Experts, Expertise and Drug Policymaking

People who use drugs' prioritization of regulation amid decriminalization reforms in British Columbia, Canada: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

North America and the province of British Columbia (BC), Canada, is experiencing an unprecedented number of overdose deaths. In BC, overdose has become the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 10-59 years old. In January 2023, BC decriminalized personal possession of a number of illegal substances with one aim being to address overdose deaths through stigma reduction and promoting access to substance use services.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study to understand people who use drugs' (PWUD) perceptions of the new decriminalization policy, immediately prior to its' implementation (October-December 2022). To contextualize decriminalization within broader drug policy, we also asked PWUD what they perceived as the priority issues drug policy ought to address and the necessary solutions. Our final sample included 38 participants who used illegal drugs in the past month.

RESULTS

We identified four themes: 1) The illicit drug supply as the main driver of drug toxicity deaths 2) Concerns about the impact of decriminalization on drug toxicity deaths 3) Views towards decriminalization as a policy response in the context of the drug toxicity crisis 4) Regulation as a symbol of hope for reducing drug toxicity deaths.

CONCLUSION

From our data it became clear that many anticipated that decriminalization would have minimal or no impact on the overdose crisis. Regulation was perceived as the necessary policy approach for effectively and candidly addressing the drivers of the ongoing overdose crisis. These findings are important as jurisdictions consider different approaches to moving away from prohibition-based drug policy.

Scandalous decisions: explaining shifts in UK medicinal cannabis policy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Opening up access to scheduled drugs such as cannabis in the United Kingdom rarely happens, yet on 1 November 2018 the United Kingdom changed the law to allow cannabis-derived products to be prescribed for medicinal purposes, albeit in tightly controlled circumstances. This followed substantial media interest in the cases of two children with epilepsy. This article focuses upon the role of scandal in bringing about legislative change.

METHODS

We used political science and social policy theories (punctuated equilibrium theory and scandal theory) to guide a qualitative content analysis of media articles published in 2018 in UK national newspapers. We focused in particular on the 6-month period prior to the policy change.

RESULTS

The concentrated attention by the media given to the suffering of children with epilepsy appears to have prompted the rapid change in policy by the UK government. A variety of strategies were used to develop a highly emotive response to garner support for reform. Media stories emphasized the injustice of two extremely sick children being unable to access the medicine they apparently needed to enable them to have a 'normal' childhood. Three groups of 'claim-makers' were identified as important in influencing public opinion: families, high-profile individuals and campaigning groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The case of medicinal cannabis in the United Kingdom suggests that policy reform can occur when a scandal is successfully manufactured. We must be cautious, however, about over-emphasizing the role of scandal as a driver of policy change in this context: only a limited set of circumstances will permit a prescription for cannabis-based medicine to be issued in the United Kingdom.

Deconstructing prohibitionist ideology: A sociocognitive approach to understand opinions on UK drug policy and the law

BACKGROUND

There is increasing support to include people who use drugs (PWUD) into debates about drug policy reform in order to improve policy legitimacy and outcomes. The aim of this paper is thus to critically analyse the perspectives of PWUD on UK drug policy and the law. This is the first empirical study to apply the four philosophical positions that underpin drug policy debates: Millian liberalism, legal moralism, strict libertarianism and paternalism (MacCoun and Reuter, 2001) to understand opinions and ideology.

METHODS

Forty interviews were conducted with PWUD about the meaning of and motivation for their substance consumption and about their opinions on drug policy and the law. The responses were analysed using the sociocognitive approach pioneered by van Dijk 2014; 2015 from the field of critical discourse studies. The analysis involved connecting personal experiences, knowledge and opinions to broader values, attitudes and ideology, specifically the analysis focused upon the extent to which participants challenged or supported prohibitionist ideology.

RESULTS

The opinions of those PWUD studied were diverse and complex. There was some support for prohibition, but overwhelmingly there was resistance and challenge to it. We theorise the challenge to prohibitionist ideology on a continuum from anti-prohibition to pro-reform. Key themes from the analysis included: knowledge gaps regarding terminology; uncertainty about and lack of consideration of policy and reform; political dissonance; apprehension about public attitudes and behaviours; reform rooted in social welfare and human rights ideology; and apathy through counter-culture.

CONCLUSION

The findings demonstrate a lack of clarity amongst some PWUD regarding drug policy and reform. Educational initiatives outlining the different reform approaches would therefore provide PWUD with invaluable knowledge and help facilitate their enagement into reform debates. Despite a lack of clarity and consistency within opinions, participants were united in their discussion of human rights, health, economics and education; therefore these topics could help frame future approaches that seek to include PWUD into debates about drug policy.