Getting high on the policy agenda: Europe, the us and the future of the global drug prohibition regime

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 27-53

  Bewley Taylor, David ^a  

^a SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85014120965     PISSN: 14794012     EISSN: 17541018     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14794010608656839     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Cronin, Bruce. 2001. The Paradox of Hegemony:America's Ambiguous Relationship with the United Nations. European Journal of International Relations, 7 (1):103–130.
2. Fazey, Cindy S.J., 2003. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the United Nations International Drug Control Programme:politics, policies and prospect for change. The International Journal of Drug Policy, 14 (2) April:155–169. and Martin Jelsma, “Drugs in the UN system:the unwritten history of the 1998 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs,” The International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 14, Issue 2, April 2003, pp. 181–195.
3. Nadelmann, Ethan A., 1990. Global Prohibition Regimes:The Evolution of Norms in International Society. International Organization, 44 (4):503–503.
4. Roberts, Marcus, Klein, Axel, and Trace, Mike. Towards a Review of Global Policies on Illegal Drugs, 2–2. The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme. Drugscope Report One
5. Elvins, Martin. 2003. Anti-Drugs Policies of the European Union:Transnational Decision-Making and the Politics of Expertise, 2–2. Palgrave Macmillan.
6. Nadelmann, Ethan A., 1990. Global Prohibition Regimes:The Evolution of Norms in International Society. International Organization, 44 (4):503–503.
7. Musto, David F., 1987. The American Disease, 248–248. Oxford University Press.
8. Brands, H.W., 1998. What America Owes the World; The Struggle for the Soul of Foreign Policy, vii–vii. Cambridge University Press.
9. Keohane, Robert O., 1995. “ The Analysis of International Regimes ”. In Regime Theory and International Relations, Edited by:Rittberger, Volker. 43–43. Oxford:Clarendon Press. in
10. Walker, William O., III. 1994. “ An analytical overview ”. In Drugs and Foreign Policy:A Critical Review, Edited by:Perl, Raphael. 10–11. Boulder:Westview Press. in
11. MacCoun, Robert J., and Reuter, Peter. 2001. Drug War Heresies:Learning from Other Vices, Times and Places, 234–234. Cambridge University Press.
12. Musto, David F., 1999. The American Disease:Origins of Narcotic Control, 65–65. Oxford University Press.
13. Bertram, Eva, Blachman, Morris, Sharpe, Kenneth, and Andreas, Peter. 1996. Drug War Politics:The Price of Denial, 69–69. University of California Press.
14. Musto, David F., 1999. The American Disease:Origins of Narcotic Control, 65–65. Oxford University Press. & 68
15. Bertram, Eva, Blachman, Morris, Sharpe, Kenneth, and Andreas, Peter. 1996. Drug War Politics:The Price of Denial, 68–68. University of California Press.
16. Mott, Joy, and Bean, Philip. 1998. “ The Development of Drug Control in Britain ”. In The Control of Drugs and Drug Users:Reason or Reaction?, Edited by:Coomber, Ross. 34–35. Harwood Academic Publshers. in
17. 1926. Rolleston Report, Ministry of Health, Departmental Committee on Morphine and Heroin Addiction, 18–18. London:HMSO.
18. Whynes, D.K., 1991. “ Drug Problems and Policies ”. In Policing and Prescribing:The British System of Drug Control, Edited by:Whynes, D.K., and Bean, P.T. 2–2. Basingstoke:Macmillan. in
19. MacCoun, Robert J., and Reuter, Peter. 2001. Drug War Heresies:Learning from Other Vices, Times and Places, 231–231. Cambridge University Press.
20. For UK examples see Mott Joy, Bean Philip, The Development of Drug Control in Britain The Control of Drugs and Drug Users:Reason or Reaction? Coomber Ross, Harwood Academic Publishers 1998 38 39 in
21. Block, Alan A., 1989–1990. European Drug Traffic and Traffickers between the Wars:The Policy of Suppression and its Consequences. Journal of Social History,:331–331.
22. Chatterjee, S.K., 1981. Legal Aspects of International Drug Control, 201–201. Martinus Nijhoff.
23. Bentham, Mandy. 1998. The Politics of Drug Control, 119–139. Macmillan Press Ltd.
24. Bentham, Mandy. 1998. The Politics of Drug Control, 126–127. Macmillan Press Ltd.
25. Kratochwil, Kratochwil F. 1984. The Force of prescriptions. International Organization, 38 (4) Autumn:686–686.
26. Gregg, Robert W., 1993. About Face? The United States and The United Nations, Lyne, 5–5. Rienner Publishers.
27. See Bennis Phyllis, Calling the Shots:How Washington Dominates Today's UN Olive Branch Press 2000 1 21
28. Gregg, Robert W., 1993. About Face? The United States and The United Nations, Lyne, 5–5. Rienner Publishers.
29. See Bewley-Taylor David R., The United States and International Drug Control, 1909–1997 Continuum 2001 William B. McAllister, Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century:An International History, Routledge, 2000. and Kettil Bruun, Lynn Pan and Ingemar Rexed, The Gentleman's Club:International Control of Drugs and Alcohol, University of Chicago Press, 1975, pp. 132–148.
30. Goldstein, Judith. 1986. The political economy of trade; institutions of protection. American Political Science Review, 80:161–184.
31. See Bewley-Taylor David R., The United States and International Drug Control, 1909–1997 Continuum 2001 54 101
32. See McAllister William B., Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century:An International History Routledge 2000 156 211
33. See McAllister William B., Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century:An International History Routledge 2000 183 183 and David R. Bewley-Taylor, ‘The Cost of Containment:The Cold War and US International Drug Control at the UN, 1950-58,’ Diplomacy and Statecraft, Volume 10. March 1999, Number 1, pp. 147–171.
34. King, Rufus. 1974. The Drug Hang-Up America's Fifty-Year Folly, 218–219. Charles C. Thomas. and UN Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Vol. 1, New York UN Publications, 1964, p. 6.
35. See McAllister William B., Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century:An International History Routledge 2000 204 218 and David R. Bewley-Taylor, The United States and International Drug Control, 1909–1997, op. cit., pp. 136–164.
36. Krajewski, K., 1999. How flexible are the United Nations drug Conventions?. International Journal of Drug Policy, 10 N. Dorn & A. Jamieson, Room for Manoeuvre; Overview of comparative legal research into national drug laws of France, Italy; Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden and their relation to three international drug conventions.
37. Levine, Harry G., 2002. The Secret of World-Wide drug Prohibition; The Varieties and uses of drug prohibition in the twentieth and twenty first century. The Independent Review, December
38. van Solinge, Tim Boekhout. 2000. Drugs and Decision Making in the European Union, 110–110. CEDRO, University of Amsterdam.
39. Levine, Harry G., 2003. Global Drug Prohibition:its uses and crises. International Journal of Drug Policy, 14:147–148.
40. Christie, Nils, and Bruun, Kettil. 1991. Der Nuetzliche Feind:Die Drogenpolitik and ihre Nutzniesser [The Useful Enemy:Drug Policy and Its Beneficiaries], Bielefeld, Germany:AJZ Verlang. cited in Jurg Gerber & Eric L. Jensen, “The Internationalization of US Policy on Illicit Drug Control,” in Jurg Gerber & Eric L. Jensen (Eds), Drug War American Style:The Internationalization of Failed Policy and Its Alternatives, Garland Publishing, 2001, p 8–9.
41. Claude, Inis L., Jr. 1994. “ Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations ”. In International Organization:A Reader, Edited by:Kratochwil, Frederich, and Mansfield, Edward D., 196–196. HarperCollins. in
42. 1964. UN Conference for the Adoption of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Vol. II, 300–300. New York:UN Publications. and Declaration of the International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking and Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Outline on Future Activities in Drug Abuse Control, New York, United Nations, 1988, p. iii and p. 1.
43. Keohane, Robert, and Hegemony, After. 1984. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, 94–94. Princeton University Press.
44. See Bewley-Taylor David R., The United States and International Drug Control Continuum 2001 171 174
45. See for example Amsterdam Fall Out of Love with Coffee Shop as Liberal Stance on Drugs Begins to Crumble The Independent 2005 March 5
46. Riley, Diane. November 1998. Drugs and Drug Policy in Canada:A Brief Review and Commentary November
47. See Kaplan Charles D., The Uneasy Consensus:Prohibitionist and Experimentalist Expectancies behind the International Narcotics Control System Tijdschrift Voor Criminlogie 1984 26 99 109
48. Reinarman, Craig, Cohen, Peter, and Kaal, Hendrien. 2004. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy:Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health, 94 (5) May:836–836. Holland's drug policies are forced to rely on “prosecutorial discretion and the informal development of more liberal practices “Dutch Liberalism Under Pressure,” Druglink 2 (5) September/October 1987, p. 5.
49. MacCoun, Robert J., and Reuter, Peter. 2001. Drug War Heresies:Learning from Other Vices, Times and Places, 245–245. Cambridge University Press.
50. Levine, Harry G., 2003. Global drug prohibition:its uses and crises. The International Journal of Drug Policy, 14 (2) April:146–146.
51. Gray, Mike. 1998. Drug Crazy:How We Got Into This Mess and How We Can Get Out, 168–168. Random House. Craig Reinarman, Peter Cohen and Hendrien Kaal, “The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy:Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco,” American Journal of Public Health, May 2004, Vol. 94, No. 5, and Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter, Drug War Heresies:Learning from Other Vices, Times and Places, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p 263.
52. November 1999. “ Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport ”. In Drug Policy in the Netherlands:Progress Report September 1997–September 1999, November, 7–8. The Hague:Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. http://www.drugswarfacts.org/thenethe.pdf
53. Gray, Mike. 1998. Drug Crazy:How We Got Into This Mess and How We Can Get Out, 166–166. Random House.
54. 1987. Dutch Liberalism under Pressure. Druglink, 2 (5) September/October:5–5.
55. November–December 1991. Drug Abuse and Drug Abuse Education November–December, 112–112.
56. May 2001. Correspondence with Lorenz Böllinger, Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology at the Faculty of Law of Breman University, Germany May, 9
57. Marshall, Ineke Haen, Anjewierden, Oscar, and van Atteveld, Hans. 1990. Toward An ‘Americanization’ of Dutch Drug Policy?. Justice Quarterly, 7 (2) June:392–392.
58. Kratochwil, Friedrich. 1984. The Force of Proscriptions. International Organization, 38 (4) Autumn:706–706.
59. Bruun, Kettil, Pan, Lynn, and Rexed, Ingemar. 1975. The Gentlemen's Club; International Control of Drugs and Alcohol, 142–142. University of Chicago Press.
60. MacCoun, Robert J., and Reuter, Peter. 2001. Drug War Heresies:Learning from Other Vices, Times and Places, 244–244. Cambridge University Press.
61. McAllister, William B., 2000. Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century:An International History, 209–209. Routledge.
62. Sinha, J., 2001. “ The History and Development of the Leading International Drug Control Conventions ”. In Report prepared for the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs 25–25.
63. Vladimir, Kušević. 1977. Drug Abuse Control and International Treaties. Journal of Drug Issues, 7 (1):47–47.
64. Sinha, J., 2001. “ The History and Development of the Leading International Drug Control Conventions ”. In Report prepared for the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs 33–33.
65. Stewart, David P. 1990. Internationalizing the War on Drugs:The UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Denver journal of International Law Policy,:388–388.
66. Chatwin, Caroline. 2003. Drug Policy Developments within the European Union:The Destabilizing Effects of Dutch and Swedish Drug Policies. British Journal of Criminology, 43:569–569.
67. October 2000. European Governments Soften Line on Cannabis October, 9
68. Ford, Peter. 2001. Europe Shifts out of Drug War mode. The Christian Science Monitor, 12 March
69. See Trace Mike, Klein Axel, Roberts Marcus, Reclassification of Cannabis in the United Kingdom Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme:A Drugscope Briefing Paper
70. Smith, Adam J., 2001. Drug War Retreat:England Moves to Decriminalize Narcotics. In These Times Magazine, December 7
71. Wolfe, Daniel, and Malinowska-Sempruch, Kasia. 2004. “ Illicit Drug Policies and the Global HIV Epidemic:Effects of UN and National Government Approaches ”. In International Harm Reduction Development, (IHRD) Open Society Institute (OSI) New York 3–3.
72. Nadelmann, Ethan A., 1988. Commonsense Drug Policy. Foreign Affairs, 77 Number:115–115. 1
73. For a discussion and assessment of these policies see Hunt Neil, Trace Mike, Bewley-Taylor Dave, Reducing Drug Related Harms to Health:An Overview of the Global Evidence Report Four The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme 2005 March http://www.internationaldrugpolic.net/reports/reportfourfinalcopy.pdf
74. Smith, Adam J., 2001. Drug War Retreat:England Moves to Decriminalize Narcotics. In These Times Magazine, December 7
75. MacCoun, Robert J., and Reuter, Peter. 2001. Drug War Heresies:Learning from Other Vices, Times and Places, 210–210. Cambridge University Press. Also see Illicit Drug Use in the EU:Legislative Approaches, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2005, p.22.
76. et al. A Review of the evidence-based for harm reduction approaches to drug use, 2003 Forward Thinking on Drugs 3 3
77. et al. Harm Reduction:Concepts and Practice. A Policy Discussion Paper Substance Use and Misuse 1999 34 1 21 21 and pp. 11–12.
78. et al. A Review of the evidence-based for harm reduction approaches to drug use, 2003 Forward Thinking on Drugs 3 4
79. September 1997. U.S. Congress, Press Release September, 18“Swiss Experts warn U.S. about dangers of Needle Exchange,” report on U.S. Congress Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice.
80. et al. A Review of the evidence-based for harm reduction approaches to drug use, 2003 Forward Thinking on Drugs 4 4
81. Ferguson, Niall. 2005. Three reasons why the US and Europe won't make up. The Guardian, 21 February
82. See Bewley-Taylor David R., Challenging the UN drug control conventions:problems and possibilities The International Journal of Drug Policy April 2003 14 2 171 179 and “Harm Reduction and the Global Drug Control Regime:Contemporary Problems and Future Prospects,” Drug and Alcohol Review, Dec 2004, 23 pp.483-489.
83. Krasner, Stephen, ed. 1983. International Regimes, 5–5. Cornell University Press.
84. 2002. “ House of Commons Home Affairs Committee's Report ”. In The Government's Drugs Policy:Is it Working? Paragraph 267, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm20O102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31813.htm
85. Lords Hansard 11-06-2003
86. Papandreou, G., November 2002. “ Aims and priorities of the Greek EU-presidency ”. In Eleftherotypia November, Athens 25(unofficial translation from the Greek newspaper via a third language by Jan G. van der Tas).
87. May-June 2003. “ Drugnet Europe ”. In Bi-Monthly newsletter of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction May-June, 5–5.
88. See Looking Forward:Recommendations for 2003–2007 An Agenda for Vienna:Change of Course 2003 March 25 25 Transnational Institute, Drugs and Conflict Debate PapersNo. 6
89. Jelsma, Martin. September 2002. “ Diverging Trends in International Drug Policy Making:The Polarization Between Dogmatic and Pragmatic Approaches ”. In Transnational Institute Drug Policy Paper September, www.tni.org/drug
90. November 2004. “ General Secretariat of the European Council, Council of the European Union ”. In EU Drugs Strategy (2005–2012), Brussels November, 22
91. 2005. EU Drugs Action Plan (2005–2008) (2005/C 168/01). Official Journal of the European Union, 7 8
92. Kendall, Raymond. 2004. Drugs:Lost war. New Battles. Le Monde, October 26
93. See TNI Drug Policy Briefing Number 12, The United Nations and Harm Reduction 2005 March
94. th CND Session. Drug Policy Briefing, Number 13, April
95. These bodies already use the harm/risk reduction concept as a matter of course See Looking Forward:Recommendations for 2003–2007 An Agenda for Vienna:Change of Course Transnational Institute, Drugs and Conflict Debate Papers 2003 March 21 21 No. 6
96. Young, Oran.R., 1989. International Cooperation:Building Regimes for Natural Resources and the Environment Ithaca, New York cited by Harald Müller, “The Internationalization of Principles, Norms and Rules by Governments; The Case of Security Regimes,” in Volker Rittberger (Ed.), Regime Theory and International Relations, Clarendon Press. Oxford, 1995, p. 361.
97. See Bewley-Taylor David R., Challenging the UN drug control conventions:problems and possibilities The International Journal of Drug Policy April 2003 14 2 171 179 and “Harm Reduction and the Global Drug Control Regime:Contemporary Problems and Future Prospects,” Drug and Alcohol Review, Dec 2004, 23 pp.483–489.
98. Toynbee, Polly. 2004. In the war on drugs, Europe must make a separate peace. The Guardian, November 3
99. Smith, Adam J., 2001. Drug War Retreat:England Moves to Decriminalize Narcotics. In These Times Magazine, December 7