Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the current policy stasis in UK drug policy.

This paper examines reports, statistics and policy statements by government agencies.

Delays in revising a national strategy appear to have no clear explanation. Responses to drugs issues, including drug-related deaths, appear to lack urgency or concern at a policy making level.

Complacency and lack of regard to evidence appear to inform current policy and strategy. Ways of overcoming this stasis are not identified.

There is a need for factors leading to reform and change to be identified and implemented, by government and others.

The situations and needs of drug users do not appear as a government priority. Continued reductions in public spending – austerity – are reducing treatment provision.

The paper attempts to identify factors which inhibit policy reform in the UK so that future reform becomes more realistic.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the content of the strategy and assess its claims to be evidence based.

This study is a close-reading of the text with commentary on specific content and reference to wider contexts.

The strategy makes use of evidence in its sections on treatment. Much evidence, including that of the UK ACMD, is dismissed or ignored. The issue of funding in times of austerity is not considered in the strategy. The range and complexity of drug use and users are not fully considered.

The strategy can be seen as an idealised ambition with little basis in reality without funding to support its aims.

There is no consideration of the impact of macro-economic policy on the extent of drug misuse.

Other commentaries on the strategy are emerging. This paper is a more extensive consideration than has so far appeared.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the history of relevant legislation before and after the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA).

A chronological narrative of laws and reports with concluding discussion.

That UK legislators have not made use of the evidence base available to them and have favoured enforcement rather than treatment approaches. That current UK practice has exacerbated not contain the use of and harms caused by illegal drugs.

The paper does not cover all relevant documents, especially those from non-governmental sources.

The practical implications centre on the failure of consecutive governments to reflect on and review the impact of current legislation, especially on people who use drugs.

That the situations of people who use drugs are currently ignored by the government and those proven responses which save lives and reduce harm are rejected.

The paper attempts to show the historical contexts of control and dangerousness of which the MDA is one instrument.

In two separate sections the authors summarise the observations, use the insights to reflect on some of the propositions made in the book, and follow the appeal of one of the authors to civil society and academics to “help governments out of the drug policy dilemma that is now facing them”. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

The genre the authors follow here is ethnography and the material takes the form of reflective field notes. Since each author follows a particular set of interests the authors split the paper into two sections. There are no strong conclusions, safe that the concerns about the international drug control system were fully borne out by events on the floor.

The role of CSOs is critical in moving the process forward – but countries are likely to drift apart as the policy differences are becoming inrreconcilable.

It is imperative to develop new models of cooperation in the management of psychactive substances.

This is in recognition that at national level just as much as at Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) and UN General Assembly Special Session the increased involvement of CSOs has been pivotal in shifting focus towards public health and human rights. This in turn has encouraged some nations to do the same in their domestic policies – and to stand up and say so in CND meetings.

More involvement of academics and editorial teams in the design of sustainable policies and practices.

In a critical report on the CND the authors challenge the viability of the international drug control regime in view of the emerging differences between different member states. This is the first attempt in the drug policy literature to assess the durability of the drug control regime as it is faced by the fast paced transformation of cannabis into a recognised medicine and regulated recreational substance. If the appearance of agreement is maintained this is entirely for diplomatic reasons and organisational benefit. In reality, the system is breaking apart and new methods for regulating drugs are emerging.