|Titre :||The 'drug policy ratchet': why do sanctions for new psychoactive drugs typically only go up? [For debate] (2014)|
|Auteurs :||A. STEVENS ; F. MEASHAM|
|Type de document :||Article : Périodique|
|Dans :||Addiction (Vol.109, n°8, August 2014)|
|Article en page(s) :||1226-1232|
|Note générale :||
- Vice ratchets. Caulkins J.P., p. 1233-1234.
- New evidence on the tenuous state of evidence-based drug policy. MacCoun R.J., p. 1234-1235.
- Widening the debate on the drug policy ratchet: response to commentaries. Measham F., Stevens A., p. 1235-1236.
|Discipline :||SAN (Santé publique / Public health)|
Thésaurus TOXIBASEPOLITIQUE ; DROGUES DE SYNTHESE ; PHENOMENE EMERGENT ; CONTROLE DES STUPEFIANTS ; CLASSIFICATION
|Résumé :||It has been much more common for drugs to be subjected to tighter rather than looser control as drugs and evidence about their effects have has emerged. We argue that there is in place a drug policy ratchet which subjects new psychoactive substances (NPS) to increasing control through the continuation of historical patterns that involve the attribution to emerging drugs of guilt by three different kinds of association: guilt by deviant association; guilt by lunatic association; and guilt by molecular association. We use our contemporary ethnographic experience of drug policy-making to show how these processes continue to be applied to policy on NPS, alongside selective, narrative use of evidence and the ‘silent silencing’ by absorption of the concept of evidence-based policy. We show that the drug policy ratchet cannot be justified as an example of the precautionary principle in action, as this principle is itself not rationally justified. We conclude that recognition of the drug policy ratchet and its mechanisms may help researchers and policy-makers to improve regulation of NPS.|
|Domaine :||Drogues illicites / Illicit drugs|
|Refs biblio. :||39|
|Affiliation :||School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, Medway, UK|