Suchergebnisse

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.

Argues that the "war on drugs" bears much of the blame for drug-related crime, epidemic use of crack cocaine, and the spread of AIDS through dirty syringes; advocates needle exchange, addiction treatment, and decriminalization of marijuana; US.

1. Informing and guiding drug policy -- 2. The debate over control and regulation -- 3. The debate over management -- 4. The debate over value -- 5. Case studies: the unintended consequences of ill-informed policies -- 6. False issues, dubious solutions, and the need for public discourse.

In the first place, I welcome you warmly to the Peace Palace. I am the director of the Carnegie Foundation, a foundation which owns and manages the Palace and which is the host to the Peace Palace Library. So it is a great pleasure to see all of you here, in this new part of the Palace, the Academy and Library Building.

ABSTRACTThis study explores the rationality of drug policy. It proposes a cybernetic relationship between actual drug severity, public salience of the drug problem, and anti‐drug funding. The study hypothesizes that increases in the severity of the drug problem will cause an increase in the salience of the drug issue. Increased salience in turn leads to political pressure and increased drug funding. As funding increases, anti‐drug programs become more robust and effective and drug severity decreases. When severity decreases, salience should in turn decrease. And so on. To test the cybernetic model, the study correlates trends of drug data from 1970 through 1996. It finds significant correlation between drug severity, measured by hospital emergency room drug episodes, and drug salience, measured by media coverage of drug events. The study finds correlations of drug funding and severity to be ambiguous, and finds no correlation between drug funding and drug salience. The findings do not support the overall hypothesis of a rational, cybernetic process but offer insights on drug policy dynamics.