1 / 20

Explaining the Drug Policy Ratchet: Understanding Domestic and International Trends

This study delves into the complexities of drug policy mechanisms, exploring the historical basis of guilt association, ethnography of policy-making, and the influence of powerful groups on policy decision-making. By examining the domestic and international evolution of drug scheduling, it sheds light on the challenges of altering drug policies and their effectiveness in combating drug prevalence. The analysis reveals the intricacies of the drug policy ratchet and how civil service careers, predetermined ideas, and selective evidence use contribute to policy outcomes. This comprehensive exploration provides valuable insights for policymakers and researchers aiming to understand the complexities of drug control measures.

vickik
Download Presentation

Explaining the Drug Policy Ratchet: Understanding Domestic and International Trends

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Drug Trends and Policy Responses:Explaining the drug policy ratchet Alex Stevens University of Kent

  2. Content • The drug policy ratchet • Domestic • International • Drug control as a response to prevalence? • Explaining the drug policy ratchet: • The history of drug policy • Guilt by deviant association • Guilt by lunatic association • Guilt by molecular association • Ethnography of policy making • Survival of the ideas that fit • Usefulness and the civil service career • Totemic toughness • Silent silencing of alternatives

  3. The domestic drug policy ratchet (MDA 1971) • In or up • Ecstasy into class A in 1977 • Barbiturates into class B in 1985 • Fresh magic mushrooms into class A in 2005 • Ketamine into class B in 2006 • Methamphetamine up to class A in 2007 • Cannabis up to class B in 2009 • BZP and GBL into class C in 2009 • ‘Spice’ into class C in 2009 • Mephedrone and Naphyrone into class B in 2010 • 2-DPMP and other pipradols into class B in 2012 • Out or down • Cannabis down to class C in 2004 • effect nullified at the time and subsequently reversed

  4. The international drug policy ratchet • In • Opiates and coca derivatives in 1912 • Cannabis in 1925 • All three included in 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs • New drugs added in the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances • Amphetamines, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, psychedelics • Since 1971: • E.g. MDMA, methcathinone, ephedrine (under the 1988 convention) • Out • (Bolivia has attempted to ‘outschedule’ and then ‘downschedule’ coca, so far unsuccessfully) • (Dronabinol down from schedule I to schedule II in 1991, but not to schedule IV, despite WHO recommendation, due to US pressure)

  5. Proportion of 16-24 year olds reporting past year drug use. Source: CSEW Evidence and policy

  6. Indexed trend in proportions of 16 to 24 year olds reporting past year drug use * Ketamine: 2006/7=100

  7. Proportion of 16 to 59 year olds using ‘new’ drugs: Source CSEW Evidence and policy

  8. The lack of effect of cannabis policy change Source: EMCDDA Annual Report (2011)

  9. Summary so far… • It’s much easier to get drugs into controlled schedules than out. • It’s much easier to ‘upschedule’ than to ‘downschedule’ drugs. • Prevalence seems to have limited effect on scheduling. • Scheduling (or levels of punishment related to scheduling) seems to have limited effect on prevalence. Evidence and policy

  10. Historical explanations: guilt by deviant association • Drugs tend to get banned when their use is associated with marginalised, stigmatised people. • Chinese immigrants in western USA – 19th century opium ordinances. • Black men and Mexican immigrants in southern USA – control of cocaine and cannabis in early 20th century • Canadians, Chinese and other deviant corrupters of soldiers and Billie Carleton – British control of cocaine.

  11. Guilt by lunatic association • Colonial Indian lunatic asylum data: • ‘if the man be a gangah-smoker, the drug is invariably put down [by the police] as the cause of insanity’ • Annual report of the insane asylums in Bengal, 1874 • Egyptian delegation to 1924 Opium Convention • ‘illicit use of hashish is the principal cause of most of the cases of insanity occurring in Egypt… from 30 to 60 percent of the total number occurring’ • WHO report in 1955 finds no countervailing medical benefit from cannabis use. Evidence and policy

  12. Guilt by molecular association • Opium and coca derivatives banned in 1912. • Subsequent treaties banned substances with very low rates of use due to similarity. • More recently, Naphyrone banned due to similarity to Mephedrone. Evidence and policy

  13. Ethnography of recent policy making • Six months of ethnographic participant observation in 2009. • Enabled study of the policy making processes of a central unit within UK civil service, with input to drug and crime policy. • Informed by theory on the evidence-policy link. • Triangulated against interviews with policy actors. • Published as ‘Telling Policy Stories’ in Journal of Social Policy, 2011. Evidence and policy

  14. Selective evidence use • Survival of the ideas that fit: • Policy makers face a huge deluge of inconclusive evidence. • They need to tell persuasive policy stories that get the policy accepted by powerful groups. • They therefore choose to use evidence which fits with the interests and preferences of these powerful groups. Evidence and policy

  15. Usefulness and the civil service career • “I found a problem with [policy area]. My boss said ‘Well you’re young. Why don’t you suggest we look again at [policy area] and see how far that takes you in your career?’ So there are certain areas where officials will self-censor and they won’t suggest to ministers to change policy on certain areas even though the evidence suggests it.” • Policy making civil servant

  16. Totemic toughness • “We need to come up with policies that are totemically tough” • Special Adviser, echoed by several civil servants. • “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” • “We know who we’re talking about. It’s not the public schoolkids waiting at the bust stop… It’s those other kids”. • Civil servant in discussion of ‘incivility’.

  17. ‘Silent silencing’ of alternatives • Modes of silencing (Mathiesen, 2004): • Absorption • System placement • Professionalisation • Masking • ‘The Gini coefficient is a policy lever that we cannot pull… we need to keep the lid on.” • Senior civil servant

  18. Drug policy as ‘systematically distorted communication’ • The failure to achieve democratic deliberation due to strategic communication by holders of money and power (Habermas 2002). • Systematic distortion in drug policy: • Failure to use evidence according to the scientific method. • Selective use of only the evidence that supports existing distributions of power. • A ‘systematically asymmetrical’ distribution. • Silent silencing of evidence and advocates that support change to this distribution.

  19. Conclusion • The upwards ratchet of drug control is not a response to concerns over drug prevalence. • There are historical trends which explain the progressive criminalisation of some drugs: • There are also social interactions within the policy world which tend to support increasing control. • Drug policy is not a value-free response to drug prevalence and harms. • It is a form of ‘systematically distorted communication’ which reflects and reproduces inequalities of power.

  20. More information Email: a.w.stevens@kent.ac.uk Twitter @AlexStevensKent

More Related