scholarly journals Experience as Evidence: The Prospects for Biographical Narratives in Drug Policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-209
Author(s):  
kylie valentine ◽  
Asha Persson ◽  
Christy E. Newman ◽  
Myra Hamilton ◽  
Joanne Bryant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drug Use ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Drug Policy ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Well Being ◽  
People Who Use Drugs ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Critical Scrutiny ◽  
Public Scrutiny

Programs and policies are increasingly framed by the logics of “evidence-based policy,” a term subject to critical scrutiny and change after it emerged as an explicit valuing of specific types of quantitative data as objective, and a devaluing of most types of qualitative data. The transfer of “evidence-based” approaches to drug policy was mobilized by a distrust of people who use drugs, and of people who work with them. This distrust remains important, but contemporary policy also mobilizes individual narratives and lived experience through the growing use of biographical stories. Contemporary drug policy, like other policy areas, is also increasingly constituted by changing forms of technology, through new types of data use and data linkage, and of digital and social media. In this article, we consider the current and likely future impacts of changes to policy. We examine two Australian policies: the Australian Priority Investment Approach to Welfare (Try, Test and Learn), and the child protection reform, Their Futures Matter. Both use the “investment approach” to calculate policy costs and aims, represent important developments in the policy figuring of populations, and affect the well-being of many people who use drugs. Based on analysis of these policies, and interviews with people who use drugs who participated in a qualitative study on blood-borne virus serodiscordance, we ask, what are the likely effects, risks, and benefits of these changes for people who use drugs and others subject to public scrutiny and distrust? We argue that as long as the stigmatization of drug use remains prevalent, it is unlikely that the potential for more sophisticated and just recognition of the complexity of drug use will find a place in the forms of information and knowledge recognized in policy as evidence.

scholarly journals Civil society involvement in harm reduction drug policy: reflections on the past, expectations for the future

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aileen O’Gorman ◽  
Eberhard Schatz
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Harm Reduction ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Drug Policy ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
People Who Use Drugs ◽  
Annual Conference ◽  
Health Crisis

Abstract Background A range of civil society organisations (CSOs) such as drug user groups, non-governmental/third sector organisations and networks of existing organisations, seek to shape the development of drugs policy at national and international levels. However, their capacity to do so is shaped by the contexts in which they operate nationally and internationally. The aim of this paper is to explore the lived experience of civil society participation in these contexts, both from the perspective of CSOs engaged in harm reduction advocacy, and the institutions they engage with, in order to inform future policy development. Methods This paper is based on the presentations and discussions from a workshop on ‘Civil Society Involvement in Drug Policy hosted by the Correlation - European Harm Reduction Network at the International Society for the Study of Drugs Policy (ISSDP) annual conference in Paris, 2019. In the aftermath of the workshop, the authors analysed the papers and discussions and identified the key themes arising to inform CSI in developing future harm reduction policy and practice. Results Civil society involvement (CSI) in policy decision-making and implementation is acknowledged as an important benefit to representative democracy. Yet, the accounts of CSOs demonstrate the challenges they experience in seeking to shape the contested field of drug policy. Negotiating the complex workings of political institutions, often in adversarial and heavily bureaucratic environments, proved difficult. Nonetheless, an increase in structures which formalised and resourced CSI enabled more meaningful participation at different levels and at different stages of policy making. Conclusions Civil society spaces are colonised by a broad range of civil society actors lobbying from different ideological standpoints including those advocating for a ‘drug free world’ and those advocating for harm reduction. In these competitive arena, it may be difficult for harm reduction orientated CSOs to influence the policy process. However, the current COVID-19 public health crisis clearly demonstrates the benefits of partnership between CSOs and political institutions to address the harm reduction needs of people who use drugs. The lessons drawn from our workshop serve to inform all partners on this pathway.

Drug Use in Prisoners

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart A. Kinner ◽  
Josiah D. Rich
Keyword(s):  
Drug Use ◽  
Drug Users ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
People Who Use Drugs ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Correctional Policy ◽  
Preventable Hospitalisation ◽  
Rigorous Research ◽  
Increased Risk

Drug use and crime seem inextricably linked. Law enforcement responses to drug use tend to funnel people who use drugs into the criminal justice system rather than treatment, and those drug users who are imprisoned often have multiple, co-occurring mental health problems and/or suffer from infectious diseases including HIV, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis. Prisons provide a rare but regrettable opportunity to identify and respond to these needs, but correctional policies with respect to drug use and related harms often diverge from the evidence. Where such responses are evidence-based, they are rarely delivered at scale. Drug use in prison remains common and, in the absence of evidence-based harm reduction measures, is high risk. Relapse to drug use after release from prison is normative, such that incarceration can at best be conceived of as an interruption in drug use. People released from prison are at markedly increased risk of drug-related harms including fatal drug overdose and preventable hospitalisation, and are at increased risk of reincarceration. Greater investment in independent, rigorous research on the epidemiology of substance use and related harms in people who cycle through prisons, and a renewed commitment to aligning correctional policy and practice with the evidence, will have measurable benefits for public health, public safety, and the public purse.

scholarly journals Civil Society Involvement in Harm Reduction Drug Policy: Reflections on the Past, Expectations for the Future.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aileen O'Gorman ◽  
Eberhard Schatz
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Harm Reduction ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Drug Policy ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
People Who Use Drugs ◽  
Annual Conference ◽  
Health Crisis

Abstract Background: A range of civil society organisations (CSOs) such as drug user groups, non-governmental/third sector organisations and networks of existing organisations, seek to shape the development of drugs policy at national and international levels. However, their capacity to do so is shaped by the contexts in which they operate nationally and internationally. The aim of this paper is to explore the lived experience of civil society participation in these contexts, both from the perspective of CSOs engaged in harm reduction advocacy, and the institutions they engage with, in order to inform future policy development.Methods: This paper is based on the presentations and discussions from a workshop on ‘Civil Society Involvement in Drug Policy hosted by the Correlation – European Harm Reduction Network at the International Society for the Study of Drugs Policy (ISSDP) annual conference in Paris, 2019. In the aftermath of the workshop, the authors analysed the papers and discussions and identified the key themes arising to inform CSI in developing future harm reduction policy and practice.Results: Civil society involvement (CSI) in policy decision-making and implementation is acknowledged as an important benefit to representative democracy. Yet, the accounts of CSOs demonstrate the challenges they experience in seeking to shape the contested field of drug policy. Negotiating the complex workings of political institutions, often in adversarial and heavily bureaucratic environments, proved difficult. Nonetheless, an increase in structures which formalised and resourced CSI enabled more meaningful participation at different levels and at different stages of policy making. Conclusions: Civil society spaces are colonised by a broad range of civil society actors lobbying from different ideological standpoints including those advocating for a ‘drug free world’ and those advocating for harm reduction. In these competitive arena, it may be difficult for harm reduction orientated CSOs to influence the policy process. However, the current COVID-19 public health crisis clearly demonstrates the benefits of partnership between CSOs and political institutions to address the harm reduction needs of people who use drugs. The lessons drawn from our workshop serve to inform all partners on this pathway.

scholarly journals An ethical analysis of UK drug policy as an example of a criminal justice approach to drugs: a commentary on the short film Putting UK Drug Policy into Focus

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Holland
Keyword(s):  
Drug Use ◽  
Drug Policy ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
War On Drugs ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
Short Film ◽  
People Who Use Drugs ◽  
Main Body ◽  
Related Harm

Abstract Background Drug-related deaths in the UK are at the highest level on record—the war on drugs has failed. A short film has been produced intended for public and professional audiences featuring academics, representatives of advocacy organisations, police and policymakers outlining the problems with, and highlighting alternative approaches to, UK drug policy. A range of ethical arguments are alluded to, which are distilled here in greater depth for interested viewers and a wider professional and academic readership. Main body The war on drugs is seemingly driven by the idea that the consumption of illegal drugs is immoral. However, the meaning ascribed to ‘drug’ in the illicit sense encompasses a vast range of substances with different properties that have as much in common with legal drugs as they do with each other. The only property that distinguishes illegal from legal drugs is their legal status, which rather than being based on an assessment of how dangerous they are has been defined by centuries of socio-political idiosyncrasies. The consequences of criminalising people who use drugs often outweigh the risks they face from drug use, and there is not convincing evidence that this prevents wider drug use or drug-related harm. Additionally, punishing someone as a means, to the end of deterring others from drug use, is ethically problematic. Although criminalising the production of harmful drugs may seem more ethically tenable, it has not reduced the supply of drugs and it precludes effective regulation of the market. Other potential policy approaches are highlighted, which would be ethically preferable to existing punitive policy. Conclusion It is not possible to eliminate all drug use and associated harms. The current approach is not only ineffective in preventing drug-related harm but itself directly and indirectly causes incalculable harm to those who use drugs and to wider society. For policymakers to gain the mandate to rationalise drug policy, or to be held accountable if they do not, wider engagement with the electorate is required. It is hoped that this film will encourage at least a few to give pause and reflect on how drug policy might be improved.

Possessing Drugs, Possessing Rights: Harm Reduction and Drug Policy Reform in Argentina

2021 ◽  
pp. 009145092110340
Author(s):  
Shana Harris
Keyword(s):  
Drug Use ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Drug Policy ◽  
Policy Reform ◽  
People Who Use Drugs ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Drug Law ◽  
National Drug ◽  
Drug Traffickers ◽  
Drug Policy Reform

Argentina’s national drug law, Law 23.737, has been in effect since 1989. Based on prohibitionist drug policy, this law was intended to severely punish drug traffickers and protect the public from drug use-related health concerns. However, it has failed to achieve these goals, and instead targets people who use drugs (PWUD) and brands them “criminals.” In response, the Argentine government announced its intent to reform Law 23.737 in 2008, sparking widespread debate among health, legal, and social service professionals. This article discusses this debate from the perspective of harm reductionists, those who work to reduce the negative effects of drug use rather than eliminate drug use or ensure abstinence. Drawing on archival research and 16 months of ethnographic fieldwork in Argentina, this article examines the positionality of harm reductionists in this drug policy reform, particularly the controversial proposal to decriminalize drug possession for personal use. Demonstrating their contention that Argentina’s legal apparatus is a major contributor to PWUD’s discrimination, stigmatization, and isolation from health and social services, I argue that challenging these problems through policy engagement allows Argentine harm reductionists to draw attention to the broader question of PWUD’s rights and to ultimately recast PWUD as rights-bearing citizens.

scholarly journals Harm Reduction and Moral Desert in the Context of Drug Policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-371
Author(s):  
Lindsey Brooke Porter
Keyword(s):  
Drug Use ◽  
Harm Reduction ◽  
Drug Policy ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
People Who Use Drugs ◽  
Moral Desert ◽  
Problematic Drug ◽  
To Come ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe target of my discussion is intuitions lay people have about justice in the context of drug policy—intuitions that take on a more or less moral-desert-based shape. I argue that even if we think desert is the right measure of how we ought to treat people, we ought still be in favour of Harm Reduction measures for people who use drugs. Harm Reduction measures are controversial with members of the public, and much of the opposition seems to come from something like an appeal to a desert conception of justice—the notion that a just state of affairs is one in which everybody gets what they deserve, no more, no less. A recent study, for example, found that ‘moral outrage’ predicts a preference for prevalence reduction (criminal sanction, etc.) over Harm Reduction. The thinking seems to be that, since drug use is wrong, letting people who use drugs suffer and/or die as a consequence of their use is just. Aiding their health and safety, while perhaps compassionate, is unjust. I argue that there is a bad desert fit between using drugs and suffering avoidable harm even if using drugs is morally wrong. Many of the possible harms of drug use are socially/policy driven, and much problematic drug use is context dependent, not cleanly attributable to the decisions of the person who uses drugs. This means that even if drug use is wrong, people who use drugs deserve Harm Reduction policies, at minimum.

scholarly journals ‘We Realised We Needed a New Approach’: Government and Law enforcement Perspectives on the Implementation and Future of the Drug Decriminalisation Policy in Vietnam

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hai Thanh Luong ◽  
Luc Trong Hoang ◽  
Toan Quang Le ◽  
Tuan Anh Hoang ◽  
Mai Thanh Vu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Drug Use ◽  
Harm Reduction ◽  
Drug Policy ◽  
Drug Control ◽  
People Who Use Drugs ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Drug Law ◽  
Drug Law Enforcement ◽  
Law Enforcement Officials

Abstract Background In 2009, Vietnam officially decriminalized drug use through amendments to the criminal law. The amendments specifically outlined that drug use would be seen as an administrative sanction, but not a criminal offence. This legal transition has not been without its implementation challenges and police particularly are have struggled to balance their role between drug law enforcement and decriminalisation. Despite being a health-orientated drug policy amendment, in practice it has meant that police can send suspected drug users to compulsory treatment centres without judicial oversight and people who use drugs continue to face challenges in their interface with law enforcement which can negatively impact access to harm reduction and community-based treatment programs. This paper explores the perspectives of policy makers and law enforcement officials in Vietnam and provides some insights and considerations into how the amended law was implemented and how it could be made more effective in improving both health and safety for all people in Vietnam. Methods To understand government and policing perspective on amended changes to the Criminal Code in 2009 and its subsequent implementation, this mixed methods research combined content analysis of a number of core legislations in terms of drug control policies in Vietnam with perspectives and insights from 14 key informant interviews from people representing a range of relevant Vietnamese Government (n=10) and non-government agencies (n=4). Results While most interviewees recognised that decriminalizing drug use in Vietnam was designed as a a progressive and health-oriented drug policy, many participants acknowledged the ongoing disconnect between the health intent of the policy and the police-led oversight of its implementation in the community. Part of this disconnect was explained by the lack of training and clear protocol that would enhance the police in their ability to contribute to the health intent of the policy rather than continue to view drug use through a drug law enforcement only lens. A current pilot initiative by Hanoi’s People Committee to implement a model of assisted referral for people who use drugs to community-based health, social and legal support may provide an example of how to situate decriminalisation policy within a broader context of harm reduction interventions through the design and trial of clear protocols for how law enforcement agencies can actively engage and support the process of diversion into harm reduction and community-based treatment. Conclusions Since the inception of the amended law there has been very little review and analyses of its implementation progress and its challenges. This is the first study to review and assess the progress of decriminalizing drug use since the policy intervention in 2009 with a specific focus on the perceptions of the policy for Vietnam’s drug control in policing. It discusses insights and considerations from government, law enforcement officials and civil society organisations to develop a deeper understanding of how harm reduction interventions – including decriminalisation – can co-exist within a broader and entrenched drug control strategy in Vietnam.

scholarly journals “Coming Out”: Stigma, Reflexivity and the Drug Researcher’s Drug Use

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 268-285
Author(s):  
Anna Ross ◽  
Gary R. Potter ◽  
Monica J. Barratt ◽  
Judith A. Aldridge
Keyword(s):  
Drug Use ◽  
Coming Out ◽  
Drug Policy ◽  
Drug Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
People Who Use Drugs ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Lives ◽  
To Come ◽  
The Impact

Some personal experience of illicit drug use undoubtedly exists within the population of academic drug researchers. But it is rarely acknowledged, and even more rarely reflected upon, in their published work. This is understandable: criminal, professional and social sanctions may follow public admission of illicit activities. However, to not “come out” seems contrary to some core academic principles, such as transparency in data collection and reflexivity in the research process. Coming out may present researchers with an opportunity for improving knowledge of, and policies toward, drug use. In this article, we identify reasons for and against the public disclosure of drug use and the impact of such disclosure across a range of spheres, including research, teaching, policy influence and private lives. Reasons against coming out include the risks of undermining professional reputations and hence the ability to contribute to academic and policy debates, the threat of criminal justice sanctions, and impacts on loved ones. However, coming out can have academic benefit (i.e., improving our understanding of drugs, of people who use drugs, and of drug research) and contribute to activist goals (e.g., de-stigmatization of drug use and demarginalization of people who use drugs). Both the risks and benefits of public drug use disclosure have implications for how research and researchers may influence drug policy. Two key themes, stigma and reflexivity, underpin the discussion. We do not conclude with clear recommendations for drug-using drug researchers; to come out or to not come out is a personal decision. However, we argue that there is clear merit to further open discussion on the role of disclosure and reflection on personal drug use experience among those working in drug research and drug policy—where such reflection is relevant and where such researchers feel able to do so.

scholarly journals Imaginary Drug Control and the Failures of Contemporary Australian Drug Policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-42
Author(s):  
Margaret Pereira ◽  
John Scott ◽  
Amanda Beem
Keyword(s):  
Drug Use ◽  
Drug Policy ◽  
Illicit Drugs ◽  
Illicit Drug ◽  
Illicit Drug Use ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Drug Control ◽  
Law And Order ◽  
Harm Minimization ◽  
The One

Contemporary Australian drug policy is characterized by a tension between punitive law and order responses that invoke the myth of sovereign power and responsibilizing strategies that “(re)moralize” individuals, holding them responsible for their safety, security, and well-being. This article argues that this blending of neoliberal techniques of governance, such as harm minimization, with neoconservative methods of rule typified in prohibitionist policies, presents a paradoxical policy response to illicit drug use. We explore the development and contemporary practice of a dualistic Australian drug policy that, on the one hand, promotes pragmatic interventions based on harm reduction while, on the other, relies on law and order strategies and traditional penal powers to deter illicit drug use. Drawing on Pat Carlen’s concept of imaginary penalities, we argue that this imaginary form of drug control is underpinned largely by symbolic measures that, in attempting to address public demands for safety and security, reproduce a punitive form of governance that fails to achieve its desired outcomes. Using qualitative interview data from a sample of 29 people who used drugs, and 15 professionals working in the drugs field, this article investigates responses to the contemporary governance of illicit drugs in Queensland. Based on the research findings, we argue that the conjoined nature of Australian drugs governance can be understood as imaginary drug control because it constantly recreates the conditions that perpetuate drug-related harm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document