Search

This paper examines a discrete set of issues pertaining to the constitution of addiction in law. Based on qualitative interviews undertaken with lawyers in Australia and Canada, I examine how addiction figures in lawyers' daily practice. Drawing on ideas from science and technology studies scholars Sheila Jasanoff, Michael Lynch and Bruno Latour, and building on recent research I undertook on legal addiction veridiction, I explore the constitution of addiction 'facts' in law. I examine how and when lawyers claim to make decisions about addiction in the course of their legal practice. Lawyers report playing a central role in the making of decisions about addiction, at multiple stages of the legal process including: before taking cases on, while running cases in court, and while negotiating and/or settling cases. I argue that these decisions can be properly described as 'quasi-expert' determinations with important parallels to scientific, technological and medical claims often made in legal settings by more conventional 'expert witnesses'. I call these 'quasi-expert' decisions because they are decisions of the kind that might be assumed to be the purview of scientific or medical experts and because they have tangible implications for clients. Lawyers uniquely constitute addiction in unique ways, drawing on a combination of factors, including their own experience with and observations about addiction, the experiences of family members who have experienced alcohol and other drug problems, relevant legal concepts and frameworks, popular and scientific claims about addiction, emotions and values, including the gender politics of alcohol and other drug addiction. These addiction 'facts' can have a range of material and discursive effects, including potentially adverse implications for people characterised as 'addicts'. I conclude the paper with a discussion of some implications of these practices, and with reflections on how we might address these issues in future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Harmful alcohol consumption contributes to poorer health for all people. For Indigenous Peoples of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand alcohol impacts their wellbeing significantly, this is partially explained by both their experiences of colonisation and the resulting impact on structural and social determinants of health. Indigenous Peoples have a recognised right to self-determination, which includes their right to contribute to policy decisions that affect them. This right is based on international recognition and principles, and acknowledgement of historical culture and law. The aim of this narrative review is to examine the processes of inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in policy development processes for evidence of self-determination to inform alcohol policy development.Methods: Ninety-eight peer-reviewed journal articles were identified through four databases. Twenty papers describing the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in policy development processes were included; one focusing on alcohol. Two authors reviewed and coded the papers by four domains of Indigenous inclusion in policy processes: Indigenous representation; method of inclusion; reasons for inclusion; and stage of inclusion.Results: There is no single model for the integration of self-determination into policy. However, the nature of participation is key in ensuring that Indigenous Peoples' self-determination is recognised. While all the papers reported Indigenous Peoples being included in processes, there was little evidence of self-determination.Conclusions: Self-determination is a right, and critical to effective policy and action. The inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in policy development alone is not self-determination; however, creating the conditions that ensures Indigenous Peoples have influence throughout policy processes is one integral component of self-determination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]