Abstract
Research plays a role in designing policy, but is one of many factors on the minds of policymakers in their decision-making. This is due to a lack of credibility policymakers perceive when different researchers studying the same policy question produce discordant results and occasional disputes over data and methodologies used to test a hypothesis. While substance abuse research is not alone in informing substance abuse policy, it may complement or compete with a host of other factors policymakers use to shape substance abuse policy. Indeed, absent evidence from research about the best course of action to address a problem, policymakers still will act and do so with the belief that their decisions are rational. As champions of the cause, they shape policy using whatever information is at their disposal. This chapter is evidence-based in that it confers with the literature to establish reasonable academic parameters about the topic and it is seeded with personal experience from policy development with the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). It identifies salient factors that are always at play in formulating substance abuse policy and ends with an example about how research did and then did not matter in a decade-long tug-of-war among researchers and policymakers about U.S. drug interdiction policy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Many narcotic, plant-based, and psychotropic substances remain under international control under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance. The vast majority of governments are signatories to these international drug control treaties, which render the use, sale, traffic, and production of drugs like heroin, cocaine, and cannabis illegal.
- 2.
The term “evidence-based” is commonly used to denote policies that are informed by data and research. The phrase “evidence-based” has made its way into the parlance surrounding substance abuse or drug policy. Other similar phrases include “science-based” and “research-based.” For purposes of this chapter, it is assumed that any of these descriptors of desirable policy may be used interchangeably.
- 3.
As of the date of this writing (August 2016), marijuana has been legalized in four states in the United States (Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington) and the District of Columbia. Nevertheless, even though these states allow marijuana to be used for recreational purposes, it is classified as an illegal (schedule I) substance by the federal government under the Controlled Substance Act.
- 4.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690) at the end of the Reagan Administration. It became operational in March 1989 during the beginning of the Bush Administration with the appointment of William Bennett as ONDCP’s first Drug Czar.
- 5.
These include the following laws: The Crime Control Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-473); the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-570); the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690); the Crime Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647); and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322).
- 6.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was promoted during the Clinton Administration.
- 7.
P.L. 110-343.
- 8.
The Affordable Care Act actually refers to two separate pieces of legislation—the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152).
- 9.
This is especially noticeable as marijuana legalization increasingly passes by ballot initiative rather than through legislative action by elected officials.
- 10.
As a further example of the strength of public opinion in influencing policymakers, during his inaugural address in January 1989, George H.W. Bush said “There are few clear lines in which we as a society must rise up united and express our intolerance. The most obvious now is drugs… there is much to be done and to be said, but take my word for it: This scourge will stop.” In March 1989, William Bennett was appointed to become the first drug czar in the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
- 11.
ONDCP Circular: Budget Formulation, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013_circular-budget_formulation.pdf.
- 12.
This is generally consistent with the “research lag” that plagues even the most research-focused policymaker.
- 13.
Interdiction spending increased by $1.1 billion from $1.1 billion in FY 1994 to $2.2 billion by FY 1999.
- 14.
Text reported in the Executive Summary of the 1999 NRC Report. The Executive Summary further stated that: “The [Rand] study makes many unsubstantiated assumptions about the processes through which cocaine is produced, distributed, and consumed. Plausible changes in these assumptions can change not only the quantitative findings reported, but also the main qualitative conclusions of the study. Hence the study’s findings do not constitute a persuasive basis for the formation of cocaine control policy”; and that “major concerns about data and methods make it impossible to accept the IDA findings as a basis for the assessment of interdiction policies.”
References
Anderson, D., Rees, D., & Sabia, J. (2015). High on life? Medical marijuana laws and suicide. CATO Institute, Research Briefs in Economic Policy, No 17.
Bare, J. (1990). The war on drugs: A case study in opinion formation. The Public Perspective, November/December.
Blendon, R., & Young, J. (1998). The public and the war on illicit drugs. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(11), 827–832.
Carnevale Associates. (2008). Fixing national drug control policy: Principles of an effective drug control policy. Carnevale Associates Policy Brief. Available at: http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/fixing_drug_policy2008
Carnevale, J., & Murphy, P. (1999). Matching rhetoric to dollars: Twenty-five years of federal drug strategies and budgets. Journal of Drug Issues, 29, 299–322.
Caulkins, J., Crawford, G., & Reuter, P. (1993). Simulation of adaptive response: A model of interdictor-smuggler interactions. Computer and Mathematical Modeling, 17(2), 37–52.
Caulkins, J., Kilmer, B., & Kleiman, M. (2016). Marijuana legalization: What everyone needs to know (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Caulkins, J., Kilmer, B., Kleiman, M., MacCoun, R., Midgette, G., Oglesby, P., et al. (2015). The marijuana legalization Debate: Insights from Vermont. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. (2009). Identifying and selecting evidence-based interventions revised guidance document for the strategic prevention framework state incentive grant program. HHS Pub. No. (SMA) 09–4205. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Congressional Research Service. (2007). Federal drug control: Background, legislation, and issues. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service Reports.
Crane, B. D., Rivolo, A. R., & Comfort, G. C. (1997). An empirical examination of counterdrug interdiction program effectiveness. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analysis.
Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission—CICAD. (2009). How to develop a national drug control policy: A guide for policymakers, practitioners, and stakeholders. Washington, DC: Organization of American States.
Kerlikowske, G. (2011). Addiction is a brain disease and not a moral failing. Retrieved from: https://ncadd.org/in-the-news/365-addiction-is-a-disease-not-a-moral-failure-kerlikowske
MacCoun, R. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 259–287.
Madras, B. (2010). Office of national drug control policy: A scientist in drug policy in Washington DC. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1187, 370–402.
Manski, C. F., Pepper, J. V., & Petrie, C. V. (Eds.). (2001). Informing America’s policy on illegal drugs: What we don’t know keeps hurting us. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Manski, C. F., Pepper, J. V., & Thomas, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Assessment of two cost-effectiveness studies on cocaine control policy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Meier, K. (1990). The politics of drug abuse: Laws, implementation, and consequences. The Western Political Quarterly, 45(1), 41–69.
Murray, D. (2014). Hard to study: The difficulty in measuring marijuana’s value. Washington, DC: Hudson Institute. Available at: http://www.hudson.org/research/10604-hard-to-study-the-difficulty-in-measuring-marijuana-s-value
Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2010). The national drug control strategy, 2010. Washington, DC: The White House, Office of National Drug Control Policy.
National Drug Intelligence Center. (2011). The economic impact of illicit drug use on American Society. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Pew Research Center. (2014). Views of marijuana—Legalization, decriminalization, concerns. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, America’s New Drug Policy Landscape. Available at: http://www.people-press.org/2014/04/02/section-2-views-of-marijuana-legalization-decriminalization-concerns/
Reuter, P. (2001). Why does research have so little impact on American drug policy? Addiction, 96, 373–376.
Reuter, P. (2013). Why has U.S. drug policy changed so little over 30 years? Crime and Justice, 42(1).
Reuter, P., Crawford, G., & Cave, J. (1988). Sealing the borders: The effects of increased military participation in drug interdiction. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, National Defense Research Institute.
ROPER Center for Public Opinion Research. Retrieved from: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/public-perspective/ppscan/84/84014.pdf
Rydell, C., & Everingham, S. (1994). Controlling cocaine: Supply versus demand programs. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, Drug Policy Research Center. ISBN 0-8330-1552-4.
Simeone, R., Carnevale, J., & Millar, A. (2005). A systems approach to performance-based management: The national drug control strategy. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 191–202.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). Results from the 2013 national survey on drug use and health: Summary of national findings. NSDUH Series H-48, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14–4863. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Tieberghien, J. (2012). Understanding the research-policy interface: An analysis of the Belgian debate on cannabis policy between 1996 and 2003. In International Society for the Study of Drug Policy (ISSDP-2012). Ghent University, Department of Penal Law and Criminology.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carnevale, J.T. (2017). Application: What Role Does Research Play in Shaping Substance Abuse Policy?. In: VanGeest, J., Johnson, T., Alemagno, S. (eds) Research Methods in the Study of Substance Abuse. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55980-3_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55980-3_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55978-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55980-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)