Making drug policy together: Reflections on evidence, engagement and participation

International Journal of Drug Policy

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 952-956

  Roberts, Marcus ^a  

^a NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Consultation; Engagement; Evidence; Evidence base; Politics

Indexed keywords

CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; DRUG POLICY; EMOTIONALITY; EMPOWERMENT; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; MORALITY; NOTE; POLICY; POLITICAL PARTICIPATION; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STIGMA; DRUG CONTROL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MANAGEMENT;

DRUG AND NARCOTIC CONTROL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; POLICY MAKING; POLITICS;

EID: 84924050165     PISSN: 09553959     EISSN: 18734758     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.04.014     Document Type: Note

References (18)

1. Bryan M., Del Bono E., Pudney S. A regulated cannabis market in England and Wales - Towards a cost-benefit analysis 2013, Institute for Social and Economic Research and Oxford: Beckley Foundation, Essex.
2. Catt H., Murphy M. What voice for the people? Categorising methods of public consultation. Australian Journal of Political Science 2003, 38:3.
3. Centre for Social Justice No quick fix - Exposing the depth of Britain's drug and alcohol problem 2013, CSJ, London.
4. Cook D. Consultation, for a change? Engaging users and communities in the policy process. Social Policy and Administration 2002, 36:5.
5. Kane J., Bishop P. Consultation and contest: The danger of mixing modes. Australian Journal of Public Administration 2002, 61:1.
6. Monaghan M. Cannabis classification and drug policy governance. Essays on the governance of drug policy 2012, UKDPC, London.
7. Mill J.S. On liberty 1859, Cosimo, New York.
8. National Treatment Agency Medications in recovery - Re-orientating drug dependence treatment (The Strang Report) 2012, NTA, London.
9. Nutt D., King L., Phillips L. Drug harms in the UK: A multi-criterion decision analysis. Lancet 2010, 376:6. on behalf of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs.
10. Popper K. The poverty of historicism 1957, Routledge, London.
11. Powers M. Artificial paradise?. DrugLink 2013, September/October, 28(5).
12. Roberts M. Consultation processes and good governance: From "unproductive process" to "real engagement". Essays on the governance of drug policy 2012, UK Drug Policy Commission.
13. Tilley N. Evaluation and evidence-led crime reduction policy. Crime, disorder and community safety 2001, Routledge, London. R. Matthews, J. Pitts (Eds.).
14. Transform Website. (2013, October). Time for an impact assessment of drug policy. http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Impactassessmentlead.htm.
15. UK Drug Policy Commission How to make drug policy better: Key findings from UKDPC research into drug policy governance 2012, UKDPC, London.
16. UK Drug Policy Commission A fresh approach to drugs 2012, UKDPC, London.
17. Weingart P. Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics'. Science and Public Policy 1999, 26(3):151-161.
18. Wood J., McCullough C. Psychoactive substances act. Matters of Substance 2013, August, http://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance.