Search results

In a recent article in the pages of this journal, the author outlined the hypothesis that, although there have been recent evolutions in European governance effected by the Lisbon treaty, these changes have not brought about any convergence in the national drug policies of European member states. The original article focused on developments in the national drug policies of key member states and based the assessment on their maintenance of key, and significantly different, national policy aims. Standring, in this edition, has offered a critique of that article suggesting that the author has been overly pessimistic in her understanding of the nature of drug policy integration at the European level and that soft integration tools have allowed a high degree of policy convergence in this controversial area. This paper aims to strengthen and confirm the author's position by examining the tools of European drug policy integration.

Key policy strategies (for example, the European Drug Strategy and Action Plans, European level anti‐drug trafficking frameworks and recent implementations on newly developed psychoactive substances at the European level) are examined here for indications of success or otherwise in the harmonisation (or convergence) of European national drug policies.

Ultimately, even under these new terms of reference, the paper finds that attempts to either harmonise or converge European national drug policies have done little more than scratch the surface.

The paper suggests that neither the top‐down regulation, here described, nor the soft convergence that Standring envisages are desirable for European drug policy making where they are implemented with the aim of making national drug policies more similar.

This chapter provides a critical exploration of the European Union’s impact on the 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) proceedings and Outcome document. It demonstrates that the ability to produce a European ‘common position’ ahead of the UNGASS debates represents a significant step forward in the ability to ‘speak with one voice’ in the global illicit drug policy arena, and has played an important role in ensuring key issues such as human rights and public health remain on the agenda. In highlights, however, a European failure to engage with issues such as the continuing suitability of the international drug conventions to preside over the current climate of drug policy innovation and experimentation, and the unintended consequences of a ‘war on drugs’ approach. Ultimately, therefore, it argues that these failures will hamper the development of a more progressive and effective global drug policy.

A response to Chatwin's article (2010), which argues that European harmonisation of illicit drug policies remains far from realisation, this paper seeks to recommend developing a more specific conceptualisation of European integration in the area of illicit drugs and argues that harmonisation was not a realistic aim of the European Union (EU).

This is a review paper which seeks to advocate the application of a more rigid analytical framework in drug policy analysis that takes into account the “soft” methods of governance used by the EU. The paper also uses secondary data sources to emphasise the argument.

Domestic convergence has been observed across a number of policy areas.

The nature and level of convergence remains contested and more data are needed to clarify any trends. Future research would be necessary to demonstrate that convergence occurs as a result of EU action rather than other factors.

There remains little in the way of research on the processes of European integration and their specific impact on drug policy at the European and domestic level. This paper will be of value to scholars in the field of European integration who are seeking to expand their research into a new policy sector, as well as researchers in the drug field who are looking for a more formal analytical framework.

In Europe, the Netherlands, Portugal and the Czech Republic are the countries increasingly portrayed as having the most ‘progressive’, ‘liberal’, or even ‘radical’ drugs policies in Europe. In a post-United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) 2016 period and with the 2019 UN target date approaching, the EU and these countries within are bound to play a key role in the definition of an international drug policy for the next decade. This chapter analyses how the perceptions of these countries match against the drugs legislations and how they fit into the overall EU drug policy approach.

This issue's Spotlight travels to Amsterdam with a look at EU drug and alcohol policy. Though it seems far away and at times irrelevant, EU policy is moving fast to raise the standards of intervention. It also influences funding and the types of services and policies for the coming decades. Here the EADPP discusses their pivotal role in driving user and public involvement to the centre of national drug and alcohol policy making.

States in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have historically leaned towards conservative, reactionary models of drugs policy. The combination of authoritarian forms of government, whether dynastic monarchies (Morocco, Jordan and Persian Gulf countries), semi-military republics (Syria, Egypt and Algeria) or religiously sanctioned republics (Iran), with the strong influence of Islamic law and norms, has signified that the region has enforced strict forms of drug prohibitions. For that matter, the region is home to cultural and social norms that are less permissive than in other regions of the world: for instance, with regard to premarital sex, homosexuality, clothing, alcoholic drinks and freedom of expression. This image of the MENA region is often overplayed by media commentators and Western scholars, especially in the field of drugs policy. The almost total absence of studies of drugs policy or drugs history in the MENA, excluding works in epidemiology, speaks well about the oblivion to which the region has been relegated over the last decades. The chapter provides first a background on the main questions regarding MENA drugs policy, looking at the historical developments in drug regulations and drug trends. Then, it discusses the current policies that operate across the region and, if pertinent, the prospects of policy development. When necessary, the argument refers to contextual elements that have influenced the direction in national and transitional drugs policy. Conscious of the fact that the MENA is as vast and diverse as a continent, I have opted to focus on three paradigmatic cases (Iran, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia), which provide an adequate geographical and thematic coverage of the MENA drugs policy. The three cases cover different aspects of today’s MENA drugs policy spectrum, from draconian repressive measures to progressive harm reduction programmes. Taken in their geographical dimension one can appreciate the variety and difference that exists within the MENA region, therefore supporting one of the key objectives of this chapter, which is to provide a nuanced analysis of drugs policy against the grain of homogenising and culturally reductive approaches.

This paper aims to report the findings of an evaluation study concerning the Central Registration Points (CRPs) for drug users in Belgian prisons. CRPs support drug users to link with community-based services.

The study applied a multi-method approach that involved an exploratory literature review; a secondary analysis of the CRPs’ databases; a qualitative study of the perceptions of a diverse sample of stakeholders with regard to the functioning of CRPs; and a prospective registration study.

One-third of the clients never attended an outpatient or residential substance abuse service before prison entry. This illustrates that the CRPs managed to reach clients who were not previously reached by (substance abuse) treatment services. All interviewed actors emphasized the added value of the CRPs in terms of informing, contacting, motivating and referring prisoners with a substance abuse problem.

Based on the research findings, two issues seem to be of paramount importance in the successful practice of CRPs: the confidentiality and specific expertise on (substance abuse) treatment. Given the complex situation of drug users in prison, an independent positioning and categorical assistance with drug-specific expertise seem to be essential.

CRPs can be considered to be one of the “building blocks” that contribute to high-quality care and continuity of care for drugs users in detention.

Evidence suggests that the percentage of men seeking treatment for substance use disorders and other addictive behaviours is significantly higher than that of women. This fact raises several crucial questions concerning the field of addictions. This paper aims to emphasize to the study of addiction in the light of gender studies and especially in the light of theories of dominant/hegemonic masculinity.

The perspective of dominant/hegemonic masculinity in the field of addictions raises a number of questions: Can the dominant/hegemonic masculinity perspective contribute to the understanding of the phenomenon of addiction? What are the implications of male-dominated and male-centred treatment services on meeting the needs of other populations? Are androcentric approaches ultimately helpful for heteronormative men? This paper investigates the emerging questions through a critical review of the literature including the disciplines of psychology, sociology and anthropology.

The perspective of hegemonic masculinity can make an important contribution to the understanding of addiction as it sheds light on a dimension that is not well researched and used in the field of addictions. The influences of the androcentric approach to addiction treatment are significant and pose problems both in accessing and serving the needs of other populations. The androcentric approach to treatment is not helpful for heteronormative men either as there is a risk of not addressing the toxic dimensions of dominant/hegemonic masculinity that are directly linked to the problem of addiction.

This paper poses interesting research questions for further research in the field.

This paper raises important issues for practitioners in the field and at the same time suggests alternative perspectives on the interpretation and treatment of addiction.

The gender perspective that should further enrich psychosocial interventions is crucial for the equal access of all people with an addiction problem to appropriate support structures.

Gender studies can make an important contribution to further understanding of addiction problems and to the development of effective practices for dealing with it. The fact that in substance abuse treatment programmes the vast majority of participants are heteronormative men raises a number of concerns. These concerns relate to the extent to which structures are directed at meeting the needs of these men and whether because of this orientation the needs of other populations such as heteronormative women and those who do not meet the norms of heteronormativity are left uncovered. These concerns are linked to broader considerations of the role that dominant/hegemonic masculinity plays in the aetiology of addiction and in creating barriers to help-seeking for heteronormative men themselves.

Objective. The objective of this study was to examine practices and policies in place for the provision of targeted prevention and treatment of cocaine and Amphetamine Type Stimulant (ATS) users in prison in nine European countries. Methodology. Across nine European member states (Belgium, the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovenia, Sweden, Malta, Ireland and Portugal), interviews were conducted with ministerial representatives and professionals (i.e. service providers and security officials) working in prisons and a total of 16 focus groups with a total of 125 prisoners. Results. The use of stimulants in prison is associated with aggression and violence, financial problems, and psychological and physical problems in prisoners (depression, anxiety and psychological craving). Both security and healthcare staff in prison often feel ill‐equipped to deal with stimulant‐related problems, leading to a lack of equivalence of care for stimulant users in prison, therefore the variety and quality of drug services outside is not reflected sufficiently inside prison. There is a need for more specific product information and harm reduction material on stimulants, for clear guidelines for the management of acute stimulant intoxication and stimulant withdrawal, for structural adjustments to improve potential diagnosis of personality and psychiatric disorders, for more non‐pharmacological treatment strategies and more opportunities for prisoners to engage in purposeful activities.