Search

Background and aims: The short‐lived regulated legal market for new psychoactive substances (NPS) in New Zealand marked a radical departure from the traditional prohibition‐based approach to drugs. This paper aimed to enhance understanding of this policy change using Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET). Methods: The analysis draws on 3 years of evaluative research, including interviews with key stakeholders, analysis of legislation and policy documents and academic and grey literature. Results: The reframing of the NPS issue from one of drug control to the need for stricter market regulation was achieved by the efforts of strategic policy entrepreneurs, including the legal high industry, drug law reform advocates, influential politicians and an independent legal advisory institution. This reframing was aided by the perceived saliency of the NPS problem and ineffectiveness of previous prohibition‐based responses. In the absence of any political opposition to the regulatory approach, the Psychoactive Substances Act rapidly progressed through the Parliament. However, once the interim legal market was established, portrayal of the issues shifted away from experts and lobbyists to critique from local communities, local government, animal rights activists and the media, who viewed the new regime as a source of social and health problems. The mobilization of criticism ('Schattschneider mobilization') drew on ideas of animal welfare and community safety. With a looming national election, the government responded by ending the interim market with the urgent passage of amendment legislation. Conclusions: Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) helps explain how New Zealand's Psychoactive Substances Act (PSA) policy first emerged on the political agenda and how the initial positive tone of expert support for reform shifted to a tide of popular criticism during the interim regime. However, with its emphasis on explaining agenda‐setting, PET does not account for the legislative design shortcomings of the PSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims Prohibitions on producing, distributing and selling cannabis are loosening in various jurisdictions around the world. This paper describes the diversification of cannabis supply laws and discusses the challenges to and opportunities for learning from these changes. Methods We document changes in cannabis supply laws that de jure legalized cannabis production for medical and/or non-medical purposes (excluding industrial hemp) in Australasia, Europe, North America and South America. We also highlight challenges to evaluating these legal changes based on our experiences studying cannabis laws and policies in the United States. Findings As of August 2016, two countries have passed laws to legalize large-scale cannabis production for non-medical purposes at the national (Uruguay) or subnational level (four US states). At least nine other countries legally allow (or will soon allow) cannabis to be supplied for medicinal purposes. Most of the changes in cannabis supply laws have occurred since 2010. The data available in most countries are inadequate for rigorously evaluating the changes in cannabis supply laws. Conclusion The evidence base for assessing changes in cannabis supply laws remains weak. Efforts should focus upon collecting information about quantities consumed and market transactions as well as validating self-report surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The second edition of Drug Policy and the Public Good presents up‐to‐date evidence relating to the development of drug policy at local, national and international levels. The book explores both illicit drug use and non‐medical use of prescription medications from a public health perspective. The core of the book is a critical review of the scientific evidence in five areas of drug policy: (1) primary prevention programs in schools and other settings; (2) treatment interventions and harm reduction approaches; (3) attempts to control the supply of illicit drugs, including drug interdiction and law enforcement; (4) penal approaches, decriminalization and other alternatives; and (5) control of the legal market through prescription drug regimens. It also discusses the trend towards legalization of some psychoactive substances in some countries and the need for a new approach to drug policy that is evidence‐based, realistic and coordinated. The accumulated evidence provides important information about effective and ineffective policies. Shifting the emphasis towards a public health approach should reduce the extent of illicit drug use, prevent the escalation of new epidemics and avoid the unintended consequences arising from the marginalization of drug users through severe criminal penalties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores agency as an ability to act and exert power creatively when failure implies literal death. It draws on interviews with an ex‐narco and rappers who willingly accept narco‐commissions in 2010s Tamaulipas, Mexico, a context where precarity and necropolitical logics prevail. It asserts that many rappers exert power creatively, despite the risks. Rappers shape narco‐aesthetics by determining the lyrical and sonic elements of songs; draw on experiences of narco‐life to contribute to narco‐ethics; and mould narco‐masculinities by encouraging listeners to stay firm. It proposes that prevalent discursive Us–Them dichotomies facilitate Othering and stigmatisation of actors in the narco‐world, and serve to accentuate narco‐power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims Barriers linked to drug control systems are considered to contribute to inequitable access to controlled medicines, leaving millions of people in pain and suffering. Most studies focus on access to opioids for the treatment of severe (cancer) pain. This study aims to identify specific access barriers for patients with opioid dependence in legislation and regulations of 11 central and eastern European countries. Methods This study builds on a previous analysis of legislation and regulations as part of the EU 7th Framework Access To Opioid Medication in Europe (ATOME) project. An in-depth analysis was undertaken to determine specific barriers for patients with opioid dependence in need of opioid analgesics or opioid agonist therapy (OAT). For each country, the number and nature of specific potential barriers for these patients were assessed according to eight categories: prescribing; dispensing; manufacturing; usage; trade and distribution; affordability; penalties; and other. An additional keyword search was conducted to minimize the omission of barriers. Barriers in an additional category, language, were recorded qualitatively. Countries included Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey. Results Ten of the 11 countries (all except Estonia) showed specific potential barriers in their legislation and regulations. The total number of barriers varied from two (Slovenia) to 46 (Lithuania); the number of categories varied from one (Slovenia) to five (Lithuania). Most specific potential barriers were shown in the categories 'prescribing', 'usage' and 'other'. The total number in a single category varied from one to 18 (Lithuania, prescribing). Individual differences between countries in the same specific potential barrier were shown; for example, variation in minimum age criteria for admission to OAT ranging from 15 (Lithuania, in special cases) to 20 years (Greece). All countries had stigmatizing language in their legislation. Conclusions Patients with opioid dependence are likely to experience specific barriers to accessing opioids in addition to those experienced by other non-dependent patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the legalization of cannabis in Washington State. Topics examined include how the legalization is emerging with the reduced criminalization of users, how the legalization, known as Initiative 502 (I-502) passed on November 6, 2012, and the state's focus upon science-based public education and youth-focused prevention.

A letter to the editor is presented discussing how cannabis laws influence political repression in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco.