 19 de março de 2019).

121. nota do secretariado do 62.º Cnd (2019) Changes in the scope of control of substances: proposed scheduling recommendations by the World Health Organization on cannabis and cannabis-related substances. Viena: Comissão dos estupefacientes. un doc. e/Cn.7/2019/12

122. ibid., p. 7.123. ibid., p. 12.

16 DE JULHO DE 2019______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

355

90. CariCoM regional Commission on Marijuana (2018) Report to the Caribbean Community Heads of Government: Waiting to Exhale - Safeguarding our Future through Responsible Socio-Legal Policy on Marijuana [pdf]. Georgetown: Caribbean Community secretariat, p. 62. disponível em: https://caricom.org/media-center/communications/news-from-the-community/final-report-report-of-the-caricom-regional-commission-on-marijuana (acesso de 11 de fevereiro de 2019)91. ibid., Terms of reference, p. x.92. ibid., executive summary, p. 3. 93. ibid., p. 30 and p. 64.94. ibid., p. 25.95. CpsTf (2014) Reducing Tobacco Use and Secondhand Smoke Exposure: Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs [pdf]. atlanta: Community preventive services Task force. disponível em: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/Tffrs-Tobacco-Comprehensive-Control-programs.pdf (acesso de 11 de fevereiro de 2019).96. Ghosh, T. et al. (2016) The Public Health Framework of Legalized Marijuana in Colorado. american Journal of public Health, 106(1), pp. 21–27. doi: 10.2105/aJpH.2015.302875. Consultar também: pacula, r. l. et al. (2014) developing public Health regulations for Marijuana: lessons from alcohol and Tobacco. american Journal of public Health, 104(6), pp. 1021–1028. doi: 10.2105/aJpH.2013.301766.97. Hughes, B. & Winstock, a. r. (2012) Controlling new drugs under marketing regulations. addiction, 107(11), 2012, pp. 1894–1899, p. 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03620.x98. reuter, p. (2011) Options for regulating new psychoactive drugs: a review of recent experiences [pdf]. londres: uK drug policy Commission, p. 24. disponível em: https://www.ukdpc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/evidence review - options for regulating new psychoactive drugs_ a review of recent experience.pdf (acesso de 11 de fevereiro de 2019).99. ibid., p. 4.100. united Kingdom (2016) 2016 Psychoactive Substances Act. londres: Crown, parág. 2. disponível em: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/2/section/2/enacted (acesso de 12 de fevereiro de 2019)101. stevens, a. et al. (2015) Legally flawed, scientifically problematic, potentially harmful: The UK Psychoactive Substance Bill. international Journal of drug policy, 26(12), pp. 1167–1170. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.10.005.102. ibid.103. npsrep (2014) New Psychoactive Substances Review - Report of the Expert Panel [pdf]. united Kingdom: The new psychoactive substances review expert panel, p 38. disponível em: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/368583/npsexpertreviewpanelreport.pdf (acesso de 13 de fevereiro de 2019)104. stevens, a. et al. (2015) Legally flawed, scientifically problematic, potentially harmful: The UK Psychoactive Substance Bill. international Journal of drug policy, 26(12), pp. 1168. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.10.005. 105. Hughes, B. & Winstock, a. r. (2012) Controlling new drugs under marketing regulations. addiction, 107(11), 2012, pp. 1894–1899, p. 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03620.x106. ibid.107. reuter, p. e pardo, B. (2017) New psychoactive substances: Are there any good options for regulating new psychoactive substances? international Journal of drug policy. (new psychoactive substances and Human enhancement drugs), 40, pp. 117–122. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.10.020.108. Hughes, B. & Winstock, a. r. (2012) Controlling new drugs under marketing regulations. addiction, 107(11), 2012, pp. 1894–1899, p. 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03620.x109. reuter, p. e pardo, B. (2017) New psychoactive substances: Are there any good options for regulating new psychoactive substances? international Journal of drug policy. (new psychoactive substances and Human enhancement drugs), 40, pp. 117–122. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.10.020.110. Wilkins, C. et al. (2013) The new psychoactive substances regime in New Zealand: a different approach to regulation. Journal of Psychopharmacology (oxford, england), 27(7), pp. 584–589. doi: 10.1177/0269881113491441.111. ibid., p. 587.112. ibid.113. rychert, M. e Wilkins, C. (2016) Legal high industry business and lobbying strategies under a legal market for new psychoactive substances (nps, “legal highs”) in new Zealand. international Journal of drug policy, 37, pp. 90–97. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.08.011.114. ibid., p. 90.115. davis, C. s. e anderson, e. d. (2010) Breaking the Cycle of Preventable Suffering: Fulfilling the Principle of Balance. Temple International & Comparative Law Journal, Vol. 24, no. 2, p. 329. Temple university legal studies research paper. disponível em ssrn: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2011197116. danenberg, e. et al. (2013) Modernizing methodology for the WHO assessment of substances for the international drug control conventions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 131(3), pp. 175–181. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.032.117. inCB (1995) Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1994 [pdf] Viena: Conselho internacional para o Controlo de estupefacientes, p. 6. disponível em: https://www.incb.org/documents/publications/annualreports/ar1994/ar_1994_e.pdf (acesso de 25 de fevereiro de 2019).118. Jelsma, M. (2017) unGass 2016: Prospects for Treaty Reform and UN System-Wide Coherence on Drug Policy. Journal of drug policy analysis, 10(1). doi: 10.1515/jdpa-2015-0021.119. oMs (2010) Guidance on the WHO Review of Psychoactive Substances for International Control [pdf]. Genebra: organização Mundial da saúde, p. 30. disponível em: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s17538en/s17538en.pdf (acesso de 25 de fevereiro de 2019).120. Walsh, J. et al (2019) The WHO’s First-Ever Critical Review of Cannabis: A Mixture of Obvious Recommendations Deserving Support and Dubious Methods and Outcomes Requiring Scrutiny [pdf] amesterdão: Transnational institute. disponível em: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/who-cannabis-wola_tni_gdpo-march_2019.pdf (acesso de 19 de março de 2019).121. nota do secretariado do 62.º Cnd (2019) Changes in the scope of control of substances: proposed scheduling recommendations by the World Health Organization on cannabis and cannabis-related substances. Viena: Comissão dos estupefacientes. un doc. e/Cn.7/2019/12122. ibid., p. 7.123. ibid., p. 12.16 DE JULHO DE 2019______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________355

Descarregar páginas