Our first study relates to the conditions of perceived acceptability of State policies regarding drugs: 225 randomly selected subjects judged the degree of State policy acceptability in 28 scenarios derived from the combination of three factors: information campaigns, interior drug demand, State policy (from laisser-faire to prohibition). Our second study relates to the conditions of perceived State responsibility when a death linked to substance consumption occurred: 234 subjects judged the degree of State responsibility in 80 scenarios derived from the combination of five factors: relationship between consumption/disease, amount of time since the substance toxicity is known, risk generality, consumption, State action (from State monopoly to sale interdiction). Our studies rely on a method derived from the functional theory of cognition (Anderson, 1981). The first study identifies three clusters: the regulationists (42%), who favor total regulation by the State, the radicals (32%), for who none of the policies are acceptable, and the prohibitionists (26%), who favor a total interdiction with the condition of information campaigns. The policy of the laissez faire is judged by all groups as being the most inacceptable. In the second study, three clusters are separated: centrist-dominated (44%), leftist-dominated (38%) and rightist-dominated (17%). The rightists tend to attribute less responsibility to the state and are less sensitive to scientific evidences than the leftists. A consensus between groups is that the State is freed from responsibility when sales are totally forbidden. In other cases, the State is perceived as partially responsible when a consumer’s health deteriorates.
