Theory and methods in comparative drug and alcohol policy research: Response to a review of the literature

Abstract

Comparative drug policy analysis (CPA) is alive and well, and the emergence of robust alternatives to strict prohibition provides exciting research opportunities. As a multidisciplinary practice, however, CPA faces several methodological challenges. This commentary builds on a recent review of CPA by Ritter and colleagues to argue that the practice is hampered by a hazy definition of policy that leads to confusion in the specification and measurement of the phenomena being studied. This problem is aided and abetted by the all-too-common omission of theory from the conceptualization and presentation of research. Drawing on experience from the field of public health law research, this commentary suggests a distinction between empirical and non-empirical CPA, a simple taxonomic model of CPA policy-making, mapping, implementation and evaluation studies, a narrower definition of and rationale for “policy” research, a clear standard for measuring policy, and an expedient approach (and renewed commitment) to using theory explicitly in a multi-disciplinary practice. Strengthening CPA is crucial for the practice to have the impact on policy that good research can.

Drug-related police encounters across the globe: How do they compare?

“…Consistent with Ritter et al (2016b) and Burris et al (2017) and the argued benefits of a crossnational or comparative approach this study starts to illuminate key differences in drugs policing across the globe. The first, and most important difference concerns the intensity of drugs policing.…”

“…As outlined by Ritter et al (2016b) and Burris et al (2017) comparative policy analysis or crossnational comparisons in the illicit drug policy arena can be a very valuable method to unearth differences (and similarities) in approaches, as well as to show why these have emerged and the worth of different approaches. Variations in countries' legal approaches to drugs are well documented, including what psychoactive substances countries prohibit, the chosen model for responding to psychoactive substancesparticularly whether countries criminalise, decriminalise or legalise and regulate drugs, as well as the penalty regimes and legal threshold limits for possession for 'personal use' versus 'supply' (Babor et al, 2010;Belackova, Ritter, Shanahan, & Hughes, 2017;Chapman, Spetz, Lin, Chan, & Schmidt, 2016;Kilmer & Pacula, 2016;Klieger et al, 2017;Pacula, Powell, Heaton, & Sevigny, 2015;Ritter et al, 2016a).…”

Enforcement Intensity in Danish Drug Control, 1996–2017

“…To further probe this issue, I reduce the seasons to winter and summer. Again, the period is grouped into three intervals: 1996-2003, 2004, and 2011-2017. In the first period, 1996-2003, there are actually more offences during the winter and the difference (274) between winter (M = 6537; SD = 220) and summer (M = 6263; SD = 238) is significant; t (30) = 3.39; p = .002.…”

“…Yet, the interaction between law enforcement and these markets is poorly understood (Bushway and Reuter 2008). An important aspect of this problem is the lack of comparable data and comparative analysis (Burris 2017;Ødegård 1998). Researching drug policies and their implementation is relevant as they change rapidly.…”

“…These policies build on deterrence and rationality perspectives where the size of drug markets should be reduced as penalties are increased, become more certain, and are enforced more quickly (Bushway and Reuter 2008;Cornish and Clarke 1986;May and Hough 2001). The existing research, however, has focused on legislation and penalties, neglecting the enforcement component (Burris 2017;Ritter et al 2016;Ødegård 1998). This is noteworthy when considering the insight from deterrence research that the certainty of criminal sanctioning has a stronger effect than the eventual severity of the sanction (Nagin and Paternoster 1991).…”