Really clear, interesting piece. I wondered about the motivation of some of the people involved in these discourses, at least in England/UK. It's not always conscious or with bad intent - which in some ways might make it more difficult to challenge and change. Advocates for substance use treatment have certainly used various 'drug-related' stats to justify maintaining or increasing investment in care and support for people experiencing harm related to substance use. And I think the UK politicians are less calculating than, say, the US in the Nixon era. Certainly at some points in their lives, most of them have espoused more liberal views on regulation, and it seems to be fear of media / public opinion that keeps them saying that drugs are bad and therefore must remain prohibited. Unfortunately, I don't know what that says about the priority they place on evidence or compassion, or how we should therefore campaign for better policy. Thanks again for writing.
Thanks Will. Re HR advocates..Deffo in the US some drug harm reduction NGOs helped maintain the myth about fentanyl being laced into recreational drugs because it aligned with their mission to increase drug testing recreational drugs. For UK politicians, they are just cowed by the simple narrative that 'drugs get kids addicted and get people murdered'. They can't go against it, but the problem is, that the drug threat is always exaggerated, nowhere near like in the US, but it's still over blown, so debate is hobbled from the get go.
Really clear, interesting piece. I wondered about the motivation of some of the people involved in these discourses, at least in England/UK. It's not always conscious or with bad intent - which in some ways might make it more difficult to challenge and change. Advocates for substance use treatment have certainly used various 'drug-related' stats to justify maintaining or increasing investment in care and support for people experiencing harm related to substance use. And I think the UK politicians are less calculating than, say, the US in the Nixon era. Certainly at some points in their lives, most of them have espoused more liberal views on regulation, and it seems to be fear of media / public opinion that keeps them saying that drugs are bad and therefore must remain prohibited. Unfortunately, I don't know what that says about the priority they place on evidence or compassion, or how we should therefore campaign for better policy. Thanks again for writing.
Thanks Will. Re HR advocates..Deffo in the US some drug harm reduction NGOs helped maintain the myth about fentanyl being laced into recreational drugs because it aligned with their mission to increase drug testing recreational drugs. For UK politicians, they are just cowed by the simple narrative that 'drugs get kids addicted and get people murdered'. They can't go against it, but the problem is, that the drug threat is always exaggerated, nowhere near like in the US, but it's still over blown, so debate is hobbled from the get go.
The irony is that critics unthinkingly use Prohibitionist deceits eg the category error ‘illegal’ drugs and shoot us all in the foot