Skip to main content

Five Steps Towards a More Effective Global Drug Policy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 1017 Accesses

Abstract

We are at an interesting global juncture for drug policy, with an increasing volume of literature critiquing a zero tolerance approach, arguing that it has made little impression on either the production or consumption of illegal substances, and has caused a number of serious unintended consequences for both drug users and the societies in which they live. At the same time, increasingly liberal systems of drug policy have emerged. Portugal, for example, decriminalised the possession of all drugs for personal use in 2001. More recently, in the United States, Colorado and Washington have already established fully regulated cannabis markets. Alaska, Oregon and Washington DC have emerging regulated markets; and others such as Nevada, California, Arizona and Maine are widely expected to propose similar systems by 2016. Similarly, in Uruguay, legislation has been approved which will provide the first nationwide regulated cannabis market, and the pressure for international treaty reform from Latin American governments in general is growing. Nevertheless, Reuter (2011) has noted the difficulties that any government has in breaking out of the traditional drug policy mould. Any significant change requires the employment of sometimes radical new solutions which, if not found to be successful, would amount to political suicide for those involved in having pushed through their implementation. Thus, global drug policy often appears to be in a position of stalemate—the evidence of failure mounts, but the appetite for alternatives remains muted. This chapter offers five steps that we need to take if we are to effect any substantial change in drug policy on a global scale, and produce policies that are both more effective and more humane.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aas, K. F. (2007). Globalization & crime. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International. (2011). Addicted to death: Executions for drug offense in Iran. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barratt, M. J. (2012). Silk Road: Ebay for drugs. Addiction, 107, 83–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, D. (2010). Security, development & human rights: Normative, legal and policy challenges for the international drug control system. International Journal of Drug Policy, 21, 140–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartilow, H. A. (2014). Drug wars collateral damage: US counternarcotic aid and human rights in the Americas. Latin American Research Review, 49(2), 24–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bewley-Taylor, D. (2005). Emerging policy contradictions between the United Nations drug control system and the core values of the United Nations. International Journal of Drug Policy, 16, 423–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bewley-Taylor, D., & Jelsma, M. (2011). Fifty years of the 191 single convention on narcotic drugs: A reinterpretation. TNI: series on legislative reform of drug policies. Retrieved from http://www.tni.org

  • Boaz, A., & Pawson, R. (2005). The perilous road from evidence to policy: Five journeys compared. Journal of Social Policy, 34, 175–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boekhout van Solinge, T. (1999). Dutch drug policy in a European context. Journal of Drug Issues, 20, 511–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgois, P., & Schonberg, J. (2009). Righteous dopefiend. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, B. (2010). Policing the Caribbean: Transnational security cooperation in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, B. (2011). Transnational criminology and the globalisation of harm production. In M. Bosworth & C. Hoyle (Eds.), What is criminology? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruun, K., Pan, L., & Rexed, I. (1975). The gentleman’s club. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullington, B. (2000). America’s drug war: Fact or fiction. In R. Coomber (Ed.), The control of drug use and drug users. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatwin, C. (2010a). User involvement in the illegal drugs field: What can Britain learn from European experiences. Safer Communities, 9, 51–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatwin, C. (2010b). Have recent evolutions in European governance brought harmonisation in the field of illicit drugs any closer? Drugs and Alcohol Today, 10, 26–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatwin, C. (2011). Drug policy harmonization and the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, A. (2008). Making drug control ‘fit for purpose’: Building on te UNGASS decade. Vienna: Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Ministers. (1999). National drug strategy, Resolution of hte Council of Ministers No. 46/99 www.drugtext.org

  • de Jarlais, D. C. (1995). Editorial: Harm reduction—A framework for incorporating science into drug policy. American Journal of Public Health, 85(1), 10–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decorte, T. (2014). Cannabis social clubs in Belgium: organisational strengths and weaknesses, and threats to the model. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(2), 122–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupont, R. (1996). Harm reduction and decriminalisation in the United States: A personal perspective. Substance Use and Misuse, 31, 1929–1945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EMCDDA. (2015). European drug report 2015. Retrieved from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu

  • EMCDDA & Europol. (2012). New drugs in Europe, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu

  • Erickson, P. (1999). Introduction: The three phases of harm reduction. An examination of emerging concepts, methodologies and critiques. Substance Use and Misuse, 34(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2011). Towards a stronger European drug policy. Brussels: COM (2011) 689 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. (2015). European drug report 2015: Trends and developments. Retrieved from http://www.emcdda.eu.org

  • Evans-Brown, M., McVeigh, J., Perkins, C., & Bellis, M. A. (2012). Human enhancement drugs: The emerging challenges to public health. Liverpool John Moores University: North West Public Health Observatory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, P. (2001). Social consequences of and responses to drug misuse in member states. Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, Parliamentary assembly. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gable, R. S. (2004). Comparison of acute lethal toxicity of commonly abused psychoactive substances. Addiction, 99, 686–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1990). Theory formation in social research: A plea for pluralism. In E. Oyen (Ed.), Comparative methodology. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Commission on Drug Policy. (2011). War on drugs: Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy. Retrieved from http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org

  • Grund, J. P., & Breeksema, J. (2013). Coffeeshops and compromise: Separated illicit drug markets in the Netherlands. Open Society Foundations, Retrieved from http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org

  • Hakim, C. (2000). Research design: Successful designs for social and economic research (2nd ed.). London: Lynne Reiner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, W. (2007). What’s in a name. Addiction, 102, 691–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawks, D., & Lenton, S. (1998). Harm minimisation: A basis for decision making in drug policy? Risk Decision Policy, 3, 157–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, N. (2004). Public health or human rights: What comes first? International Journal of Drug Policy, 15, 231–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INCB. (2011). Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2011. Retrieved from http://www.unodc.org

  • Jensema, E. (2015). Human rights and drug policy. Transnational Institute www.tni.org

  • Keane, H. (2003). Critiques of harm reduction: Morality and the promise of human rights. International Journal of Drug Policy, 14(3), 227–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kebhaj, S., Shahidinia, N., Testa, A., & Williams, J. (2013). Collateral damage & the war on drugs: Estimating the effect of zero tolerance policies on drug arrest rates, 1975–2002. The Public Purpose, XI, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, A. (2011). Written evidence to the House of Lords’ enquiry into the European drug strategy. In House of Lords The EU drugs strategy: oral and written evidence. Home Affairs Subcommittee of the European Select Committee. http://www.parliament.co.uk

  • Korf, D. J. (2008). An open front door: The coffeeshop phenomenon in the Netherlands. In S. Rodner, B. Sznitman, B. Olsson, & R. Room (Eds.), A cannabis reader: Global issues and local experiences—Perspectives on cannabis controversies, treatment and regulation in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. EMCDDA monograph no. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenton, S., & Single, E. (1998). The definition of harm reduction. Drug and Alcohol Review, 17, 213–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R., & Reuter, P. (2001). Drug war heresies: Learning from other vices, times and places. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor, S. (2011). Oral evidence to the House of Lords’ enquiry into the European drug strategy. In House of Lords The EU drugs strategy: Oral and written evidence. Home Affairs Subcommittee of the European Select Committee. http://www.parliament.co.uk

  • Mena, F., & Hobbs, R. (2010). Narcophobia: Drugs prohibition and the generation of human rights abuses. Trends in Organised Crime, 13(1), 674.

    Google Scholar 

  • NICE. (2010). Alcohol-use disorders: Preventing the development of hazardous and harmful drinking. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, D. J. (2009). Equasy—An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 23(1), 3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, D. J., King, L. A., Saulsbury, W., & Blakemore, C. (2007). Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs. The Lancet, 369, 1047–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, D. J., King, L. A., & Phillips, L. D. (2010). Drug harms in the UK: A multicriteria decision analysis. The Lancet, 376, 1558–1565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provine, D. M. (2007). Unequal under law: Race in the war on drugs. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • RAND. (2012). Assessment of the implementation of the EU drugs strategy and its action plans. www.rand.org

  • Rehm, J., Fischer, B., Hickman, M., Ball, A., Atun, R., Kazalchkine, M., Southwell, M., Fry, C., & Room, R. (2010). Perspectives on harm reduction—What experts have to say. In EMCDDA’s (Ed.), Harm reduction: Evidence, impact and challenges. www.emcdda.europa.eu

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinarman, C., Cohen, P., & Kaal, H. (2004). The limited relevance of drug policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 836–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuter, P. (2011). Options for regulating new psychoactive drugs: A review of recent experiences. UK Drug Policy Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, T., & Hedrich, D. (2010). Harm reduction and the mainstream. In European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction’s Harm reduction: Evidence, impacts and challenges. www.emcdda.europa.eu

  • Ritter, A. (2007). How do drug policy makers access research evidence? International Journal of Drugs Policy, 20, 70–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolles, S. (2009). After the war on drugs: Blueprint for regulation. Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Retrieved from http://www.tdpf.org.uk

  • Room, R. (2014). Legalising a market for cannabis for pleasure: Colorado, Washington, Uruguay and beyond. Addiction, 109(3), 345–351. doi:10.111/add/12355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Room, R., & MacKay, S. (2012). Roadmaps to reforming the UN drug conventions. A Beckley Foundation report. Retrieved from http://www.beckleyfoundation.org

  • Rosmarin, A., & Eastwood, N. (2012). A quiet revolution: Drug decriminalisation policies in practice across the globe. www.release.org

  • Seddon, T. (2014). Drug policy and global regulatory capitalism: The case of new psychoactive substances (NPS). International Journal of Drug Policy, 25, 1019–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spear, B. (1994). The early years of the ‘British System’ in practice. In J. Strang & M. Gossop (Eds.), Heroin addiction and drug policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Standring, A. (2012). An ever closer union—Towards the ‘soft’ convergence of European

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, A. (2011a). Drugs, crime and public health: The political economy of drug policy. London: Routledge-Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, A. (2011b). Telling policy stories: An ethnographic study of the use of evidence in policy-making in the UK. Journal of Social Policy, 40, 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, A. (2011c). Oral evidence to the House of Lords’ enquiry into the European drug strategy. In House of Lords The EU drugs strategy: Oral and written evidence. Home Affairs Subcommittee of the European Select Committee. http://www.parliament.co.uk

  • Stevens, A., & Measham, F. (2014). The ‘drug policy ratchet’: Why do sanctions for new psychoactive drugs typically only go up? Addiction, 109(8), 1226–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strang, J., Babor, T., Caulkins, J., Fischer, B., Foxcroft, D., & Humphreys, K. (2012). Drug policy and the public good: Evidence for effective interventions. The Lancet, 379, 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uchtenhagen, A. (2014). Some critical issues in cannabis policy reform. Addiction, 109(3), 356–358. doi:10.111/add.12455.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1961). Single convention on narcotic drugs, 1961. Retrieved from http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal

  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2014). World drug report. Retrieved from http://www.unodc.org

  • UNODC. (2007). Swedens successful drug policy: A review of the evidence. Retrieved from http://www.unodc.org.

  • UNODC. (2013, March). The challenge of new psychoactive substances. Global Smart Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • van het Loo, M., van Beusekom, I., & Kahan, J. (2002). Decriminalisation of drug use in Portugal: the development of a policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 582, 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Hout, M. C., & Bingham, T. (2013a). Surfing the Silk Road: A study of users’ experiences. International Journal of Drug Policy, 24, 524–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Hout, M. C., & Bingham, T. (2013b). Silk Road, the virtual drug marketplace: A single case study of user experiences. International Journal of Drug Policy, 24, 385–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasconi, C. (2013). Where next for Europe on drug policy reform?. Expert seminar, Lisbon, Portugal, 20–21 June 2013. Transnational Institute, Retrieved from http://www.tni.org

  • Winstock, A., & Ramsey, J. (2010). Legal highs and the challenges for policy makers. Addiction, 105(10), 1685–1687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, E., Werb, D., Kazatchkine, M., Kerr, T., Hankins, C., Gorna, R., et al. (2010). Vienna declaration: A call for evidence-based drug policies. The Lancet, 376, 310–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodiwiss, M. (1988). Crime, crusades and corruption: Prohibitions in the United States, 1900–1987. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. (1971). The drugtakers: The social meaning of drug use. London: McGibbon & Kee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youngers, C., & Roisin, E. (Eds.) (2005). Drugs and democracy in Latin America: The impact of US policy. London: Lynne Reinner.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chatwin, C. (2016). Five Steps Towards a More Effective Global Drug Policy. In: Matthews, R. (eds) What is to Be Done About Crime and Punishment?. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57228-8_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57228-8_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-57227-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-57228-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics