Appreciating cannabis: The paradox of evidence in evidence-based policy making

Evidence and Policy

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 209-231

  Monaghan, Mark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cannabis; Evidence; Policy; Research utilisation

Indexed keywords

EID: 45449103689     PISSN: 17442648     EISSN: 17442656     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1332/174426408784614662     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Acevedo, B. (2007) 'Creating the cannabis user: a post-structuralist analysis of the reclassification of cannabis in the United Kingdom (2004-2005)', International Journal of Drug Policy, vol 18, no 3, pp 177-86.
2. ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) (1979) Reports on drug dependants tvithin the prison system in England and Wales, London: Home Office.
3. ACMD (2002) The classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, London: Home Office.
4. ACMD (2005) Further consideration of the classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, London: Home Office.
5. Arseneault, L., Cannon, M., Witton, J. and Murray, R.M. (2004) 'Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence', British Journal of Psychiatry, vol 184, no 2, pp 110-17.
6. Beckley Foundation (2002) 'Society and drugs: a rational perspective: Seminar 1', Drugs and the brain conference, Magdalen College, Oxford: The Beckley Foundation.
7. Berridge, V and Thom, B. (1996) 'Research and policy: what determines the relationship?', Policy Studies, vol 17, no 1, pp 23-34.
8. Blunkett, D. (2000) 'Influence or irrelevance: can social science improve government?', Research Intelligence: News from the British Education and Research Association, Issue 71, March.
9. Boister, N. (2001) 'Decriminalising the personal use of cannabis in the United Kingdom: does international law leave room for manoeuvre?', Criminal Law Review, pp 171-83.
10. Dorn, N. and Jamieson, A. (2001) 'European drugs laws: room for manoeuvre', London: DrugScope.
11. Duke, K. (2001) 'Evidence-based policy making? The interplay between research and the development of prison drugs policy', Criminal justice, vol 1, no 3, pp 277-300.
12. Duke, K. (2003) Drugs, prisons and policy-making, London: Palgrave.
13. Fergusson, D.M., Horwood, L.J. and Ridder, E.M. (2005) 'Tests of causal linkages between cannabis use and psychotic symptoms', Addiction, vol 100, no 3, pp, 354-66.
14. Hansard (2007) 'Westminster Hall debates - drug classification: John Bercow in the chair', available at: www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/ ?id=2007-06-14a.335.0
15. Henquet, C., Krabbendam, L., Spauwen, J., Kaplan, C., Lieb, R., Wittchen, H.-U. and van Os, J. (2004) 'Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people', British Medical Journal, vol 330, p 11.
16. Home Affairs Committee (2002) The government's drugs policy: Is it working?, London: Home Office.
17. Janowitz, M. (1972) Sociological models and social policy, Morristown, NJ: General Learning Systems.
18. Levitt, R., Nason, E. and Hallsworth, M. (2006) The evidence base for the classification of drugs, Cambridge: RAND Corporation.
19. Lindblom, C.E. (1959) 'The science of muddling through', Public Administration Review, vol 19, no 2, pp 79-88.
20. Lindblom, C.E. (1980) The policy making process (2nd edition), Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21. MacDonald, R. and Das,A. (2006) 'UK classification of drugs of abuse: an un-evidence-based mess', The Lancet, vol 368, no 9535, pp 559-61.
22. Marmot, M.G. (2004) 'Evidence based policy or policy based evidence', British Medical Journal, vol 328, no 7445, pp 906-7.
23. Metropolitan Police Authority (2002) The Lambeth cannabis warning pilot scheme, London: Metropolitan Police Authority.
24. Mills, J.H. (2003) Cannabis Britannica: Empire, trade and prohibition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. Monaghan, M.P. (2008) 'The evidence-base in UK drug policy: the new rules of engagement', Policy & Politics, vol 36, no 1, pp 145-50.
26. MORI (2002) Policing the possession of cannabis: Residents' views on the Lambeth experiment, London: Police Foundation.
27. Mulgan, G. (2005) 'Government knowledge and the business of policy making: the potential and limits of evidence-based policy', Evidence & Policy, vol 1, no 2, pp 215-26.
28. Nutley, S.M., Walter, I. and Davies, H.T.O. (2007) Using evidence: How research can inform public services, Bristol: The Policy Press.
29. Nutt, D., King, L.A., Saulsbury, W and Blakemore, C. (2007) 'Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse', The Lancet, vol 369, no 9566, pp 1046-53.
30. Police Foundation (2000) Drugs and the law: Report of the inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, London: Police Foundation.
31. Reuter, P and Stevens, A. (2007) An analysis of UK drug policy: A monograph prepared for the UK Drug Policy Commission, London: United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission.
32. Rhodes, R.A. W. and Marsh, D. (1992) 'Policy networks in British politics: a critique of existing approaches', in R.A.W. Rhodes (ed) Policy networks in British government, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
33. Roe, S. (2005) Drug misuse declared: Findings from the 2004-2005 British Crime Survey - England and Wales, London: Home Office Statistical Bulletin.
34. Rolles, S., Kushlick, D. and Jay, M. (2006) After the war on drugs: Options for control, Bristol: Transform Drug Policy Foundation.
35. RSA (Royal Society of Arts) (2007) 'Drugs-facing the facts:The report for the RSA Commission on illegal drugs, communities and public policy', London: Royal Society for the Encouragement of the Arts, Manufacture and Commerce.
36. Sabatier, PA. (1993) 'Policy change over a decade or more', in P.A. Sabatier and H.C. Jenkins-Smith (eds) Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach, San Francisco, CA: Westview Press.
37. Sabatier, P.A. and Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (eds) (1993) Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach, San Francisco, CA: Westview Press.
38. Sabatier, PA. andjenkins-Smith, H.C (1999)'The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment', in PA. Sabatier (ed) Theories of the policy process, Boulder: CO:Westview Press.
39. Schlager, E. (1995) 'Policy making and collective action: defining coalitions within the advocacy coalition framework', Policy Sciences, vol 28, pp 242-70.
40. Science and Technology Committee (2006) Drug classification: Making a hash of it?, London: The Stationery Office.
41. Solesbury, W. (2001) 'Evidence-based policy: whence it came from and where it's going', ESRC UK Centre jor Evidence Based Policy and Practice: Working Paper 1, prepublication version, www.evidencenetwork.org/Documents/wp1.pdf
42. Spencer, H. (1891) Essays: Scientific, political and speculative, London: Appleton.
43. Stevens, A. (2007a) 'Survival of the ideas that fit: an evolutionary analogy for the use of evidence in policy', Social Policy and Society, vol 6, no 1, pp 25-35.
44. Stevens, A. (2007b) 'When two dark figures collide: evidence and discourse on drug related crime', Critical Social Policy, vol 27, no 1, pp 77-99.
45. Sutton, S. and Maynard, A. (1993) 'Are drug policies based on "fake" statistics?', Addiction, vol 88, no 4, pp 455-8.
46. The Guardian (2007) 'Disowning success', The Guardian, 29 October, available online at: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/ O,,2201019,00.html
47. Tonry, M. (2004) Punishment and politics: Evidence and emulation in the making of English crime control policy, London: Willan.
48. Vickers, G. (1965) The art of judgement: A study of policy-making, London: Chapman and Hall.
49. Weiss, C.H. (1977) Using social research in public policy making, Lexington: DC Heath.
50. Weiss, C. H. (1986) 'The many meanings of research utilisation', in M. Bulmer (ed) Social science and social policy, London: Allen Unwin.
51. Young, J. (1971) The drugtakers: The social meaning of drug use, London: MacGibbon and Kee.
52. Young, K., Ashby, D., Boaz,A. and Grayson, L. (2002) 'Social science and the evidence-based policy movement', Social Policy and Society, vol 1, no 3, pp 215-24.