Public opinion and drug policy in Australia: Engaging the ‘affected community’

Changes in Australians' attitudes towards supervised injecting facilities

INTRODUCTION

Supervised injecting facilities (SIF) have been shown to reduce negative outcomes experienced by people who inject drugs. They are often subject to intense public and media scrutiny. This article aimed to explore population attitudes to SIFs and how these changed over time in Australia.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey, a national sample collecting data on illicit drug use and attitudes towards drug policy among Australians (2001-2019). Ordinal logistic regression assessed sociodemographic characteristics associated with different attitudes to SIFs and binary logistic regression assessed trends over time and by jurisdiction.

RESULTS

In 2019, 54% of respondents (95% CI 52.9, 55.1) supported SIFs, 27.5% (95% CI 26.6, 28.4) opposed and 18.4% (95% CI 17.7, 19.2) were ambivalent. Support for SIFs correlated with having a university degree (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.58, 1.94), non-heterosexual identity (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.51, 2.17) and recent illicit drug use (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.55, 1.94). Male respondents or those living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas had lower odds of supporting SIFs (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85, 1.00; OR 0.64-0.80, respectively). Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased modestly by 3.3%, those who 'don't know' by 7.4%, whereas opposition decreased by 11.7%. Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased in NSW and Queensland, whereas opposition decreased in all jurisdictions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Opposition to SIFs declined over the past 20 years, but a substantial proportion of respondents are ambivalent or 'don't know enough to say'. Plain language information about SIFs and their potential benefits, targeted to those who are ambivalent/'don't know' may further increase public support.

Towards a social harm approach in drug policy

In this paper, we explore how the social harm approach can be adapted within drug policy scholarship. Since the mid-2000s, a group of critical criminologists have moved beyond the concept of crime and criminology, towards the study of social harm. This turn proceeds decades of research that highlights the inequities within the criminal legal system, the formation of laws that protect the privileged and punish the disadvantaged, and the systemic challenge of the effectiveness of retribution and punishment at addressing harm in the community. The purpose of this paper is to first identify parallels between the social harm approach and critical drug scholarship, and second to advocate for the adoption of a social harm lens in drug policy scholarship. In the paper, we draw out the similarities between social harm and drug policy literatures, as well as outline what the study of social harm can bring to an analysis of drug policy. This includes a discussion on the ontology of drug crime, the myth of drug crime and the ineffective use of the crime control system in response to drug use. The paper then discusses how these conversations in critical criminology and critical drugs scholarship can be brought together to inform future drug policy research. This reflection details the link between social harm and the impingement of human flourishing, explores the role of decolonizing drug policy, advocates for the centralization of lived experience within the research process and outlines how this might align with harm reduction approaches. We conclude by arguing that the social harm approach challenges the idea that neutrality is the goal in drug policy and explicitly seeks to expand new avenues in activist research and social justice approaches to policymaking.

When self-direction meets conformity: Surfacing Schwartz's 10 basic human values in drug policy dialogue with lived/living experience participants

BACKGROUND

Research on values is gaining in popularity within drug policy scholarship. To date, research has focused on analysing values within policy, through documentary analysis and interviews with key stakeholders. We extend this research enquiry to investigate the values that emerge from drug policy debate with those who have lived and/or living experience of using drugs.

METHODS

We used workshop data collected from the ESRC-funded Drug Policy Voices project as the basis for our analysis. Within the workshops, participants were given a range of drug policy scenarios to discuss. We selected three scenarios for this paper which discussed policies related to cannabis, heroin, and MDMA/ecstasy. We coded the workshop data using Schwartz's ten basic values, which is a framework that perceives values as the core 'motivators of action' that underpin choices, attitudes and behaviours.

RESULTS

We found that the values of 'self-direction', 'security' and 'conformity' were prominent across this participant group, when discussing these policy topics. Yet the drug policy preferences discussed in the workshops revealed that it is the combinations of values that nuance preferences. Security combined with self-direction supports policies that enhance personal responsibility for change; self-direction combined with hedonism supports freedom to use drugs, whereas self-direction combined with conformity and achievement supports recovery policies; and conformity combined with tradition and power supports abstinence-based drug prevention.

CONCLUSION

Schwartz's ten basic values provided a useful framework for surfacing values that underpin drug policy preferences. These exploratory findings demonstrate that identifying values within dialogue is a complex process and reinforces opposing values can explain policy preference differences. More importantly, policy preferences were underpinned by combinations of values including those that are apparently opposing in Schwartz's circumplex.

Voices represented and voices silenced: Represented voices in the media coverage of the implementation of a supervised injecting facility

BACKGROUND

Victoria's first medically supervised injecting room (MSIR) has remained controversial despite mounting evidence in support of the facility. The opposition to a policy idea is subject to a myriad of factors including the media. Favouring the opinions of various actors, the media are a fundamental element of the narrative formation process. In this article, we examine the voices represented and voice silenced in print news media and the possible effects of such reporting.

METHODS

A quantitative content and qualitative thematic analysis of Victorian print media (n=645) focusing on the implementation and continued operation of North Richmond Community Health's medically supervised injecting room was conducted.

RESULTS

The representations of the MSIR were debated by three predominant actors - politicians, public, and residents. Politicians largely relied on the 'saving lives' rhetoric when supporting the facility. In addition, competing representations of 'public amenity' were presented by both advocates and proponents of the MSIR. We found the voices of people who inject drugs were inadequately represented within the data. Instead, overdose statistics were featured as were discursive descriptions of people who inject drugs such as 'addicts', 'junkies', and 'druggies'.

CONCLUSION

Despite people who inject drugs being the population the MSIR is designed to benefit, their experiences and voices were lacking, highlighting social power structures, denying the silenced power, and obstructing social change. Overdose rates were consistently presented as numbers, negating personal experiences and lacking meaningful debate. Further, negative discourse referring to people who inject drugs may have implications regarding internalised and externalised stigma and drug policy.

Changes in and correlates of Australian public attitudes toward illicit drug use

INTRODUCTION

The present study explores Australian public support for more lenient treatment of persons found in possession of small amounts of illegal drugs for personal use.

METHODS

Data for the study are drawn from the 2013, 2016 and 2019 National Drug Strategy Household Surveys. Bivariate associations were tested using χ² tests corrected for survey design. Multivariate analyses of public support for legalisation and imprisonment involved logistic regression. Multivariate analyses of public preferences for various responses to those found in possession of illicit drugs involved the use of multinomial regression.

RESULTS

Support for legalising personal use of three drugs (cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine) has risen significantly since 2013 but remained stable (and low) for two (heroin and methamphetamine). Support for no action, a caution or a warning has grown for those found in possession of cannabis, ecstasy and heroin for personal use but not for those found in possession of methamphetamine. There is, however, more support for responding to this group with treatment, education or a small fine than there is for imprisonment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

There is strong support for legalising use of cannabis. There is little support for legalising use of ecstasy and cocaine but growing public support for a less punitive approach to those who use these drugs. There is little public support for a change in the current approach to heroin and methamphetamine.

“We’re Not Being Treated Like Mothers”: Listening to the Stories of First Nations Mothers in Prison

This article is based on research with over 160 First Nations women in prisons in New South Wales, Australia. The research identified the lived experience of prison sentences for First Nations women in prison. Our research methodology was guided by an Aboriginal women’s advisory body called sista2sista. It was based on the principles of Dadirri in which we listened to the stories of First Nations women in prison on their terms. Consequently, many stories we heard were not about the criminal sentencing process itself, but about the impacts of imprisonment on their capacity to be caregivers in the community, including as mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, teachers and role models. The findings from this research are dual. First, the importance of listening to and empowering First Nations women in prison in policy making that concerns First Nations women. Second, the need to decarcerate First Nations mothers and listen and respond to their needs, expectations, priorities and aspirations, to ensure they are supported in fulfilling their role and responsibility to care, nurture, strengthen and lead their families and communities.

Perceptions of injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) among people who regularly use opioids in Australia: findings from a cross-sectional study in three Australian cities

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Not all people experiencing opioid dependence benefit from oral opioid agonist treatment. The aim of this study was to examine perceptions of (supervised) injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) (described as 'an opioid similar to heroin self-injected at a clinic several times a day') among people who regularly use opioids and determine how common iOAT eligibility criteria accord with interest in iOAT.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey SETTING: Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart, Australia PARTICIPANTS: A total of 344 people (63% male) who use opioids regularly and had ever injected opioids, interviewed December 2017-March 2018. The mean age of participants was 41.5 years [standard deviation (SD) = 8.5].

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcome measures were interest in iOAT, factors associated with interest and the proportion of participants who would be eligible using common criteria from trials and guidelines. We examined willingness to travel for iOAT, medication preferences and perspectives on whom should receive iOAT.

FINDINGS

Overall, 53% of participants (n = 182) believed that iOAT would be a good treatment option for them. Participants who believed that iOAT was a good treatment option for them were more likely to be male [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-2.82], have used heroin in the past month (aOR = 6.03, 95% CI = 2.86-12.71), currently regularly inject opioids (aOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.16-2.91) and have met ICD-10 criteria for opioid dependence (aOR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.65-7.24). Those interested in iOAT had commenced more treatment episodes (aOR =1.06, 95% CI = 1.00-1.12). Among those interested in iOAT (n = 182), 26% (n = 48) met common eligibility criteria for iOAT.

CONCLUSIONS

Interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment does not appear to be universal among people who regularly use opioids. Among study participants who expressed interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment, most did not meet common eligibility criteria.

'I could have went down a different path': Talking to people who used drugs problematically and service providers about Irish drug policy alternatives

BACKGROUND

People who use drugs problematically are consistently left out of consultations and deliberation on drug policy. This article explores how people who formerly used drugs problematically and service providers view Ireland's current drug policy and if alternative policies could be successful in an Irish context.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight people who used drugs problematically and six practitioners working with people who use drugs in Cork city, Ireland. All people who used drugs problematically had at least one year of abstinence and had been criminalised because of their drug use, all but one had served at least one custodial sentence. Participants were asked their opinions on safe injecting facilities, heroin assisted treatment, decriminalisation of drugs for personal use, depenalisation of cannabis and, the relationships between economic deprivation and problematic drug use.

RESULTS

Respondents stressed that, in Cork city, problematic drug use is closely linked with economic deprivation and social exclusion. There was a near consensus that criminalisation and penalisation do not deter consumption and produce unintended consequences. All participants supported safe injecting facilities and the decriminalisation of drugs for personal use. Participants were less certain about the utility of heroin assisted treatment and depenalisation of cannabis. Many discussions drifted away from alternatives policies towards the need for improved treatment provision.

CONCLUSION

Several participants were clear that none of the alternative policies discussed are silver bullets. Participates felt that, while they could reduce the harms caused by drugs and drug policies, the government's longer-term objectives should be increased treatment provision and, reduced social exclusion and economic deprivation.

Effects of messaging on public support for drug consumption rooms in scotland, UK

BACKGROUND

There is evidence to suggest that medically supervised drug consumption rooms (DCRs) may form part of responses to reduce drug-related harm. Although DCRs have been established globally, they are perceived by some to be a controversial approach in the UK, and Government has repeatedly rejected proposals to establish one in Glasgow, Scotland. As public support is an important component of policy development and enactment, we sought to investigate the effects of different types of message framing on public support for DCR.

METHODS

We undertook a cross-sectional online study with a randomised design, conducted with a nationally representative sample. Participants were randomised to one of six message conditions comprising combinations of four components. All conditions included i) a basic description of a DCR, and conditions included combinations of ii) factual information; iii) pre-emptive refutation of common public concerns about DCR; and/or iv) a sympathetic narrative describing a mother whose son died from a heroin overdose. After reading each message, participants completed a bespoke measure assessing support for DCR. Data were analysed using ANCOVA.

RESULTS

Complete data were obtained from 1591 participants (50.3% Female; mean age 44.9 ± 16.1 years). Compared to reading a basic description of DCR alone, there was greater support for DCR in participants receiving the refutation (p < .001); sympathetic + factual (p < .05); and sympathetic + factual + refutation (p < .001) message conditions. Presenting factual or sympathetic messages alone were not associated with increased support.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that public support for DCRs is not improved through communication of factual statements outlining potential benefits of the intervention alone. Advocates seeking to foster public support, and thus influence policy making, should also consider communication campaigns that address common concerns that the public might have about DCRs, and present the intervention in relation to potential benefits that they hold for people indirectly affected by drug-related harm.

'Small communities, large oversight': The impact of recent legislative changes concerning supervised consumption services on small communities in Ontario, Canada

The opioid epidemic continues to exert a large toll on public health across Canada, with the province of Ontario specifically experiencing exceptionally high opioid-related hospitalizations and overdoses in 2019. As a key evidence-based public health intervention to reduce these harms, over the past few years supervised consumption services (SCS), including temporary and flexible unsanctioned models, have been implemented in select cities across the province. However, in March 2019, the newly elected Ontario provincial government replaced SCS regulations with a 'streamlined' model that introduced additional bureaucratic and administrative requirements for application approval and funding, while placing a cap on the number of sites allowed. Only a select few sites were approved, despite the ability of numerous cities across the province to demonstrate a need for SCS in their community. Importantly, many small communities throughout Ontario have been experiencing opioid-related harms at rates which far outpace those of larger cities. Several of these communities have been actively working towards securing SCS sites, but have been unable to do so as they do not have the resources to meet stringent application requirements. These regulatory changes therefore hinder the feasibility of small communities to implement necessary and life-saving SCS, which will affect lives. This is a major oversight.

The legal regulation of drugs and role of government: Perspectives from people who use drugs

BACKGROUND

The legalization and regulation of currently illicit drugs has come to the forefront of drug policy debates in recent years, particularly in the context of cannabis legalization and the opioid crisis in North America. However, sufficient granularity on the various aspects of a legally regulated drug supply is missing from these debates. Further, the voices and opinions of people who use drugs have generally been absent from drug law reform deliberations. This study aimed to examine the views of people who use drugs and who are deeply impacted by drug policies to understand the perceived impacts and role of government under a legalized-regulated market.

METHODS

Four focus groups were held with people who use drugs in Sydney, Australia.

RESULTS

Most participants supported various models of legalization, although the perspectives on these models were diverse. Overriding these views was skepticism over the government's role in regulating a legal market, as well as concern for the personal agency of people who use drugs under a medically regulated drug supply model. Some participants discussed potential harms (e.g. increases in use and initiation), but emphasized the benefits (e.g. increases in quality and safety) from legal reform.

DISCUSSION

While there was support for legal models of drug supply regulation, findings have major implications in terms of how governments and medical systems may perpetuate the oppression of people who use drugs through regulation, and urge future drug policy deliberations to include broader perspectives from the affected community.

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.

"It's about bloody time": Perceptions of people who use drugs regarding drug law reform

BACKGROUND

In Australia and elsewhere, the impacts of drug prohibition have sparked a critical dialogue about the state of current drug laws. While a range of 'experts' have offered their opinion and participation in these deliberations, the voices of the affected community have largely been excluded. This study aimed to gather the opinions and preferences of people who use drugs about the current or alternative models of drug laws, in addition to how they think drug laws could be changed Author Conflict of Interest Declaration.

METHODS

In March 2018, four focus groups (n = 37) were conducted with people who were in receipt of social welfare services in Sydney, Australia, where participants were encouraged to share their views about the current drug laws, drug law reform options, and important messages to politicians. Several themes were identified through a thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Models of drug law reform were often understood and expressed in language and constructs different to those commonly used by researchers. Opinions were diverse and there was no consensus on a preferred model, although discussions flowed around decriminalisation, legalisation, and a medical/prescription model; the latter being the preferred approach. Participants shared pessimistic views of the drug laws ever changing, and argued that public opinion would need to adjust for reform to succeed. Furthermore, they argued that the views of the affected community are vital to any drug law reform campaign.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants affinity towards a medical/prescription approach to drug regulation was an unexpected finding. This study serves as an important example of the opinions and experiential knowledge of the affected community and this knowledge could be solicited alongside other forms of 'expertise' in drug law reform campaigns.

Evaluating ballot initiative support for legalised marijuana: The case of Washington

BACKGROUND

In 2012, Washington and Colorado became the first U.S. states to legalise recreational marijuana. By 2016, eight states and the District of Columbia had legalised recreational marijuana, with more expected to consider it in 2018. Despite this trend, little academic research explains what drives ballot-initiative vote choice on marijuana legalisation.

METHODS

This paper uses a pre-election random sample voter survey to examine the individual characteristics that correlated with Washington voters' support for legal recreational marijuana.

RESULTS

We find that voting on marijuana ballot initiatives largely reflects public opinion about marijuana and is particularly shaped voters' political ideology, party affiliation, religious affiliation and practice, and education. Notably, we find that those reporting experiences (i.e., someone they know) with the criminal justice system are more supportive of legalisation than those who do not.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that marijuana legalisation voting behavior generally aligns with public opinion on the issue. However, one key aspect of Washington's legalisation campaign-the criminal injustices of marijuana illegality-helped shape Washington state voting behavior. Further research is needed to examine if, when, and in what contexts criminal justice campaign themes are likely to strengthen or undermine future states' marijuana legalisation efforts.

The Cannabis Information Helpline: Assessing Interest in the Medicinal Use of Cannabis in Australia

BACKGROUND

The majority of Australians support a change in legislation to allow the use of cannabis for medical purposes. Despite strong public support, very little is known about the patterns of medicinal cannabis use among Australians.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to gain a better understanding of Australian medicinal cannabis users and their patterns of use.

METHODS

The nature of calls to the Cannabis Information and Helpline (N = 15701), a free national service for Australians with concerns regarding cannabis use, were investigated to determine the number of calls made by those who inquired about the medicinal use of cannabis (N = 275) and the implied reasons for use among those who identify using cannabis in this way.

RESULTS

The majority of medicinal cannabis inquirers mentioned cannabis to alleviate pain. Further, compared to other callers, medicinal cannabis inquirers were more likely to be male, unemployed, older, and have recently started using cannabis.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the need for future research to better understand the issues faced by Australians regarding the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes and how they may be meaningfully addressed. Particular focus should be placed toward older, unemployed males.

Explaining the declining rates of past year cannabis use in Australia: A first pass

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Cannabis use rates in Australia have declined since 2001. No research to date has examined possible reasons, despite evident policy interest in understanding such a positive public health outcome. In a 'first pass' examination, five possible reasons are explored: (i) attitudinal shifts regarding the acceptability of cannabis use; (ii) regulatory or policy changes; (iii) supply/market changes; (iv) changes in other drug use that may operate as substitutes or complements to cannabis; and (v) socio-cultural factors.

METHODS

Secondary analyses from three publically available national surveys (the National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2001 to 2013, the Illicit Drug Reporting System 2004 to 2013 and the Illicit Drug Data Report 2002 to 2013) were used to explore the five reasons.

RESULTS

It appears that all five explanations are reasonable and have preliminary evidence to indicate they are worth pursuing empirically. Attitudes have not softened towards cannabis in Australia, and regulatory changes appear to have tightened. Perceived purity may have declined, and with stable prices, this suggests an increase in purity-adjusted price that would also be consistent with decreased use. The significant declines in tobacco and alcohol use in Australia, which operate as complements to cannabis, also plausibly account for the significant decrease.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This work suggests future directions for cannabis research in Australia. New multi-disciplinary research that has the potential to explore multiple hypotheses simultaneously is required. [Ritter A, Sotade O. Explaining the declining rates of past year cannabis use in Australia: A first pass. Drug Alcohol Rev 2017;00:000-000].

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

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 Formation of Marijuana Risk Perception in a Population of Substance Abusing Patients

Risk perception has been shown to be protective with regard to marijuana use. Notably, the risk perception of marijuana in individuals with substance abuse problems varies significantly from that of the general public. Understanding how risk perception is formed in substance users could explain these differences and help predict the consequences of policy changes. Using this framework, we explored risk perception and its formation in a sample of substance abusing veterans. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with veterans who were receiving treatment for substance abuse. Interviews were recorded digitally, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. A prominent perspective among the 31 participants was that marijuana is significantly different from other drugs because it is safe, not addictive, not associated with physical withdrawal, and has less overt behavioral effects than other substances. Many of these participants drew upon their own innocuous experiences with the drug in developing this perspective, more so than information from any other source. A contrasting narrative emphasized marijuana's capacity to cause negative social consequences, act as a gateway to the use of other, more harmful substances, and cause paranoia or worsen psychosis. In conclusion, individual experience with marijuana featured more prominently in informing risk perception than any other source of information. Our results and previous literature suggest that the significant disconnect between the individual experiences of substance users and the current clinical and legal policy towards marijuana may weaken the legitimacy of public policy or the authority of the medical community.

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

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.

Attitudes of regular injecting drug users towards the legal status of the major illicit drugs

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

The study aimed to determine injecting drug users' (IDU) attitudes, and correlates of attitudes, towards continued prohibition, decriminalisation or legalisation of the major illicit drugs.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This study used structured interview with 300 IDUs who had injected on at least a weekly basis over the preceding 12 months.

RESULTS

Methamphetamine was rated the most harmful of the five illicit substances and cannabis the lowest. By far the highest level of support for legislative change was for cannabis, with only 8.7% supporting continued prohibition. While there was majority support for change to the legal status of heroin, the modal position was for decriminalisation. Support for changing the status of the three illicit psychostimulants was low, with the majority believing that methamphetamine (63.3%), cocaine (53.3%) and 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (53.3%) should remain illegal. Demographic characteristics were largely unrelated to attitudes. Lower levels of perceived harm were associated with increased likelihood of support for legalisation of all substances. Recent use was positively related to support for both decriminalisation and legality of heroin, but was not associated with views on other substances. Higher lifetime polydrug use was associated with support for the legalisation of heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine and 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

IDUs expressed nuanced views on different substances. In policy debates, care should be taken not to speak for IDUs by imputing their beliefs. It is clear that the fact that a group uses illegal drugs does not necessarily imply that they support changes to their legal status.