The Recent Evolution of UK Drug Strategies: From Maintenance to Behaviour Change?

Abstract

Politically, the idea that certain kinds of drugs and drug use are intrinsically linked to certain kinds of criminality -known as the drugs-crime nexus -enjoys continuing salience. This shows little sign of abating. Since 1995, successive strategies have embraced this theme and policies have been developed to try and increase the numbers of drug users entering treatment in a bid to drive down crime rates. Drawing on a review of the relevant literature and an analysis of successive drug strategies and related policy documents, this paper argues that although contemporary drug policy is still underpinned by such notions the suggested means by which crime rates are to be reduced is gradually shifting. Since 2008, there has been a notable change in rhetoric with an increasing use of conditionality in the benefits system coupled with an overt desire to 'nudge' those engaging in risky behaviours to amend their ways. This seems to be related to a steady disillusionment with methadone maintenance treatment and a desire to solve the drug-crime problem by promoting the goal of 'abstinence'. More recently, abstinence has been replaced by the less well-defined term 'recovery', but both signal a desire for drug treatment to move away from maintenance. This paper argues that such developments are part of a creeping moralisation that has reemerged in UK social policy over recent decades.

Producing the ‘problem of drugs’: A cross national-comparison of ‘recovery’ discourse in two Australian and British reports

“…Drug policy scholars have begun to examine the emergence, meaning and implications of 'recovery' debates in Britain (Duke, 2013;Duke, Herring, Thickett, & Thom, 2013;Duke & Thom, 2014;McKeganey, 2014;Monaghan, 2012;Monaghan & Wincup, 2013;Neale, 2013;Neale, et al, 2014;Neale, et al, 2015;Wardle, 2012), but there has been no analysis to date in the Australian context. Despite having been formally embedded into national drug policy in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2008) and in England (HM Government, 2010), and into treatment services in one Australian state (State of Victoria Department of Health, 2012; Victorian Government Department of Human Services, 2008), the notion of 'recovery' as an overarching approach to drug policy remains controversial.…”

Gender, recovery and contemporary UK drug policy

“…The new strategy emphasised the need for enhanced support "for people who choose recovery as an achievable way out of dependency" (HM Government, 2010, p. 2). It displaced the prominence of the drug-crime connection (Duke, 2013;Monaghan, 2012) and rather than focusing solely on drugs looked at a broader range of substances including alcohol and new psychoactive substances. Recovery is best described as a contested concept, but there is some consensus that it refers to "a lived experience of improved life quality and a sense of empowerment" (Best and Laudet, 2010, p. 2).…”

Mixing drink and drugs: ‘Underclass’ politics, the recovery agenda and the partial convergence of English alcohol and drugs policy

“…Indeed, the shift away from methadone prescription (in rhetoric at least [see McKeganey, 2014] (UK Government, 2008) by re-valorising abstinence-based approaches to drug treatment in both drugs and alcohol. This trend has become known as the recovery agenda (Monaghan, 2012, Wardle, 2012Duke, 2013).…”

“…The first section of the article outlines Berridge's analysis of the historical divergence and convergence of policies relating to alcohol and illicit drugs as well as introducing the notion of the underclass. We then discuss the recovery agenda, particularly with its initial focus on abstinence (Monaghan, 2012;Wardle, 2012;Duke, 2013). Here we acknowledge a schism between policy discourse and policy practice, but also suggest that via heightened conditionality, the 'recovery' of welfare claimants and offenders, often considered to be part of the underclass, is pursued more than that of other groups.…”