Search results

The history of United States drug policy is complex, ranging from laissez-faire to strict prohibition. In recent years, there has been little federal interest in drug policy reform and a continuing focus on a prohibitionist deterrence approach. During this period, state initiatives have been in the forefront of drug policy experimentation via ballot initiatives, legislative actions, or judicial and administrative policy decisions. The resulting state-level drug policy landscape includes continued prohibition as well as harm reduction, medicalization, and decriminalization. In addition, there has been considerable state-level policy focus on substance abuse treatment quality. With a new presidential administration, there is some indication that drug policy reform may be a national issue as part of the federal health reform agenda. The authors hope that the results of state policy experiments that provide evidence for the viability of harm reduction, quality treatment, and related approaches can be a viable part of the national policy discussion.

Changes in policy processes have impacted policy participants and stimulated the development of new patterns of action and entrepreneurship, but also the emergence of new entrants claiming authority on 'global' policy terrains. Privately convened 'global initiatives' are proliferating while triggering some conceptual puzzles, blurring the already ill‐defined limits of 'global processes'. To seize the meanings and implications of 'going global', this article explores the empirical scope of such global framing of policy entrepreneurship and why such distinction matters for our understanding of global policy processes. To that end, the case of the Global Commission on Drug Policy (GCDP) is examined.

There is growing recognition that our decades-long "war on drugs" has not only been a policy failure but has made our societal drug crisis worse. This is painfully evident in our response to the opioid epidemic. Efforts at comprehensive policy reform are likely to emerge first at the state and local levels. We collaborated with policy advocates and practitioners to study policy perspectives of registered Maine voters, and to investigate determinants of receptivity to drug policy reforms rooted in decriminalization and harm reduction. Our results suggest that while political ideology still impacts one's perspective on these issues, increased exposure to those with substance use disorder reduces stigma, resulting in increasingly broad, bipartisan support for policy reform. We conclude with a discussion on how policymakers addressing overdose and substance use disorder at the state and local level should consider implementing and funding evidence-based alternative approaches such as decriminalization and harm reduction.

After citing the views of some prominent economists in favor of legalizing drugs, whether their position reflects the broader community of economists is explored. Survey data gathered in 1995 from 117 economists are presented & examined in the context of the demographics of the profession & public opinion polls on drug policy. Demographic characteristics of reformers vs prohibitionists are presented, & it is found that economists tend to resemble reformers in that regard. It is seen as unclear whether being an economist has much impact on the choice between prohibition & legalization. A list of postwar US economists' direct quotations about drug policy is then presented, & while a consensus on what exactly should be done is not clear, there is a broad, if imperfect, consensus on three general issues: (1) Most economists find current drug policy to be somewhat ineffective, very ineffective, or harmful. (2) Most economists agree that current policy should be changed. (3) Most economists agree that policy should be changed in the general direction of liberalization. Disagreement is found to center on direction & degree of liberalization. Tables, References. D. Edelman

The increased cooperation between European Union member states in many policy areas has made it increasingly difficult for individual countries to pursue national policies on issues like drugs. The drug policies of the Netherlands, which center squarely on harm reduction, were under severe attack in recent years. Yet a good look at the actual practices in many other countries leaves no doubt that the predominant tendency is towards a harm reduction approach. Debates are also underway in many countries on drug policy reform, and everything from the decriminalization or legalization of cannabis to the legal prescription of heroin have been advocated. Although it is not yet clear just what future policies will look like, the current wave of pragmatism in many European countries has made the liberal Dutch approach less of an isolated case than it was a decade or more ago.

Since about 1994, when the German Federal Constitutional Court effectively decriminalized the possession of small amounts of cannabis, a functional equivalent to criminal law has evolved in the form of traffic laws providing for the revocation of driving licenses in cases of cannabis possession. The historical and legal interpretations of this regulation are described, and its consequences are analyzed. It is postulated that, under the veil of traffic safety, harsh and repressive drug policies are being utilized to counteract legalization tendencies.

In a discussion of possible solutions to the drug problem in the US, the view that increased prosecution & incarceration would serve to deter abusers is discussed, then shown to be ineffective & too expensive to implement. Decriminalization & legalization are then discussed, concluding that decriminalization would be a positive step in reducing the irrationality & inhumanity of the war on drugs; legalization, however, would not decrease crime, & would probably result in an increase of drug users. E. Mortenson

In 1997 New Labour came to power with a landslide victory. This period also marked a watershed for illicit drug use which had become so widespread across the UK that it was regarded as a mainstream adolescent experience. However, broadly speaking there were two groups of drug users: one group of young people who selectively used drugs on a recreational and largely non-problematic basis; while another group (usually unemployed and socially excluded), who used whatever drugs they could find in a chaotic and problematic manner. Drug taking had become a normalized activity and criminalization of these drugs seemed unenforceable, out of touch and inappropriate. Inheriting an unworkable 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act 1997 seemed an opportune time for the New Labour government to deliver on its 'promise of change' and introduce drug legislation fit for the new millennium. This article reflects upon some of the key policy and legal changes introduced by the New Labour government (1997—2010) to manage drug use and misuse.