Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the framing of the emergency response to the novel coronavirus (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]; severe acute respiratory syndrome-like coronavirus [SARS-CoV-2]) in 2020 with wartime combat language. Metaphors have been used throughout American politics and society to frame perceived social problems, to both mobilize support and demobilize opposition. By simplifying and dichotomizing social problems, latent negative consequences frequently emerge, which tend to have a disproportionate impact on minority communities.

This paper used a case study and applied text from presidential press conferences and policy speeches from multiple sources on the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs and the War on COVID-19. The work identified common themes, actions and policies that can lead to other stakeholders adapting the “war” rhetoric.

An apparent cycle emerged – from disdain to metaphorical “war,” to policy, to law, to consequences and back to disdain – that fueled the American political system and, by extension, systematic oppression. The COVID-19 pandemic appears to be another crucible for this cycle to repeat itself. The series of examples illustrate how public leaders use the “war metaphor” as an all-out victory approach to galvanize policy responses to social issues, crises and natural disasters. By local, national and international stakeholders.

Limitations of this study are the limited use of the metaphor and the time of completing this manuscript. The paper only views the presidential use and interpretation of the war metaphor. The COVID-19 pandemic disaster is persisting and the race for a vaccine is underway. While the authors present the immediate policy impacts, it is too early to understand the long-term policy impacts typically measured over decades.

This paper contributes to the literature by employing three case studies: the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs and the War on COVID-19 pandemic to draw comparisons between wartime rhetoric, social policies and the sociopolitical implications of those policies, as well as how these policies have the potential to disproportionately affect socially vulnerable populations.

This paper builds on research regarding the use of metaphor, this analysis bridges a knowledge gap by employing the COVID-19 case to the historical use of the war metaphor.

Historically, Panama has always been “a place of transit.” While technically the isthmus formed part of Colombia in the nineteenth century, it was linked geopolitically to the United States soon after the California gold rush, beginning in the late 1840s. The first attempt at building a canal ended in failure in 1893 when disease and poor management forced Ferdinand de Lesseps to abandon the project. The U.S. undertaking to build the canal could only begin after Panama declared itself free and broke away from Colombia in 1903, with the support of the United States.

While the consensus behind the prohibitionist paradigm of drug control is crumbling in the face of its long term failure, the debate on alternative approaches has stalled in the absence of clearly defined models of regulated drug markets. Such models have now been proposed for a range of currently illegal drugs in the recent publication by Transform Drug Policy Foundation (Rolles, 2009), After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for regulation. These regulatory models, with the rationale behind them, are outlined by the book's author.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of civil society in the recent history of drug policy reform. It focuses on the UN drug control system, which is designed to regulate certain “scheduled” or listed substances internationally. It provides new light on recent reformist discourses and strategic agendas and how they related to the reality of UN politics and international relations. It questions the idea that the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS) in 2016 was a failure in terms of outcomes. It concludes by suggesting that the true outcomes of the UNGASS process will initially be obscured by the complexity of national-international drug policy dialectics, but may eventually prove more tangible and enduring than proposed formal systemic reforms.

The paper examines the historical role of civil society in the UN drug control system. It highlights that although civil society played a key role in the early formation of the system, this role diminished over time as the system professionalised. Meanwhile, as a new reformist movement emerged in the 1990s challenging the status quo, the paper traces this movement through the early UNGASS process, the decline of the reformist era and the eventual UNGASS outcomes. It concludes with a critical evaluation of civil society strategies and the relationship between idealistic strategies and the realities of national and international politics.

Rather than a failure of outcomes, UNGASS represented a failure of assumptions, strategic vision and ultimately expectations on the part of reform optimists. These groups ultimately created and became captive to a goal of formal systemic reforms, or treaty revisions, underpinned by a dogmatic assumption of “the inescapable logic of reform necessity”. This logic argued that highlighting treaty “breaches” and contradictions would be a sufficient condition to drive a formal UN system-wide re-evaluation of drug control. These failures of strategic assumptions and vision ultimately resulted in the sense of “failure” of UNGASS 2016.

This research highlights the need to critically evaluate civil society strategies and desired outcomes with an eye to history, international relations and the realities of managing a complex global issue. The application of mono-causal explanations for individual state actions or international cooperation is shown to be vastly insufficient to explain, plan for or predict the outcomes of a complex multilateral framework. Furthermore, this paper highlights a research agenda on the role of civil society in drug policy formation and how this relates to the current policy and advocacy groupings among member states and interest groups at national and international levels.

This paper highlights a more realistic appraisal of the determinants of and possibilities to change international drug policy. It thereby utilises an impressionistic historical narrative of the UNGASS process to enable an evaluation of the frontiers of policy reform at the UN level and provide some guidance on the failures of past strategies and potential future directions of international drug control and reformist strategies.

As highlighted in this paper, drug policy is an area where major policy failures are recognised within the current international approach. Experimentation with new tactics and strategies are needed to break out of the traditional prohibition-centric approach to this issue. The benefits of more successful policies would be felt though a lower level of harm from drug use, drug markets and drug policy. As such, a pragmatic understanding of how the international system might evolve to support new evidence-based approaches is crucial to developing a socially beneficial approach to drugs and drug policy.

The originality of this research lies in its blending of a historical evaluation of the role of civil society in the UN drug control system and the strategies of contemporary civil society actors around the UNGASS process. Thereby it allows a more critical evaluation of the strategic goals, assumptions and outcomes of reformist strategies in the recent era and potential strategies moving forward.

In the US (and elsewhere), law enforcement agencies take the position that new telecommunications technologies are eroding their abilities to intercept and monitor electronic communications. They argue that they are “losing control”. Without new telecommunications surveillance powers, the argument runs, drug traffickers and terrorists will be able to operate with impunity within virtual sanctuaries. The problem with this narrative is that it functions to deflect attention from the fact that the US State has contributed significantly to some of the very problems that that have generated the calls for new surveillance powers. An alternative narrative sketched. It is argued that the escalation of the US State’s failed War on Drugs has been a key factor behind the proliferation of the recent surveillance initiatives. It is suggested that a similar dynamic may be operating in the US State’s New War on Terrorism.

This paper considers the findings of the Beckley Foundation's Global Cannabis Commission Report (Room et al, 2008), an overview of the scientific literature on cannabis, detailing its potential harms and those caused by its prohibition. It moves on to consider the various strategies that different jurisdictions have adopted to deal with cannabis use, before moving beyond the Conventions, arguing that countries should have more autonomy to develop policy best suited to their individual circumstances.Cannabis was incorporated into the global prohibitive regime via the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 (United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, 1961), and is further affected by two later drug Conventions, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1972 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 1972) and the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychoactive Substances 1988 (United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, 1988). Together, these require that all signatories make production, commerce and possession of cannabis criminal offences under domestic law: in the UK, this expectation is effected via the inclusion of cannabis in Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (HM Government, 1971). In the half century since the initial Convention was drafted, patterns of cannabis consumption have altered fundamentally; smoking cannabis has transformed from a relatively rare behaviour confined to a scattering of countries and cultures, to almost a rite of passage among young people in many nations. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2009) estimates that there is a global population of 190 million cannabis users, rendering it by far the most widely used illicit drug, yet, paradoxically, one that is rarely mentioned in international drug control policy discussions.

The purpose of this study is to examine the politics, political economy, and fallout of hawkish regulatory policy on prescription drugs in Nigeria. Hawkish regulatory policy on prescription drug in Nigeria, such as opioid analgesics, is a very complex and multifaceted one, which usually involves the interplay of many factors and parties.

Policy manuals, official government gazettes (legislations, regulations, Acts and decrees), academic literature and a direct ethnographic observation of events surrounding the regulation of prescription drugs were reviewed and engaged.

The results revealed that Nigerian and global political economy and politics interface to define the direction of the new restrictive opioid policy, with resultant friction between prohibition and consumption. The reviews showed that the overarching “get-tough” and “repressive” policy are not necessarily founded on empirical evidence of an increase in prescription drug sales or use, but more as a product of the interplay of both internal and external politics and the prevailing socioeconomic order.

Instead of borrowing extensively from or being influenced by repressive Western drug laws and perspectives, Nigerian policymakers on prescription opioids should take control of the process by drawing up a home-grown policy that is less intrusive and punitive in nature for better outcomes. A mental sea change is required to understand the intrigues of Western power in Nigeria’s politics and political economy to avoid the continuous symptomatic failure of drug policy.

The politics and economic influence of the United Nations, USA and Western powers, as well as the axiom of moral panic of prescription drugs scares within the Nigerian environment, are particularly significant in the making of the emerging hawkish policy on prescription drugs in Nigeria.

The Philippines’ nationwide campaign on drugs has been under the limelight due to its controversial approaches in dealing with the problem of addiction. Despite the government’s current efforts, substance use disorders continue to persist within the population. The purpose of this paper is to provide recommendations for addressing the issue of substance use disorder treatment through a modification of the therapeutic community (TC) in the Philippine context.

This conceptual paper reviews the existing facts about the Philippines’ campaign against drugs, the approaches implemented by the government, current state and research developments of TCs, and its resulting impact on contemporary evidence-based treatment for addiction in the country.

A treatment framework outlining a recovery-oriented therapeutic community (ROTC) is presented. The ROTC aims to address addiction as a chronic, relapsing disease. This alternative approach for addiction treatment in the Philippines is based on the concept of recovery, principles of effective substance use disorder treatment, and recent developments in TC best practices from the international community.

This paper discusses different recommendations for policy development, interventions and research, aimed at improving the odds of securing recovery for people suffering from addiction.

As a prominent Cannabis Activist in the UK, the purpose of this paper is to articulate some thoughts on where activists should go next, to challenge stigmatising drug laws.

A personal narrative is interweaved with a drug policy discussion and views on how activists can best promote reform.

Activists ought to fight moral injustice by breaking unjust laws if necessary. This paper demonstrates how activists can develop regulatory models from the bottom up via cannabis clubs and the importance of talking to and educating the media.

The author has been researching the benefits of medicinal cannabis since 2001 and assists terminal cancer sufferers around the world. The author is also an accomplished Public Speaker on cannabis and wishes to use this platform to share experience and thoughts with fellow activists.