The Historical Foundations Of The Narcotic Drug Control Regime

Abstract

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.

A hell of a life: addiction and marginality in post-industrial Detroit

“…In the USA, this is evident in the so-called ‘War on Drugs,’ initiated by President Nixon in 1969 and waged for more than thirty years without success (Davenport-Hines 2001). The ban on illicit drugs simultaneously produces the lucrative illicit drug market and its many associated criminal organizations, as well as the complex system of institutionalized treatments and punishments that compose the drug enforcement industry today (Buxton 2006, 2008; McCoy 2004; Schneider 1998; Waterston 1993). While drug dealers may exercise power within this murky realm, drug users are more often subjected to the power of others, both in the ‘legitimate’ economy and in the underground drug economy (Bergmann 2008; Dunlap 1995; Tourigny 2001).…”

“…The interest of the state in regulating this particular type of behavior was justified as a form of regulating economic function as well as protecting the self and society from disease—hence the logic of sentencing individuals to treatment (Reinarman 2005: 314). Successive drug control regimes have employed differing rationales, from early efforts which explicitly targeted particular immigrant groups, to later mandates that were justified by goals of preserving population health and productivity, as reflected in their names: The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988, and so on (Buxton 2008). In this sense, the drug war represents Foucault’s notion of biopolitics par excellence —a radical extension of state power into the affairs of the body and the care of the self.…”

Drugs and Revolution in Iran: Islamic Devotion, Revolutionary Zeal and Republican Means

“…As had happened in 1955, Iran seemed ready to go back to a policy of total prohibition and eradication of opiates, this time under the banner of Islam rather than that of the international drug control regime. 17 Khomeini "wanted to remove the shah, not dismantle the whole state," 18 thus he supported the creation of the provisional government in order to regain control over the various policymaking and implementation apparatuses. Mahdi Bazargan, the interim prime minister, wanted to slow down the pace of the revolution and to establish "the rule of law," according to the traditional interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence and political liberalism.…”

Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay

“…This was considered a major achievement of global cooperation, reinforcing two groundbreaking characteristics of such treaties. Firstly, state-parties' surrendering parts of its sovereignty to international bodies (Buxton, 2010). Secondly, the constitution of drug trafficking as a crime under customary international law (Murphy, 1999) at a time when there was no such thing as international criminal law (Schwarzenberger, 1950), leading to "the introduction of uniform penal sanctions across countries" (Buxton 2010, p. 78) and "paving the way for subsequent international criminal law of terrorism, genocide and the like" (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2000, p. 397).…”