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

AbstractThis paper explores key lessons from the 1990 Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Drug Abuse (UNGASS 1990) and the 1998 Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS 1998), and tracks subsequent policy events and trends. It discusses the wide array of increasing tensions and cracks in the "Vienna consensus," as well as systemic challenges and recent treaty breaches. Various options for treaty reform are explored and the following questions are considered: Given policy developments around the world this past decade, what outcomes can the 2016 Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS 2016) have in terms of a new political compromise? How can UNGASS 2016 contribute to more system-wide coherence where previous attempts failed? Can UNGASS 2016 realistically initiate a process of modernizing the global drug control system and breathe oxygen into a system risking asphyxiation? Finally, is there a chance that treaty reform options will be discussed at all, or do today's political realities still block possible future regime changes?

AbstractThis article examines the variety of drug policy in operation within Europe by focusing on Sweden (relatively restrictive) and the Netherlands (relatively liberal) as case studies. It analyses European data to produce an in-depth overview of the nature of the illegal drugs situation in both countries, focusing on both successes and areas that could be improved. Finally it appraises the appetite for drug policy reform in terms of (i) cannabis regulation and (ii) treaty reform in each country. The main conclusions suggest that there are no common indicators of success by which drug policies in general can be judged, and there is little agreement within Europe about whether or not we are in need of drug policy reform. It suggests that a successful global drug policy should celebrate diversity and should also seek to provide an international framework within which different global drug strategies can be evaluated.

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Introduction: Drug Policy with a New Focus -- 1 Toward a Balanced Drug-Prevention Strategy: A Conceptual Map -- 2 Drug Users and Drug Dealers -- 3 Is Addiction a Chronic, Relapsing Disease? -- 4 Is Drug Addiction a Brain Disease? -- 5 If Addiction Is Involuntary, How Can Punishment Help? -- 6 Controlling Drug Use and Crime with Testing, Sanctions, and Treatment -- 7 Limits on the Role of Testing and Sanctions -- 8 How Should Low-Level Drug Dealers Be Punished? -- 9 Reflections on Drug Policy and Social Policy -- Postscript -- Contributors