Governance versus government: Drug consumption rooms in Australia and the UK

Zampini, Giulia Federica

doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.03.006

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Australian federalism is well rooted in the country's political structure. Similarly, the centralism of UK politics, despite more recent steps toward devolution and localism, is still predominant (Zampini, 2014). With the UK undergoing structural changes, devolving powers to its constituent parts, this discussion becomes even more relevant in drug policy (Duke and Thom, 2014;Haydock, 2015).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The establishment of the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre in Sydney followed a similar pattern: local medical practitioners and activists started a medically supervised injecting centre illegally, partly as a strategy to gain political attention, but also because they believed that, morally, it was the right thing to do (Wodak et al, 2003;Zampini, 2014). Indeed, they could rely on evidence from other countries where the intervention was already in place, but was evidence primary in motivating their actions?…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If that individual is a Minister, a Premier or a Prime Minister, the likelihood that drug policy and harm reduction will figure highly on the political agenda appears to increase proportionately. For example, in New South Wales, the fact that Premier Bob Carr's brother died of a drug overdose apparently pushed drug policy higher on the political agenda, which favoured the 1999 Drug Summit initiative, as well as the establishment of a ground-breaking harm reduction intervention as the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (Zampini, 2014):…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evidence and morality in harm-reduction debates: can we use value-neutral arguments to achieve value-driven goals?

Zampini

2018

Palgrave Commun

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is common to argue that politicians make selective use of evidence to tacitly reinforce their moral positions, but all stakeholders combine facts and values to produce and use research for policy. The drug policy debate has largely been characterised in terms of an opposition between evidence and politics. Focusing on harm reduction provides useful ground to discuss a further opposition proposed by evidence advocates, that between evidence and morality. Can evidence sway individuals from their existing moral positions, so as to "neutralise" morality? And if not, then should evidence advocates change the way in which they frame their arguments? To address these questions, analysis of N = 27 interviews with stakeholders actively involved in drug policy and harm reduction debates in England, UK and New South Wales, Australia, was conducted. Participants' accounts suggest that although evidence can help focus discussions away from values and principles, exposure to evidence does not necessarily change deeply held views. Whether stakeholders decide to go with the evidence or not seems contingent on whether they embrace a view of evidence as secular faith; a view that is shaped by experience, politics, training, and role. And yet, morality, values, and emotions underpin all stakeholders' views, motivating their commitment to drug policy and harm reduction. Evidence advocates might thus benefit from devising strategies to morally and emotionally engage audiences. This paper aims to develop better tools for analysing the role of morality in decision-making. Using tools from disciplines such as moral psychology is relevant to the study of the politics of evidence-based policymaking.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evidence and morality in harm-reduction debates: can we use value-neutral arguments to achieve value-driven goals?

Zampini

2018

Palgrave Commun

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Home Secretary has a huge influence […] Civil servants take their lead from ministers in 'making policy happen' (Maybin, 2015: 288). If the Home Secretary wishes to make or refuse a change in English drug policy, she has the constitutional authority and the political power to do so; in other words, government matters (Zampini, 2014). MacGregor (2016) calls this 'the rather obvious but crucial importance of political power'.…”

Section: Policy Constellations In the Decriminalisation Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

Drug policy constellations: A Habermasian approach for understanding English drug policy

Stevens

Zampini

2018

International Journal of Drug Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Actors who share interests and norms come together in policy constellations. Strategic action within and between constellations creates policies that may not take the form that was intended by any individual actor. These policies do not result from purely rational deliberation, but are produced through 'systematically distorted communication'. They enable the most structurally favoured actors to institutionalise their own normative preferences and structural positions.

show abstract

“…Consequently, although New Labour had a majority government, they were limited in the types of proposals they could safely pursue. Zampini (2014) suggests that New Labour considered DCRs to be electorally “dangerous” and inconsistent with their “tough on crime” policy (p. 982). Consistent with her observations, my findings indicate New Labour believed DCRs were dangerous to support because they could be construed by the media and others as being “drug dens” for selling heroin, which would go against the government’s commitment to being “tough on crime.” This is evidenced by a memorandum sent to the Home Affairs Committee by Drugs Minister Ainsworth who indicated the government’s concern that DCRs might be negatively construed by the media as crime facilitators (U.K.…”

Section: Dcr Policy Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Drug Policy Windows Internationally

Hayle

2015

Contemporary Drug Problems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I compare and contrast policymaking processes in Canada and England and Wales between 1997 and the present day to provide insight into why the Canadian government approved the opening of a downtown Vancouver drug consumption room (DCR) named InSite in 2003, and why the British government has not yet done so. I also shed new light on why, since 2003, subsequent DCRs have not been opened in either Canada or England and Wales. I briefly consider future prospects for DCRs in both places. To accomplish this, I draw on Kingdon's ''Multiple Streams Theory,'' which suggests that national government decision makers such as politicians are most likely to enact policy changes when there is an alignment of problems, policy options, and political circumstances. I argue that such conditions existed in Canada but not England and Wales, which helps explain why the Canadian government approved the opening of a DCR but the British government did not. I draw on primary data from national, provincial, and municipal government documents and national and local newspaper articles in both jurisdictions to make my argument, along with secondary data from published literature. In the process, I highlight the strengths and weaknesses of Kingdon's (1984) work for understanding policy development in the highly controversial area of illicit drug use.

show abstract

Governance versus government: Drug consumption rooms in Australia and the UK

Cited by 14 publications

References 32 publications

Evidence and morality in harm-reduction debates: can we use value-neutral arguments to achieve value-driven goals?

Evidence and morality in harm-reduction debates: can we use value-neutral arguments to achieve value-driven goals?

Drug policy constellations: A Habermasian approach for understanding English drug policy

Comparing Drug Policy Windows Internationally

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About