Purpose
This paper aims to demonstrate the ways in which the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) militates against the interests and situations of people who use drugs. The author reflects on the author’s journey as a drug user, drugs workers and drug user organiser to critique the MDA. The author describes the impact of the MDA on the author’s early experimentation with substances and highlights the limitations of simplistic drugs prevention. The author describes how the MDA maximises drug-related risks and undermines the creation of healthy cultural norms and community learning among people who use drugs. The author talks about the author’s work as a drugs practitioner and mourns the vandalism of the UK’s harm reduction and drug treatment system. This paper describes the opportunity to use drug policy reform as a progressive electoral agenda to begin the journey towards racial and social justice. This paper calls for the rejection of the Big Drugs Lie and the repeal of the failed MDA.
Design/methodology/approach
Personal reflection based on experience as drug user, drugs worker and drug user organiser.
Findings
Successive UK Governments have used the MDA as a tool of social control and racial discrimination. The Big Drugs Lie undermines science-based and rights-compliant drug policy and drug services and criminalises and puts young people at risk. There is the potential to build a progressive political alliance to remove the impediment of the MDA and use drug policy reform as tools for racial and social justice.
Practical implications
The MDA maximises the harms faced by people who use drugs, stokes stigma and discrimination and has undermined the quality of drug services. The MDA needs to be exposed and challenged as a tool for social control and racial discrimination. Delivering drug policy reform as a progressive electoral strategy could maximise its potential to improve social and racial justice.
Originality/value
This paper represents the view of people who use drugs by a drug user, a view which is seldom expressed in the length and level of argument shown here.
This chapter examines the centrality of legal status as a building block for security and constructing a future in Europe. It engages with the realities of living with or without legal recognition in England and Italy and the impact this has on young people. The chapter considers these experiences within international and national frameworks of young people's rights and 'best interests'. It also looks at the serendipitous ways in which access to such rights are in fact socially constructed. As the chapter highlights, the arbitrary allocation of papers generates an inequitable set of life opportunities, or capabilities, as unaccompanied migrant young people become adults within the constraints of immigration control.
This chapter examines the impact of social constructivism on Security Studies as well as its critique of the assumed orthodoxy of rationalist approaches to security and the international system. In particular, it considers the manner that social constructivists address the question of how security and security threats are ‘socially constructed’. The chapter first provides an overview of definitions and key concepts relating to constructivism, such as its emphasis on the importance of ideas, identity, and interaction, along with its alternative approach to thinking about security. It then explores Alexander Wendt’s three cultures of anarchy and compares conventional constructivism with critical constructivism. Finally, it analyses rationalist and poststructuralist critiques of constructivism.
Trade agreements and drug access: assessment of the impact of the 2009 Peruvian new drug policy on anti-infectives registration and availability