scholarly journals Clashing Perspectives: Cannabis Users and Swedish Drug Policy

2021 ◽  
pp. 267-290
Author(s):  
Josefin Månsson ◽  
Mats Ekendahl ◽  
Patrik Karlsson
Keyword(s):  
Drug Policy ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Swedish Study ◽  
Treatment Staff

In a Swedish study treatment staff, youth cannabis users and adult cannabis users are interviewed about the risks of taking drugs. They all mobilize evidence-based arguments for their standpoints but arrive at quite different conclusions. Drug policy becomes “a matter of concern rather than a matter of facts”.

Social construction and the evidence-based drug policy endeavour

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 948-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kari Lancaster
Keyword(s):  
Social Construction ◽  
Drug Policy ◽  
Evidence Based

What would an evidence based drug policy be like?

BMJ ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 349 (dec09 6) ◽  
pp. g7493-g7493
Author(s):  
N. Singleton ◽  
J. Strang
Keyword(s):  
Drug Policy ◽  
Evidence Based

scholarly journals New evidence on the tenuous state of evidence-based drug policy

Addiction ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 109 (8) ◽  
pp. 1234-1235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. MacCoun
Keyword(s):  
Drug Policy ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
New Evidence

Is UK drug policy evidence based?

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 411-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor Bennett ◽  
Katy Holloway
Keyword(s):  
Drug Policy ◽  
Evidence Based

‘Naloxone works’: The politics of knowledge in ‘evidence-based’ drug policy

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kari Lancaster ◽  
Carla Treloar ◽  
Alison Ritter
Keyword(s):  
Drug Policy ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Ways Of Knowing ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Opioid Overdose ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
Policy Paradigm ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
Rational Knowledge

For over 20 years, drug policy experts have been calling for the wider availability of naloxone, to enable lay overdose witnesses to respond to opioid overdose events. However, the ‘evidence base’ for peer-administered naloxone has become a key point of contention. This contention opens up critical questions about how knowledge (‘evidence’) is constituted and validated in drug policy processes, which voices may be heard, and how knowledge producers secure privileged positions of influence. Taking the debate surrounding peer-administered naloxone as a case study, and drawing on qualitative interviews with individuals (n = 19) involved in the development of naloxone policy in Australia, we examine how particular kinds of knowledge are rendered ‘useful’ in drug policy debates. Applying Bacchi’s poststructuralist approach to policy analysis, we argue that taken-for-granted ‘truths’ implicit within evidence-based policy discourse privilege particular kinds of ‘objective’ and ‘rational’ knowledge and, in so doing, legitimate the voices of researchers and clinicians to the exclusion of others. What appears to be a simple requirement for methodological rigour in the evidence-based policy paradigm actually rests on deeper assumptions which place limits around not only what can be said (in terms of what kind of knowledge is relevant for policy debate) but also who may legitimately speak. However, the accounts offered by participants reveal the ways in which a larger number of ways of knowing are already co-habiting within drug policy. Despite these opportunities for re-problematisation and resistance, the continued mobilisation of ‘evidence-based’ discourse obscures these contesting positions and continues to privilege particular speakers.

The privileged role of researchers in “evidence-based” policy: implications and engagement of other voices

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 181-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Ritter
Keyword(s):  
Drug Policy ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Research Translation ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Research Knowledge ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
Ordinary Citizens

Purpose – This paper starts from the familiar premise of evidence-based policy, and examines the active role that researchers play in policy development processes. The interactive nature of much research translation immediately suggests the need to consider the dynamic way in which problems come to be understood, which is explored in this paper. Furthermore, the integration of research knowledge with the knowledges of “ordinary” citizens is a key challenge. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – This paper represents a synthesis of recent studies conducted by the author and her colleagues along with other drug policy literature. Findings – The interactive and dialogic processes that researchers engage with, whether as knowledge brokers or participants in elite policy development forums, have implications for how policy problems (and solutions) come to be constituted. Four perspectives and theoretical approaches are briefly outlined: research design; policy processes; problematization; and critical social sciences analyses. These offer different ways of seeing, understanding and analyzing the relationship between problems, policy solutions and the policy processes. Yet all have lessons for the ways in which research evidence and researchers constitute policy. This needs to sit alongside the role of other drug policy stakeholders – notably the “ordinary” citizen. It is argued that the elite role of research can be tempered with engagement of ordinary citizens. While it can be challenging to reconcile general public views about drugs with the evidence-base, deliberative democracy approaches may hold some promise. Originality/value – This paper draws together a number of central themes for drug policy processes research: where the evidence-based policy paradigm intersects with participatory democracy; how problems are constituted; and the privileged role of research and researchers.

Scientists, MDs critical in fight for evidence-based drug policy

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Michaela Montaner ◽  
Dan Werb ◽  
Evan Wood
Keyword(s):  
Drug Policy ◽  
Evidence Based
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document