Drug Policy‐making in Metropolitan Areas: Urban Conflicts and Governance

Abstract

This article retraces the emergence and shows the implications of current regulative frameworks in the field of urban drug policy. Framed by an analytical perspective that is based on the concept of urban governance, the article focuses on the processes by which cooperation and coordination between various conflicting governmental and non-governmental agencies are achieved to address drug-related problems in the major agglomerations of Switzerland, as well as in the metropolitan areas of Amsterdam, Glasgow and Frankfurt am Main. In the first part, it is shown that these problems are structured and debated along a conflict between advocates of the public-health approach and those of the public-order approach in the field of drug policy, as well as, to a lesser extent, a conflict between core cities and fringe municipalities about spillover effects related to the provision of services for users of illegal drugs. It is argued that this stems from a general tension between the goals of an attractiveness policy aimed at enhancing local economic development, and the necessities of social policy needed to address urban social problems. The second part examines the emergence of mechanisms of governance aimed at addressing drug-related urban problems. It is argued that a 'social public order' regime emerged to regulate drug-related urban problems, controlling urban practices of drug users by a combination of police and social work. In addition, it is held that in Switzerland, where social policy is traditionally confined to municipalities, these mechanisms of governance contributed to the emergence of metropolitan regions as new territorial actors in the field of drug policy. Copyright Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001.

Heroin Mismatch in the Motor City: Addiction, Segregation, and the Geography of Opportunity

“…As Cox (2011) has suggested, the particular geographical formations of race, class, unemployment and opportunity cannot be considered apart from the larger landscape of American ideology and social policy. While abundant existing research supports the position that high levels of substance misuse and addiction are indicators of social exclusion and deprivation (Parker, Bakx & Newcombe, 1988; Fagan, 1992; Ensminger, Anthony, & McCord, 1997; Foster, 2000), it remains to be seen whether deliberate or efforts at altering that landscape--improving urban living conditions more generally (Freudenberg et al, 2005), building social inclusion at different scales (Smith, Bellaby & Lindsay, 2010), or redirecting metropolitan drug policy at broader social welfare, rather than control and enforcement (Kubler & Walti, 2001)--might mitigate either the causes or the effects of heroin use, in terms of overdose deaths, economic marginality, or associated criminal activities. Comparative research on cities or regions with markedly different histories and patterns of racial and spatial segregation, such as those of Latin America (Arias 2006; Sabatini & Salcedo 2011) might help to elucidate the relationship between ethnic or class-based ghettos and heroin distribution patterns, and illicit drug markets more generally.…”

Typology of Injection Profiles of Clients of a Supervised Drug Consumption Facility in Geneva, Switzerland

“…Infrequent visits or not visiting DCRs is mainly related to a preference for injecting in a private place, the fear of being associated with 'junkies', or being seen on the premises, the rules of the premises [20] , and infrequent use [12,15,25,28] .…”

“…In this context low-threshold facilities (LTFs) distributing syringes, with or without a drug consumption room (DCR), were progressively opened in the main cities of Switzerland (the first LTF with a DCR was established in 1986 in Bern) [20,21] . In Geneva, a bus providing needle exchange was established in the early 1990s [22] .…”

Autour d’Insite : un événement discursif

“…En effet, la stratégie des quatre piliers dans laquelle s'inscrit Insite est elle-même posée comme un des éléments d'une stratégie plus large de « revitalisation urbaine » de certains secteurs centraux de Vancouver considérés comme dévitalisés. Cette stratégie connue sous le nom d'« Accord de Vancouver » est organisée en fonction de plusieurs objectifs, mais de manière générale, l'idée est de favoriser l'activité économique et d'améliorer le cadre de vie dans ces secteurs : Kübler et Walti (2001) dans leur analyse du développement des pratiques de réduction des méfaits dans les villes de la Suisse, l'un des facteurs permettant de comprendre le développement de ces nouvelles interventions pour « assainir » l'espace public. Cette tendance à la réoccupation des espaces urbains centraux par des classes sociales plus aisées et à l'apparition de nouvelles tensions avec les populations plus marginalisées n'est pas un phénomène unique à Vancouver.…”