Search

The two reclassifications of cannabis in England & Wales in 2004 and 2009 have been subjected to a series of academic analyses which have largely been centred on either the relationship to evidence, or in terms of the implications and realities of policing and health under the changes. However, despite the wealth of attention on this area, there have been relatively few attempts to understand these policy movements through broader criminological theoretical frameworks. One recent exception is Shiner's (2015) utilisation of Garland's (2001) concept of 'structured ambivalence'. This paper seeks to test this application through drawing upon an alternative source of evidence, namely, a series of 'elite' qualitative interviews, and using Kingdon's (1995) Multiple Streams model to make sense of the policy processes. In doing so, it largely corroborates Shiner's conclusions whilst also further illuminating particular agentic aspects and their intertwining with other structural and cultural forces which led to the reclassifications. These findings demonstrate the value of triangulating evidential sources and advances knowledge about the role of individuals in pursuing policy agendas within a broader shifting political climate. This provides greater scope to further test and understand how structured ambivalence manifests itself in other cultural contexts and policy domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]