Drug Policy Governance in the UK: Lessons from changes to and debates concerning the classification of cannabis under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act

International Journal of Drug Policy

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 1025-1030

  Monaghan, Mark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evidence based policy; Governance; Misuse of Drugs Act; Policy

Indexed keywords

CANNABIS;

ARTICLE; CANNABIS USE; DECISION MAKING; DRUG CLASSIFICATION; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG MISUSE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MENTAL DISEASE; POLITICAL PARTICIPATION; POLITICAL SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM; UNITED KINGDOM; VIOLENCE; CANNABIS SMOKING; DRUG CONTROL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HISTORY; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MANAGEMENT; POLITICS; TRENDS;

DECISION MAKING; DRUG AND NARCOTIC CONTROL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GOVERNMENT; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH POLICY; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; HUMANS; MARIJUANA SMOKING; POLICY MAKING; POLITICS;

EID: 84924062102     PISSN: 09553959     EISSN: 18734758     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence Cannabis: Report by the advisory committee on drug dependence (Wootton Report) 1968, HMSO, London.
2. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) The classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) 2002, Home Office, London.
3. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) Further consideration of the classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) 2005, Home Office, London.
4. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) Cannabis: Classification and public health 2008, Home Office, London.
5. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) MDMA ('ecstasy'): A review of its harms and classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 2009, Home Office, London.
6. Advisory Council on the Penal System Non-custodial and semi-custodial penalties: Report of the advisory council on the penal system (Wootton Report) 1970, HMSO, London.
7. Arseneault L., Cannon M., Witton J., Murray R.M. Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: Examination of the evidence. British Journal of Psychiatry 2004, 184(2):110-117.
8. Blackman S. Beyond the mainstream: Youth subcultures, normalisation and drug prohibition: The politics of contemporary crisis and change. British Politics 2010, 5(3):337-366.
9. Clarence E. Technocracy reinvented: The new evidence-based policy movement. Public Policy and Administration 2002, 17(3):1-11.
10. Daly M., Sampson S. Narcomania: How Britain got hooked on drugs 2012, Windmill Books, London.
11. Dean M. Democracy Under Attack: How the Media Distort Policy and Politics. Bristol: Policy Press 2013.
12. Delanty G. Social science: Beyond constructivism and realism 1997, Open University Press, Buckingham.
13. Dunn M. Democracy under attack: How the media distort policy and politics 2013, Policy Press, Bristol.
14. Elwyn G., Edwards A., Kinnersely P., Grol R. Shared decision-making and the concept of equipoise: The competencies of involving patients in healthcare choices. British Journal of General Practice 2000, 50(460):892-899.
15. EMCDDA An overview of cannabis potency in Europe 2004, European Management Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Lisbon.
16. Fergusson D.M., Horwood L.J., Ridder E.M. Tests of causal linkages between cannabis use and psychotic symptoms. Addiction 2005, 100(3):354-366.
17. Fortson R. Misuse of drugs: Offences, confiscation and money laundering 2005, Sweet and Maxwell, London. 5th ed.
18. Habermas J. Legitimation crisis 1975, Heinemann, London.
19. Hamilton L., Rubin J., Singleton N. Characteristics of good governance for drug policy: Findings from an expert consultation 2012, UKDPC, London, Available from: http://www.ukdpc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/characteristics-of-good-governance-fordrug-policy-findings-from-an-expert-consultation.pdf.
20. Head B.W. Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges. Policy and Society 2010, 29(2):77-94.
21. Henderson M. The Geek Manifesto: Why science matters 2012, Bantam Press, London.
22. Henquet C., Krabbendam L., Spauwen J., Kaplan C., Lieb R., Wittchen H.-U., van Os J. Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people. British Medical Journal 2004, 330(11).
23. HM Government Principles of scientific advice to government 2011, Department for Business Innovation and Skills, Available from: http://www.bis.gov.uk/goscience/principles-of-scientific-advice-to-government.
24. (House of Commons) Home Affairs Committee The Government's drugs policy: Is it working? 2002, Home Office, London.
25. Kingdon J. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies 1984, Little Brown, Boston.
26. Lacey N. The prisoners' dilemma: The political economy of punishment in comparative perspective 2008, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
27. Latour B. Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy 2004, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
28. Levitt R., Nason E., Hallsworth M. The evidence-base for the classification of drugs 2006, RAND Corporation, Cambridge.
29. Loader I., Sparks R. Public criminology? 2011, Routledge, London.
30. MacDonald R., Das A. UK classification of drugs of abuse: An un-evidence-based mess. Lancet 2006, 368(9535):559-561.
31. MacGregor S. Barriers to the influence of evidence on policy: Are politicians the problem?. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 2013, 20(3):225-233.
32. Majone G. Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process 1989, Yale University Press, New Haven.
33. May T., Warburton H., Turnbull P.J., Hough M. The times they are a-changin 2002, The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
34. Mills J.H. Cannabis nation: Control and consumption in Britain, 1928-2008 2013, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
35. Monaghan M. The complexity of evidence: Reflections on research utilisation in a heavily politicised policy area. Social Policy and Society 2010, 9(1):1-12.
36. Monaghan M. Evidence versus politics: Exploiting research in UK drug policy making? 2011, Policy Press, Bristol.
37. Monaghan M., Pawson R., Wicker K. The precautionary principle and evidence-based policy making. Evidence and Policy 2012, 8(2):171-191.
38. Oakley A. The strange case of the two Wootton reports: What we can learn about the evidence-policy relationship?. Evidence and Policy 2012, 8(3):267-283.
39. Nutt D. Science and non-science in UK Drug Policy. Addiction 2010, 105(7):1154.
40. Nutt D., King L.A., Saulsbury W., Blakemore C. Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse. Lancet 2007, 369(9566):1046-1053.
41. Nutt D., King L.A., Phillips L.D. Drug harms in the UK: A multi criteria decision analysis. Lancet 2010, 376(9752):1558-1565.
42. Pettit J. Is criminal justice politically feasible?. Buffalo Criminal Law Review 2001, 5:247-250.
43. Police Foundation Drugs and the law: Report of the inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) 2000, The Police Foundation, London.
44. Rittel H., Webber M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 1974, 4(155-169).
45. Royal Society of Arts (RSA) Drugs - Facing the facts: The report for the RSA Commission on Illegal Drugs, Communities and Public Policy 2007, The Royal Society for the Encouragement of the Arts, Manufacture and Commerce, London.
46. Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach 1993, Westview Press, San Francisco. P.A. Sabatier, H.C. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.).
47. Sanderson I. Intelligent policy making for a complex world: Pragmatism, evidence and learning. Political Studies 2009, 57(4):699-719.
48. Sanderson I. 'Evidence, learning and intelligent government: reflections on developments in Scotland, German Policy Studies 2010, 6(2):53-85.
49. Stevens A. Survival of the ideas that fit: An evolutionary analogy for the use of evidence in policy. Social Policy and Society 2007, 6(1):25-35.
50. Stevens A. Telling policy stories: An ethnographic study of the use of evidence in making policy on drugs and crime. Journal of Social Policy 2011, 40(2):237-255.
51. Tieberghien J., Decorte T. Understanding the science-policy nexus in Belgium: An analysis of the drug policy debate (1996-2003). Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 2013, 20(3):241-248.
52. Toulmin S. Return to reason 2001, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
53. Warburton H., May T., Hough M. Looking the other way: The impact of reclassifying cannabis on police warnings, arrests and informal action in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology 2005, 45(2):113-128.
54. Weingart P. Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy 1999, 26(3):151-161.
55. Weiss C.H. The many meanings of research utilisation. Social science and social policy 1986, Allen Unwin, London. M. Bulmer (Ed.).