{"id":1349,"date":"2015-03-15T13:41:23","date_gmt":"2015-03-15T13:41:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/?p=1349"},"modified":"2022-12-19T11:02:55","modified_gmt":"2022-12-19T11:02:55","slug":"ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/","title":{"rendered":"Ending drug prohibition with a hangover?"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row row_height_percent=”0″ override_padding=”yes” h_padding=”2″ top_padding=”3″ bottom_padding=”2″ overlay_alpha=”50″ equal_height=”yes” gutter_size=”3″ column_width_use_pixel=”yes” shift_y=”0″ z_index=”0″ column_width_pixel=”1000″][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ position_horizontal=”left” gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”0″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ align_mobile=”align_left_mobile” mobile_width=”0″ width=”2\/3″][vc_custom_heading text_font=”font-128611″ text_size=”h3″ text_weight=”500″ text_color=”color-210407″]Articles[\/vc_custom_heading][vc_separator sep_color=”color-210407″ el_height=”1px”][vc_custom_heading auto_text=”yes” text_font=”font-128611″ text_size=”h1″ text_weight=”500″ text_color=”accent”]This is a custom heading element.[\/vc_custom_heading][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Published<\/span><\/td>\n15\/03\/2015<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Type<\/td>\nArticle<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Author(s)<\/td>\nJulian Buchanan<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Corresponding Authors<\/td>\nJulian Buchanan, Associate Professor, Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DOA<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DOI<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

After three decades of working in the drugs field (as a probation officer, researcher and\u00a0academic) and seeing little change in a drug policy largely driven by prohibition, it is\u00a0encouraging to finally see the emergence of a paradigm shift, towards drug\u00a0decriminalisation and regulation. Globally, there are a growing number of countries,\u00a0agencies and individuals exploring drug law reform, albeit, largely related to cannabis.\u00a0These are critical and important times, but after the debacle of prohibition, we should be\u00a0careful not to get over-excited and\u00a0simply lurch uncritically towards any reform that\u2019s\u00a0proposed. We need to be rigorous and well informed when considering and assessing\u00a0appropriate drug policy change, otherwise we will fail to address the fundamental\u00a0problem \u2013 the decades of damage caused by drug policy abuse. In this paper I shall clarify\u00a0why drug law reform change is urgently needed, explore lessons from drug policy changes\u00a0in other countries, highlight risks inherent within drug reform, and establish some guiding\u00a0principles for change.[\/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner column_width_percent=”100″ gutter_size=”3″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ align_mobile=”align_center_mobile” mobile_width=”0″ width=”1\/1″][uncode_share layout=”multiple” bigger=”yes” separator=”yes”][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]1980s: From abstinence to harm reduction<\/strong>
\nIn the 1980s, working as a probation office in Bootle, Merseyside, I was confronted by two\u00a0particular social problems; mass unemployment, and a heroin \u2018epidemic\u2019. While in the\u00a0past, illicit drug use had been largely associated with enhancing life-experiences, such as\u00a0attending parties, music festivals or socialising at university, the 1980s wave of heroin use\u00a0was confined largely to discarded working class youth who used the drug to create a ‘euphoric oblivion\u2019, to block out depressing life experiences (Buchanan & Wyke, 1997).\u00a0Not surprisingly, this heroin epidemic spread rapidly across the most deprived areas of\u00a0England, those hit hardest by de-industrialisation and mass unemployment (Dorn & South,\u00a01987). The received wisdom in the early 1980s surrounding problematic drug use was\u00a0clear and robust; all illegal drug use was inherently dangerous, would lead to addiction,\u00a0destroy families and communities, and ultimately result in early death and tragedy. The\u00a0national response to this drug epidemic was to rally communities and agencies together\u00a0against this new threat, and to utilise every means possible to get young people off\u00a0(illegal) drugs. This \u2018crusade\u2019 against the drugs \u2018enemy\u2019 resulted in a proliferation of new\u00a0community groups and organisations, often with the phrase \u2018against\u2019 drugs in their title.<\/p>\n

As a new probation officer, I acquiesced and embraced this misguided dominant\u00a0discourse, and did my utmost to coerce people to stop taking illegal drugs. After pressurising and persuading heroin using offenders who were awaiting sentence in Court,\u00a0to give up illegal drugs, I\u2019d often take them in my car to a detoxification centre or a drug\u00a0rehabilitation centre, far away from their home, only to see them back on the streets of\u00a0Bootle, Merseyside, a few weeks later using heroin. I soon realised, not only was a coerced\u00a0abstinence not working; it was actually part of the problem, they were now more\u00a0entrenched, and further alienated following my unsuccessful attempt to force them off\u00a0drugs. Supporting the crusade to rid them of illegal drugs did more harm than good. In\u00a0particular the approach didn\u2019t meet people where they were at; it didn\u2019t assess or listen to\u00a0what they were ready, able or wanting to do; instead, I was pursuing my agenda, not their\u00a0agenda (Buchanan, 1991). In so doing, I was setting them up to fail, and this created\u00a0further conflict and relationship breakdown between them, their family, friends and\u00a0importantly, the criminal justice system, which saw the offender breaking their promise to\u00a0become drug free. By imposing an unrealistic, and probably unachievable expectation\u00a0upon the offender, I had inadvertently encouraged deceit that made the person more\u00a0damaged, isolated and at risk.<\/p>\n

Learning from this experience, when the Merseyside Probation Service appointed me as a\u00a0drug specialist in 1986, I helped pioneer and promote a risk reduction approach\u00a0(Buchanan & Wyke, 1987) that was subsequently adopted as Merseyside Probation\u00a0Service drug policy. Risk reduction (now widely referred to as harm reduction) doesn\u2019t\u00a0exclude abstinence: if somebody is ready, able and wanting to pursue abstinence, they\u2019ll\u00a0be supported to do so, but risk reduction engages and fully supports people in a\u00a0pragmatic, non-judgmental manner, while they continue to use drugs. Risk reduction is\u00a0dedicated to reducing the risks (legal, social, psychological and medical) to the person\u00a0using drugs, their friends, family and wider community, and doesn\u2019t require a\u00a0commitment to abstinence (Newcombe, 1992).<\/p>\n

By the mid\/late 1980s the dominant anti-illicit drug discourse in the UK that demanded\u00a0\u2018drug\u2019 free lives and communities, was largely replaced by a harm reduction strategy. This\u00a0new approach engaged more people in treatment and was more successful at reducing\u00a0harms (O\u2019Hare et al., 1992). However, it is important to be clear, the motivation for this\u00a0paradigm shift away from abstinence, was essentially a pragmatic move to protect the\u00a0wider community from the new and greater threat of HIV\/AIDS, posed by the drug injecting community, through unprotected sex and sharing of needles, the paradigm shift\u00a0didn\u2019t reflect a policy change towards accommodating illegal drug use (ACMD, 1988).<\/p>\n

1998 – The empire strikes back<\/strong>
\nThe United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) gathered in New York in\u00a01998 to launch a new ten-year global drug strategy, accompanied with the slogan: \u2018A drug\u00a0free world – we can do it\u2019 (Blickman, 2008; UNDCP, 1998). This far-fetched and\u00a0questionable aspiration was an overt attempt to reclaim and re-assert abstinence. In my\u00a0view a \u2018drug\u2019 free world is as deluded, na\u00efve and useless, as a 10 year plan for a crime-free\u00a0world. Worse, while the notion of a crime free world has merit, the notion of a drug free\u00a0world is bizarre. It is a vague ideologically driven crusade; one that is irrational,\u00a0contradictory, unachievable and undesirable, and as I will argue, drug policy driven by\u00a0prohibition has caused considerably more harm, than the drugs it purports to protect us from (Rolles et al., 2012).<\/p>\n

Soon after the 1998 UN conference, the UK appointed Keith Halliwell, an ex-Chief\u00a0Constable, as a new US-styled Drugs Tsar, and he too launched a ten-year drug strategy.\u00a0This appointment marked a shift in the UK away from a health approach to the \u2018drug\u2019\u00a0problem, and criminal justice took centre stage; it also marked a significant alignment\u00a0towards abstinence-based US drug policy, and extended the war on drugs (Buchanan,\u00a02010). By this time, I was working at Liverpool University and carrying out qualitative\u00a0research that explored the lived experience of people on Merseyside struggling with\u00a0chronic problematic drug use. In an article entitled \u2018A war on drugs, a war on drug users\u2019,\u00a0Lee Young and I, argued a prohibitionist, tough law enforcement drug policy that meted\u00a0out severe punishment for drug violations, was not only an attack on illicit drugs, but more\u00a0importantly, it was an attack on the people who used illicit drugs (Buchanan & Young,\u00a02000). It was clear, the drug war in the UK focused on working class communities, and\u00a0specifically young people whose futures had been ravaged by de-industrialisation,\u00a0disinvestment, poverty, and major social, economic and political changes (MacGregor,\u00a01989). Bootle, where I worked as a probation officer and drugs worker, was a tragic\u00a0example of a community blighted by socio-economic change, which resulted in a\u00a0generation of unskilled youth, whose labour was rendered worthless and useless. Young\u00a0people in Bootle were unable to follow in their parents\u2019 and grandparents\u2019 footsteps in\u00a0Bootle, suddenly couldn\u2019t find work, and wondered if they\u2019d ever work. In the 1980s it\u00a0seemed that almost overnight a new section of society appeared – the discarded working\u00a0class whose labour was surplus to capitalist requirements and who would be punished and\u00a0scapegoated for being unable to secure work (Dorn & South, 1988; Rojek, Peacock &\u00a0Collins, 1989).<\/p>\n

This group of unskilled youth, lacking qualifications, unable to secure a stake in society,\u00a0couldn\u2019t legitimately access employment, struggled to find their own accommodation,\u00a0were unable to afford consumer goods, and inevitably many drifted into a drug-centred\u00a0lifestyle which offered a daily routine and network to escape their grim daily reality.\u00a0Labelled \u2018addicts\u2019 and \u2018smack-heads\u2019 they were presented as an enemy within the community, and the cause of community despair. As Chomsky (1998) explains, this\u00a0demonisation served a political purpose:<\/p>\n

\u2018The Drug War is an effort to stimulate fear of dangerous people from who\u00a0we have to protect ourselves. It is also, a direct form of control of what are\u00a0called “dangerous classes,” those superfluous people who don’t really have\u00a0a function contributing to profit-making and wealth. They have to be\u00a0somehow taken care of.\u2019<\/p>\n

Historically, drug prohibition has almost exclusively targeted the discarded working class,\u00a0and enmeshed with racist thinking and racist targeting (Alexander, 2013; Nadelmann,\u00a02014). In the late 1800s Chinese people living in London who used opium (rather than\u00a0alcohol) were portrayed as a threat to morality, a people who used their drug in \u2018opium\u00a0dens\u2019, a stark contrast to British attitudes towards the opium using \u2018Lakeland Poets\u2019\u00a0(Keats, Coleridge, Wordsworth and De Quincey) earlier that century. In 1914 the New York Times headline \u2018Negro Coke Fiends\u2019 presented Black African Americans who use cocaine as\u00a0peculiarly dangerous criminals, suffering insane addiction which equipped them with an\u00a0ability to withstand bullets (Williams, 1914). More recently the disparities between crack\u00a0and powder cocaine sentencing in the USA, even though it is virtually the same drug \u2013 have resulted in concerns about racist drug laws. To receive the ten-year mandatory\u00a0minimum prison sentence for possession of powder cocaine (predominantly used by the\u00a0white population) the threshold was set at 1000 grams, whereas the threshold for\u00a0 crystallised cocaine (predominantly used by the Black population) was set much lower at\u00a010 grams. Belatedly acknowledging these gross disparities, the US Fair Sentences Act 2010\u00a0eventually adjusted the threshold level, although the present 18:1 ratio is still unfairly\u00a0balanced (Washington Post, 2010).<\/p>\n

Prohibition<\/strong>
\nDrug prohibition has caused global harm and great cost to society, arguably far greater\u00a0than the harm arising directly from illicit drugs (Rolles et al., 2012). Further, prohibition\u00a0has been ineffective and has failed to demonstrate any significant reduction in drug use,\u00a0drug supply, or drug harm (GCDP, 2011 & 2014). Since President Nixon declared the \u2018war\u00a0on drugs\u2019 in 1971 (see Fig. 1), the US have witnessed a sudden and rapid increase towards\u00a0mass incarceration (Alexander, 2013), with vast numbers held in prison for drug-defined\u00a0crimes (possession, supply, cultivation etc.), (Kerrigan, 2012). A similar pattern of spiralling\u00a0prison populations can be observed in most Anglophile countries. In New Zealand around\u00a01 in 20 recorded crimes are drug-defined offences, and around 11% of the prison\u00a0population are imprisoned for drug-defined crimes (NZ Police, 2014).<\/p>\n

Figure 1<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

In the UK, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 launched the drug wars, when it mandated a life sentence can be imposed on anyone supplying outlawed drugs such as LSD, MagicMushrooms or Ecstasy (Class A). In addition to the severe criminal sanctions, there have been growing civil anxieties concerning what can and what can’t be consumed, and this has resulted in a proliferation of drug testing technologies (urine, blood, hair, saliva, sweat and even sewage), that encourage parents to drug test their teenage children; companies to test their employees; colleges to test their students; even house buyers are being ncourage to purchase a drug test survey to ensure the house is \u2018clean\u2019 from illicit drugs. In New Zealand, like some US states, people on benefit seeking employment are routinely drug tested; if they repeatedly test positive for illicit drugs, (often cannabis because it can be traced weeks even months after use), their benefit is stopped. Like private prisons, drug testing has become a major growth industry that has a vested interest in supporting the drug war by offering new technologies, for example the New Zealand Drug Abstinence Court, attaches a \u2018sobriety bracelet\u2019 to the ankle of offenders to ensure they remain abstinent from alcohol.<\/p>\n

Such is the seemingly limitless expansion in drug testing business opportunities to support\u00a0the drug wars, in May 2013 the EMCDDA (2013) launched the inaugural international\u00a0conference for detecting illicit drugs in wastewater. Maybe the next business opportunity\u00a0will involve a delegate from a wastewater drug testing company approaching a university,\u00a0offering to provide a wastewater analysis of the Halls of Residence, combined with regular\u00a0random testing of students in lecture theatres. In a competitive environment the\u00a0university could then boast they have certified \u2018drug\u2019 free students and a drug free educational environment – alleviating fears of worried parents, sponsors and future\u00a0employers. The wide circulation of some media fuelled panic, a shock-horror story involving illegal drugs and students on campus should help stimulate demand.<\/p>\n

The illogical war on illicit drugs is no longer confined to law enforcement agencies; it\u2019s\u00a0become a civil war, one that has invaded our place of work, our schools, colleges,\u00a0communities and homes. In its extreme, US militarised SWAT teams carry out dawn raids\u00a0on homes for alleged possession of illicit drugs. In such raids pet dogs have been killed,\u00a0and in some cases people (Agorist, 2014). In the UK and Australia children have been\u00a0stripped searched by police looking for drugs, in the USA one man was forced to undergo\u00a0three enemas, a colonoscopy, an X-ray and several cavity searches, simply because he\u00a0appeared to clench his buttocks (Sullum, 2013). In the UK every 58 seconds somebody is\u00a0stopped and searched in England and Wales for banned drugs (Eastwood, Shiner & Bear,\u00a02013). Perversely, most criminal convictions for possession and supply involve cannabis \u2013 a substance less damaging than alcohol and tobacco (Nutt et al., 2010). A criminal\u00a0conviction for drugs is much more damaging on life opportunities than the drugs they\u00a0purport to be protecting us from. While many politicians and US Presidents may admit to\u00a0using illicit drugs, they were never convicted, whereas 1.5 million people in the UK have\u00a0criminal records for drug possession – usually the working class, the poor and the black\u00a0and minority ethnic groups (Release, 2014).<\/p>\n

In the US and the UK, it is the black population who are more likely to be stopped,\u00a0searched, arrested and prosecuted even though their use of banned drugs is similar if not\u00a0less than the white population. In the UK the chances of being stopped for drugs if you are\u00a0black is 45 people per 1,000 whereas if you are white it\u2019s 7 people per 1,000 (Eastwood,\u00a0Shiner & Bear, 2013). Once convicted of a drug-defined crime, life opportunities diminish\u00a0in terms of employment, relationships, travel abroad, insurance, mortgages, housing and\u00a0membership and participation in wider society.<\/p>\n

The increased dangers from prohibiting drugs<\/strong>
\nBanning drugs actually makes drug taking more dangerous. Let me illustrate. Before this\u00a0lecture folk were enjoying a few glasses of the particularly dangerous drug ethanol (served\u00a0as red or white wine). Because the drug is legal and regulated nobody was concerned it\u00a0might be mixed with dangerous substances such as bleach. When the bottles of wine were\u00a0being poured, everyone anticipated the alcohol content to be around 11-15%, some may\u00a0have checked the precise alcohol volume, which is always written on the label. Some may\u00a0have confined themselves to one glass of wine, because they are driving home later.\u00a0Those who did have just one glass were not anxiously thinking: \u2018I just hope this isn\u2019t 90%\u00a0alcohol, otherwise I have just drunk the equivalent of eight glasses of wine in 15 minutes\u2019.\u00a0That never crossed your mind, because when you take a legal drug, it is quality controlled,\u00a0you know what you\u2019re taking. Knowing the purity and strength of a drug, and knowing that\u00a0it\u2019s not mixed with poisons or toxins is vital, and it is a privilege afforded to people who\u00a0use legal drugs. The greatest danger with illegal drugs is not the substance itself, but it is\u00a0not knowing its content or strength. Contamination and uncertain strength are significant causes of overdose and death. This risk is exacerbated considerably by illegality. The same\u00a0issues would apply to alcohol, tobacco and caffeine if they could only be produced and\u00a0sold via the illegal market. Prohibition also means that consumers must engage in a criminal underworld inevitably leading to some level of secrecy and anxiety. The stigma\u00a0and serious social and legal consequences of being \u2018found out\u2019 using a banned drug,\u00a0means most users are reluctant to seek help if a problem occurred. The exposure to the\u00a0criminal underworld could also lead to opportunities to engage in other criminal activities.\u00a0Buying, using and sharing illegal drugs places the person at risk of severe criminal\u00a0sanctions including imprisonment (Buchanan, 2008).<\/p>\n

Maintaining the drugs lie<\/strong>
\nThere is no pharmacological basis to separate the legal drugs alcohol, tobacco, sugar or\u00a0caffeine from the illegal drugs such as heroin, cannabis, LSD or cocaine (Gossop, 2013).\u00a0There is no rational basis in terms of risk and harm either, given that alcohol and tobacco\u00a0are more dangerous than most illegal drugs; indeed, alcohol is the most dangerous\u00a0substance of all (Nutt et al., 2010). One way of masking this hypocrisy has been to socially\u00a0construct legal drugs as non-drugs. This irrational, unscientific and untenable position has\u00a0been sustained by a regular cycle of drug panics, and shock-horror campaigns centred\u00a0upon the banned substances. These media fuelled drug war propaganda stories create\u00a0shocking and frightening narratives based, at best, upon loose association, rather than any\u00a0causal connections. For example: \u2018reefer madness\u2019 asserted that cannabis use led to\u00a0psychosis, violence, weird orgies, wild parties and unleashed passion; \u2018crack babies\u2019\u00a0asserted that crack cocaine taken during pregnancy led to mentally damaged babies that\u00a0would struggle to function normally; methamphetamine was portrayed as the most\u00a0addictive drug in the world; it was claimed \u2018bath salts\u2019 caused a man to eat the face of\u00a0another man; and most recently krokodil was presented as a flesh eating drug. There is no\u00a0established causal relationship between any of these drugs and the alleged outcome.\u00a0There is a need to look beyond the substance, and consider instead look more closely at\u00a0the set (person), and the setting (their environment) (Dalgarno & Shewan, 2005).<\/p>\n

Lies, myths and misinformation that are frequently used in an attempt to validate what is\u00a0effectively a drug apartheid, not only mislead people (Buchanan 2014), they waste vast\u00a0resources, damage lives and detract from the real issues. I recall in the 1980s, some health\u00a0professionals and social workers were telling pregnant women that the use of heroin or\u00a0methadone could permanently damage the unborn child. The same was alleged about\u00a0crack cocaine. Neither is true. While the attention and concern was directed at the\u00a0outlawed drugs, relatively little attention was given to a legal drug frequently taken during\u00a0pregnancy that can cause permanent damage to the unborn child \u2013 alcohol (BMA, 2007).<\/p>\n

Tough enforcement increases violence<\/strong>
\nThe drug apartheid secured and maintained through tough prohibition fuels violent crime.\u00a0It\u2019s not difficult to understand that when people who have a very lucrative business and\u00a0excellent market demand are suddenly removed from the community and incarcerated,\u00a0other business entrepreneurs are likely to respond to meet the demand. Disrupting the\u00a0once steady market by removing a key business leader makes this underground market\u00a0more volatile and turf wars become more likely. When a business is forced to operate\u00a0underground there are no legitimate means for resolving disputes for producers, suppliers\u00a0or users. A systematic review of the effect of law enforcement upon drug market violence\u00a0found that areas with tougher enforcement are associated with increased violence (Werb\u00a0et al., 2011).<\/p>\n

Looking beyond the negative impact upon communities, attempts to eradicate drugsupplying\u00a0countries has destabilised entire countries, particularly Afghanistan and Mexico.\u00a0The illicit drug trade is a billion dollar business managed by gangsters and militarised\u00a0cartels, and in poverty stricken countries poor farmers with little legitimate means to earn\u00a0a living wage inevitably grow coca plants and opium poppies as a means of economic\u00a0survival (Redmond, 2013).<\/p>\n

Stuck in a time warp<\/strong><\/p>\n

Figure 2<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

A photograph of delegates signing the UN Single Convention on Narcotics back in 1961\u00a0(Fig. 2) typically reflects middle-aged men, and in that period most were tobacco smokers,\u00a0caffeine users and people who enjoyed a drink. The convention brought together different\u00a0reports and thinking from the 1950s, into a new \u2018single\u2019 convention (Bewley-Taylor, 2013)\u00a0and effectively established a global \u2018drug apartheid\u2019 privileging certain drugs which were\u00a0excluded and promoted, while seeking to prevent and punish possession and supply of\u00a0other drugs. \u2018Narcotics\u2019 as they were called, were not widely understood, nor indeed were\u00a0they a particular social problem at that time. The Convention incorrectly asserts that\u00a0cannabis is particularly harmful and has extremely limited medical or therapeutic value\u00a0(Gupta, 2013). It\u2019s hard to fathom how the guidelines enshrined in a culturally and\u00a0scientifically out-dated document more than fifty years old continues to inform drug law\u00a0and policy in the twenty-first century. Imagine if law, policy and practice on race, gender,\u00a0sexuality and disability remained rooted in 1950s knowledge, culture and beliefs here in the UK. Thankfully, attitudes, values and knowledge have improved considerably for these\u00a0groups since the 1950s, and while discrimination in respect of race, gender, sexuality and\u00a0disability still exists, laws and institutional practices can no longer be seen to discriminate;\u00a0sadly we cannot say the same for people who use illegal \u2018drugs\u2019, where thinking, culture\u00a0and beliefs have been stuck in a time warp.<\/p>\n

According to the UN Convention the definition of a drug is any substance listed in the\u00a0convention \u2013 there is no scientific, no pharmacological or no rational basis to explain why\u00a0alcohol, tobacco or caffeine would be separate from cannabis, LSD, cocaine or heroin.\u00a0Article 1.1 (j) of the UN Single Convention 1961 defines a drug as \u2018any of the substances in\u00a0Schedules I and II, whether natural or synthetic.\u2019 This invites the circular argument that\u00a0drugs are illegal because they\u2019re dangerous, and the evidence that they\u2019re dangerous is\u00a0that they are illegal (Buchanan, 2014). As Bancroft explains the notion of drugs \u2018are social\u00a0categories constructed because as a political community we have come to treat some\u00a0substances differently from others, depending upon who uses them, how and for what?\u2019\u00a0(2009:8)<\/p>\n

So what we have embraced and what we are continuing to uphold is a social construction\u00a0of drugs rooted in 1950s knowledge and culture that is devoid of scientific evidence to\u00a0support it. Yet we\u2019ve allowed the global and national drug controls that have resulted in\u00a0significant harm to people, infringed human rights, and led to abuses by the state\u00a0particularly for poor people, indigenous people and people of colour. During this fifty-year\u00a0period of drug wars BigPharma and multi-national corporations have exploited the drugs\u00a0apartheid to promote and distribute legal drugs. Tobacco, alcohol and caffeine have\u00a0become culturally embedded as important signifiers of relaxation, leisure, pleasure,\u00a0occasion and celebration.<\/p>\n

The times they are a-changing<\/strong>
\nThere is a growing mainstream momentum that is questioning the drugs apartheid\u00a0regime. For example, the high profile Global Commission on Drug Policy established in\u00a02011, comprising of an eclectic mix of conservative international figures from across the\u00a0globe including; former Presidents and Prime Ministers from countries such as\u00a0Switzerland, Colombia, Mexico, Brazil and Greece, along with others such as Kofi Annan\u00a0and Richard Branson, have questioned the effectiveness of drug prohibition in terms of\u00a0having little or no impact on supply and demand. The GCDP have realised too, the harm\u00a0being done by this drug war, and the GCDP have produced a number of highly critical\u00a0reports calling for an end to prohibition (GCDP, 2011; 2014). They argue that the global\u00a0war on prohibited drugs has failed with devastating consequences for individuals,\u00a0communities and societies around the world, and that fundamental reforms in national\u00a0and global drug control policy are urgently needed.<\/p>\n

Dr Sanjay Gupta, a US neurosurgeon who was a drug advisor to Hilary Clinton and a White\u00a0House Fellow, like a lot of mainstream conservative people, uncritically accepted the\u00a0guidance in the UN Single Convention on cannabis. For years he was strongly opposed to\u00a0decriminalisation of cannabis, but he\u2019s recently done a complete U-turn and delivered a\u00a0public apology:<\/p>\n

‘I apologize because I didn’t look hard enough, until now. I didn’t look far\u00a0enough\u2026I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed\u00a0marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof.\u00a0Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the\u00a0category of the most dangerous drugs that have “no accepted medicinal use\u00a0and a high potential for abuse.” They didn’t have the science to support that\u00a0claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those\u00a0things are true. It doesn’t have a high potential for abuse, and there are very\u00a0legitimate medical applications.’ (Gupta, 2013:1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In my view, drug policy reform must be informed and shaped by two important guiding\u00a0principles: to promote harm reduction and to protect human rights. However, to begin the\u00a0process of reform we will have to first acknowledge and address the flawed and\u00a0misleading social construction of \u2018drugs\u2019, otherwise we risk building drug reform on very\u00a0shaky foundations. Four false categories of drugs need amalgamating. Alongside\u00a0prohibited narcotics, now widely referred to as \u2018drugs\u2019, there are three other categories: -non-drugs; medications; and legal highs. Current drugs such as caffeine, alcohol and\u00a0tobacco (and probably sugar), cannot be granted non-drug status \u2013 they are addictive and\u00a0sometime dangerous, psychoactive drugs, that people use for pleasure. People smoking a\u00a0cigar or enjoying a glass of whisky cannot be afforded some privileged status that allows\u00a0them to continue to isolate and label someone who\u00a0 uses cannabis or cocaine as a\u00a0\u2018druggie\u2019, while they also regularly use dangerous drugs.<\/p>\n

Perversely, our privileged drugs; caffeine, alcohol and tobacco, all have, to various\u00a0degrees, resulted in deaths for some heavy users, particularly alcohol and tobacco. The\u00a0other privileged drugs; legal medications sold by BigPharma have an ever expanding\u00a0market to help with ailments, enhance sex life, provide more energy, help you relax more,\u00a0sleep etc. \u2013 which are similar reasons why people use prohibited drugs. However, the side effects, damage and indeed death by overdose caused by promoted pharmaceutical drugs\u00a0is a growing concern, especially in the USA where in 2012 there were more deaths caused\u00a0by overdose than road traffic accident among people aged 25 to 64 years old (CDCP,\u00a02014).<\/p>\n

New psychoactive substances sometimes called \u2018legal highs\u2019 are arguably a by-product of\u00a0tough prohibition and ever-invasive drug testing regimes. These drugs tend to have the\u00a0appearance of natural substances, but they\u2019re new designer chemicals with limited\u00a0knowledge of their long-term consequences. They\u2019ve become popular partly because they\u00a0carry no risk of criminal conviction and are unlikely to be detected in any random drug test (Perrone, Helgesen & Fischer, 2013). One of the good things about a drug like alcohol or\u00a0cannabis is that it has been used for thousands of years so the consequences and risks are\u00a0largely well known. So this arbitrary, incoherent and misleading four-part typology of\u00a0drug; non-drug (drugs); medication; and legal high has demonised, prohibited and isolated\u00a0one particular set of substances, that we have been told to call \u2018drugs\u2019. All four groups\u00a0should be merged into a single category of drugs. We all use drugs, and the vast majority\u00a0of people also use drugs for leisure, pleasure and recreation. We must move away from\u00a0the idea that people who use drugs that are currently prohibited, are somehow a different\u00a0type of people, with different motivations for using, and taking drugs that are inherently\u00a0more dangerous; it\u2019s simply not true. However, there is vested interest from BigPharma\u00a0and the multi-national companies who produce and supply caffeine, alcohol and tobacco\u00a0products, to resist change and maintain the status quo, unless, they can adopt one of the\u00a0presently prohibited substances, which they can produce, package, distribute, market and\u00a0sell \u2013 such as cannabis. While it would be good to see cannabis possession no longer\u00a0subject to criminalisation and available for purchase, awarding this drug privileged status\u00a0while maintaining the drugs apartheid, does little to address the fundamental issues.<\/p>\n

Through prohibition, alcohol has been culturally accommodated, indeed promoted, as\u00a0synonymous with expressions of pleasure, leisure, celebration and occasion. The drug\u00a0features prominently across a range of greeting cards for: anniversaries; exam success;\u00a0birthdays; New Year, weddings; baptisms; etc., and nobody seems offended, seeing this\u00a0dangerous drug promoted on the front of greeting cards. You may have seen the\u00a0converted mini-car promoting the sale of a stimulant drug – Red Bull, a similar drug to\u00a0cocaine and amphetamine but much weaker in strength. The Red Bull advertising\u00a0promotes imagery of energy, an adrenaline rush and confidence \u2013 which is what users\u00a0expect when they take any legal or illegal stimulant drug, but it is somehow entirely\u00a0acceptable for caffeine products.<\/p>\n

In a drug apartheid there is no outcry with greeting cards promoting use of the depressant\u00a0drug alcohol, or a mini car adapted to look like a rocket to promote the use of a stimulant\u00a0drug caffeine, but it would be considered abhorrent if any greeting card displayed a line of\u00a0cocaine on a mirror, or the a mini-car was adapted to display not a can of Red Bull but a\u00a0cannabis spliff. I\u2019m not here arguing for the promotion of cocaine or cannabis, rather, I am\u00a0challenging the illogical position of the cultural accommodation of some drugs and the\u00a0cultural rejection of other drugs. We have to reassess our social construction of \u2018drugs\u2019, and we need an inclusive framework.<\/p>\n

Figure 3<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

If we want a more accurate assessment of drugs, not rooted in a 1950s cultural construct,\u00a0research done by Profession Nutt et al. (2010) provides a scientifically based rational\u00a0assessment of the harm posed by different drugs, with an overall rating combining\u00a0potential harm to the user and to others. The graph displays a league table of harm with\u00a0carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for supply (see Fig. 3).<\/p>\n

Like other reports and research (Runciman, 1999; HCTC, 2006; Nutt et al., 2007) this graph\u00a0illustrates how woefully out-dated the MDA 1971 classification system is, an Act clearly no\u00a0longer fit for purpose. The chart indicates the most dangerous drug is alcohol, tobacco is\u00a06th and some Class A drugs are right near the end of the list. However, Nutt et al.\u2019s, work\u00a0offers a starting point for scientifically informed discussion, rather than a definitive\u00a0blueprint, because the impact of any substance will vary from person to person depending\u00a0upon their bio-psycho-social makeup, and the legal and social environment of any drug\u00a0use (Gossop, 2013). Decriminalisation and eventually legal regulations of all drugs would\u00a0undoubtedly make drugs currently illegal much safer (Rolles et al., 2012).<\/p>\n

Lessons from Drug Reform Changes<\/strong>
\nPortugal: Following a difficult period with high levels of problematic drug use in 2001\u00a0Portugal decriminalised all personal possession of drugs. Since removing the threat of\u00a0criminalisation and punishment for personal possession, there has been no significant\u00a0difference concerning levels of illicit drug use compared to other neighbouring European\u00a0countries, which suggests that law enforcement has little, or no impact on levels of drug\u00a0usage. Given the cost, the time and resources devoted to personal drug possession by law\u00a0enforcement agencies it raises important questions about the purpose of prohibition.<\/p>\n

Research by Hughes and Stevens (2010) found small increases reported in illicit drug use\u00a0amongst older adults, while a slight decrease in use among younger adults. More\u00a0importantly than drug use, problematic drug use reduced, as did the burden of processing\u00a0drug offenders in the criminal justice system, infectious diseases and there was an\u00a0increased uptake of drug treatment. While these are positive results for Portugal they are\u00a0not necessarily transferrable but offer encouragement for other countries considering\u00a0decriminalisation.<\/p>\n

United Kingdom<\/strong>: Following reports by the Police Foundation (2000) and the Advisory\u00a0Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD, 2002), the UK government decided to downgrade\u00a0cannabis from Class B to Class C, however, implementation was delayed until January\u00a02004 while the government increased the maximum sentences available for supply of all\u00a0Class C drugs from 5 years to 14 years imprisonment. There was considerable media\u00a0concern during the run up period, that effectively decriminalising cannabis would result in\u00a0greater use among young people and addiction and mental health problems. As a direct\u00a0result of political pressure rather than scientific evidence, cannabis was reclassified as Class B in January 2008 (Buchanan, 2010). What is interesting to note here, is the level of\u00a0cannabis use during the period that it was downgraded. The British Crime Survey indicated\u00a0that between 1996 and 2002\/3 the use of cannabis amongst 16-24 years olds remained\u00a0fairly constant at around 17% (for past month use), varying by only 1.4% across the entire\u00a07-year period. However, during the four years that cannabis was downgraded (2004-2008), use by young people subsequently dropped every year from 14.1% to 9.7%,\u00a0providing a further indication that lowering the sanctions for possession, does not appear\u00a0to result in any significant increase in drug use (Hoare & Flatley, 2008).<\/p>\n

The Netherlands<\/strong>\u00a0effectively decriminalised cannabis use in 1976, making cannabis widely\u00a0available in coffee shops across Amsterdam. By comparison cannabis possession in the\u00a0USA is a serious offence. Given these stark differences in legal context, research compared\u00a0access to, and use of, cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco (Reinarman, Cohen &\u00a0Kaal, 2004) and what they found is that despite the liberal approach to cannabis in\u00a0Amsterdam, patterns of use were similar to San Francisco at every level: age of onset, age\u00a0of regular use and age of maximum use; so having coffee shops doesn\u2019t appear to have\u00a0any detrimental effect. A UNICEF report (2013) explored cannabis use amongst\u00a0adolescents and found rates in USA 22% compared to 17% in the Netherlands and 10% in\u00a0Portugal. Some argue that cannabis is a gateway drug, and increased availability is likely to\u00a0result in greater problematic drug use, but countries like the Netherlands and Portugal\u00a0tend to show lower proportions of problematic drug users than countries like the UK and\u00a0USA.<\/p>\n

Switzerland<\/strong>: While there may be a willingness to accommodate cannabis, some suggest\u00a0that illicit drugs such as heroin are inherently dangerous and inevitably lead to death and\u00a0destruction if taken daily or heavily. However, numerous well-researched heroin assisted\u00a0treatment (HAT) programmes have demonstrated clearly this is not the case (EMCDDA,\u00a02012). The Swiss, realising their terrible mistake of ghettoising injecting drug users in 1987\u00a0by geographically confining their illegal activity to Platzspitz (aka Needle) Park, Zurich and\u00a0the carnage that it produced, did a U-turn and in 1994 adopted the British System by\u00a0prescribing free clean pharmaceutical heroin to those addicted, and further provided\u00a0them with a medically supervised clean room where they could inject. The results from\u00a0this Zurich pilot were a clear success with significant improvements in health, social and\u00a0crime. In 2008 in a nationwide referendum 68% voted in favour or rolling out the scheme\u00a0permanently across the Switzerland (BBC, 2008).<\/p>\n

These case studies from Portugal, Switzerland, the UK and the Netherlands illustrate the\u00a0ineffectiveness of prohibition and give some confidence for countries to step away from\u00a0criminalisation and experiment with some type of drug reform of depenalisation,\u00a0decriminalisation, legalisation and\/or regulation.<\/p>\n

Discussion<\/strong>
\nAfter decades of frustration with the untenable archaic criminalisation of particular drugs,\u00a0while other more dangerous legal drugs go under the radar, some degree of drug reform\u00a0now appears likely. It is widely accepted we need to manage our relationship with drugs\u00a0differently, and the prohibition of particular drugs, has not only been totally ineffective,\u00a0but it has caused more damage than the drugs the state was purported to be protecting\u00a0us from. While various options to criminalisation are available, some leading reform\u00a0advocates such as Transform are calling for an alliance under the broad umbrella of drug\u00a0\u2018regulation\u2019 as the way forward, however, the devil is in the detail and regulation can\u00a0mean many things.<\/p>\n

The so-called \u2018world-leading\u2019 New Zealand model of drug regulation (Psychoactive\u00a0Substances Act 2013) provides a regulatory framework for \u2018legal highs\u2019. Under this\u00a0model, instead of all substances being legal to possess (unless specifically banned under the NZ Misuse of Drugs Act 1975), the PSA2013 has introduced a blanket ban on\u00a0every new psychoactive drug. In New Zealand only state-approved psychoactive drugs can\u00a0be consumed, and possession of any \u2018unregulated\u2019 psychoactive drug is an offence that\u00a0carries a financial penalty, while supply of any unregulated drug carries a two year prison\u00a0sentence. To prevent unregulated drugs New Zealand police have been issued with new\u00a0warrantless powers if they suspect the premises may be supplying them. What this\u00a0\u2018regulatory\u2019 model has done is effectively widen the net of prohibition, state control and\u00a0punishment in New Zealand to include every new psychoactive drug. This raises further\u00a0important questions regarding who and how a psychoactive drug is defined. This New\u00a0Zealand model of regulation seems more like new prohibition.<\/p>\n

The main argument for \u2018regulation\u2019 appears to be that we need to get the drug market out\u00a0of the hands of the criminal underworld. Taking illicit drugs out of the hands of gangsters\u00a0is a laudable aim, however, most damage suffered by people who use illicit drugs isn\u2019t\u00a0caused by the criminal underworld, as I\u2019ve illustrated, most damage is caused by\u00a0criminalisation, policing and tough enforcement. In the everyday world of daily life, the\u00a0absence of strict state regulation to govern activities of growing, making, buying, selling\u00a0and exchanging goods and services, doesn\u2019t inevitably drift into the hands of dangerous\u00a0criminals who manage business with guns, knives and baseball bats. However, if a\u00a0lucrative business is subject to fierce prohibition, extreme law enforcement measures\u00a0and severe penalties, it will inevitably drift towards a hostile, secretive and violent\u00a0environment within which the underground business must operate.<\/p>\n

The notion that decriminalisation, rather than regulation, as an initial first step would\u00a0result in the illegal drug market entirely managed by gangsters is exaggerated. If\u00a0decriminalisation was prioritised rather than strict state control (regulation) then\u00a0cannabis, which is the drug most frequently used illicit drug, and the one that occupies\u00a0most law enforcement time, would largely be home grown, shared and exchanged by\u00a0friends, local growers and societies. Other illicit drugs not easily \u2018home grown\u2019 could, in a\u00a0more relaxed period of transition, be purchased via websites similar to Silk Road, that\u00a0operate a consumer rating system, not dissimilar to Amazon or eBay. Not perfect, not\u00a0properly regulated, but this consumer friendly environment can hardly be described as a\u00a0threatening underground market governed by violence, exploitation and gangsters. The\u00a0present criminal sub-culture that surrounds the illicit drug market has largely been created\u00a0by law enforcement and prohibition, rather than any inevitable or preferred pattern of\u00a0operation by producers, buyers and sellers of drugs, and has little to do with the nature of\u00a0the product on sale.<\/p>\n

Decriminalisation as a first step towards living with drugs would importantly protect users\u00a0(particularly the poor, indigenous people and people of colour who are targeted by law\u00a0enforcement agencies), from police stop and searches, drug related arrests, penalties and\u00a0incarceration. Drug users would be free from the serious and lifelong damage of a drug\u00a0conviction. This would provide more time to look critically and carefully at models of drug\u00a0market regulation. The history of regulation involving legal drugs alcohol and tobacco has\u00a0not exactly inspired confidence in state control. The recent significant increase in drug\u00a0overdose deaths in the USA due largely to regulated painkilling drugs is a reminder of the\u00a0serious problems that can arise \u2013 despite state regulation.<\/p>\n

After thirty years of working in the drugs field I am convinced that drug policy abuse poses\u00a0the greatest threat to our young people, not problematic drug use, and whatever\u00a0regulatory model is eventually proposed, the non-negotiable priority must be to ensure\u00a0personal possession is never an offence, civil or criminal. The individual must have\u00a0sovereign right over their own body, to consume what they wish, without fear, threat or\u00a0punishment from the state, \u2013 protecting the human right to choose what they do with\u00a0their body. Regulations should concentrate on market related issues such as production,\u00a0distribution, sale and advertising, and they should be used to protect the rights and\u00a0freedom of the individual.<\/p>\n

A drug reform campaign designed to end prohibition and replace it with regulation would\u00a0in my view be a grave mistake, if regulation provides the state with new powers to punish\u00a0personal possession of unregulated substances as it has in New Zealand. Hard fought\u00a0campaigns for drug law change should not be squandered. For forty years the UK Misuse\u00a0of Drugs Act 1971 has remained largely impervious to any positive reform, and this\u00a0illustrates just how difficult it might be to make positive amendments to any new flawed drug legislation. Whereas, punitive orientated amendments to drug laws have historically\u00a0been much easier to introduce, so considerable caution should therefore be exercised\u00a0before supporting any new drug laws.<\/p>\n

Figure 4<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong>
\nThis war between drugs (legal vs. illegal) maintained by a relentless, oppressive and robust\u00a0global drug apartheid, must collapse, like slavery, the Berlin wall and the South African\u00a0racial apartheid. The global human and evironmental damage caused by the war on\u00a0prohibited drugs is comparable to these terrible historic injustices, and similarly to these\u00a0atrocities, the insidious legacy of propaganda, lies and prejudice will take many decades to\u00a0dispel. The legal drug industry profiteers realise support from the law enforcement regime\u00a0is in its final chapter, and we observe a strategic shift and reconfiguration taking place to\u00a0secure new civil controls through abstinence, drug testing and a disease model of\u00a0addiction. As drug reformers we need to push\u00a0for revolutionary reform at this critical\u00a0period of time, and demand a rational, evidenced based approach to drug policy with\u00a0human rights and harm reduction at the centre (see Fig 4). The campaign to end drug\u00a0prohibition should not be dissipated by an invitation to cannabis to join the elite\u00a0substances on the privileged and powerful side of the drug apartheid, nor by the offer to\u00a0replace prohibition with strict state regulation that incorporates punishment for\u00a0unapproved possession. No, tweaking or transforming the present corrupt model rooted\u00a0in racism, self-interest and misinformation is not an option.<\/p>\n

The first and foremost change to reduce harm and restore human rights is to prioritise the\u00a0decriminalisation of personal possession of all substances. Once the human right to\u00a0possess and consume what an individual chooses with their own body is restored, without\u00a0fear, threat or punishment from the state, then the complex and tricky road of developing\u00a0appropriate drug market regulations can begin, but there are a number of potential\u00a0threats to derail this much needed drug policy change as illustrated in the graphic above.\u00a0Drug policy change is now possible and indeed likely, but we need to make sure the\u00a0opportunity is not squandered or hijacked by drug reform entrepreneurs, because it could be another four decades before the next opportunity arises.<\/p>\n

References<\/h3>\n

Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (1988)\u00a0AIDS and Drug Misuse<\/em>, Part 1. HMSO, London.
\nAdvisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (2002)\u00a0The classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971<\/em>. HMSO, London.
\nAgorist, M. (2014)\u00a010 Facts about The SWATification Of America That Everyone Should Know<\/em>, The Free Thought Project, June 2014 http:\/\/thefreethoughtproject.com\/10- facts-swatification-america\/#OQUqbFpLUmHPAXh7.99
\nAlexander, M. (2013)\u00a0The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness<\/em>. New Press.
\nBBC (2008)\u00a0Swiss Approve prescription Heroin, BBC Live Breakfast News<\/em>, Sunday 30http:\/\/news.bbc.co.uk\/1\/hi\/world\/europe\/7757050.stm th November 2008
\nBewley-Talyor, D. R. (2013) Towards revision of the UN drug control conventions: Harnessing like-mindedness,\u00a0International Journal of Drug Policy<\/em>\u00a024 (2013) 60\u2013 68
\nhttp:\/\/www.undrugcontrol.info\/en\/weblog\/item\/2029-refreshing-costas-memory?pop=1&tmpl=component&print=1%22%20target=%22_hplink. Blickman, T. (2008) Refreshing Costa\u2019s memory, TNI Drugs & Democracy,
\nBritish Medical Association (2007)\u00a0Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, A guide for healthcare professionals<\/em>. BMA, London.
\nBuchanan, J. (1991) Enabling Dependent Drug Users \u2013 A Cognitive Behavioural Assessment,\u00a0Practice\u00a0<\/em>5(1): 34-46.
\nBuchanan, J. (2008) ‘Understanding and engaging with problematic substance use’,\u00a0in\u00a0<\/em>S. Green, E. Lancaster & S. Feasey (Eds.)\u00a0Addressing Offending Behaviour \u2013 Context, Practice, Values<\/em>: 246-264.
\nBuchanan, J. (2010) Drug policy under New Labour, 1997-2010: Prolonging the war on drugs,\u00a0Probation Journal Special Edition<\/em>, 57(3): 250-262.
\nBuchanan, J. (2014)\u00a0The Drug Policy Sham – 58 Myths, Lies and Misconceptions supporting the Drug Apartheid<\/em>, https:\/\/julianbuchanan.wordpress.com\/blogs-2\/
\nBuchanan, J. and Wyke, G. (1987) Drug Abuse, Probation Practice and the Specialist Worker,\u00a0Probation Journal,<\/em>\u00a034(4): 123-126.
\nBuchanan, J. and Young, L. (2000) The War on Drugs \u2013 A War on Drug Users, Drugs: Education,\u00a0Prevention Policy<\/em>\u00a07(4): 409-422.
\nCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (2014)\u00a0Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System<\/em>\u00a0(WISQARS) [online]. Available from URL: http:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/injury\/wisqars\/fatal.html.
\nChomsky, N. (1998)\u00a0The Drug War Industrial Complex, Noam Chomsky interviewed by John Veit,<\/em>\u00a0High Times, http:\/\/www.chomsky.info\/interviews\/199804–.htm
\nDalgarno, P. and Shewan, D. (2005) Reducing the Risks of Drug Use: The case for set and setting,\u00a0Addiction Research and Theory<\/em>, 13(3): 259-265.
\nDorn, N., and South, N. (1987).\u00a0A Land fit for heroin? Drug policies, prevention and practice<\/em>. Macmillan, Education.
\nEastwood, N., Shiner, M. and Bear, D. (2013)\u00a0The Numbers in Black and White: ethnic disparities in the policing and prosecution of drug offences in England and Wales<\/em>. Release, London.
\nEuropean Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2013)\u00a0Testing the waters: first international multidisciplinary conference on detecting illicit drugs in wastewater,<\/em>
\nhttp:\/\/www.emcdda.europa.eu\/events\/2013\/testing-the-waters.
\nEuropean Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2012) EMCDDA INSIGHTS No. 11: New heroin-assisted treatment: Recent evidence and current practices of supervised injectable heroin treatment in Europe and beyond. Luxembourg: EMCDDA.
\nGlobal Commission on Drug Policy (2011)\u00a0The War on Drugs and HIV\/AIDS: The Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy<\/em>, June 2011, http:\/\/www.globalcommissionondrugs.org.
\nGlobal Commission on Drug Policy (2014)\u00a0Taking Control: Pathways to Policies That Work<\/em>, September, 2014, http:\/\/www.globalcommissionondrugs.org.
\nGossop, M. (2013)\u00a0Living with drugs<\/em>, 7th edition, Ashgate, London
\nGupta, S. (2013)\u00a0\u2018Why I changed my mind on weed<\/em>\u2019, CNN International http:\/\/edition.cnn.com\/2013\/08\/08\/health\/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana\/index.html?hpt=hp_c4
\nHoare, J. and Flatley, J. (2008)\u00a0Drug Misuse Declared: Findings from the 2007\/08 British Crime Survey<\/em>. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 13\/08. London.
\nHouse of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2006)\u00a0Drug Classification: Making a Hash of It? 5th Report of Session 2005\u20136<\/em>, HC1031. www.publications.parliament.uk\/pa\/cm200506\/cmselect\/cmsctech\/1031\/1031.pdf.
\nHughes, C. E. and Stevens, A. (2010) What can we learn from the Portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs?\u00a0British Journal of Criminology,<\/em>\u00a050(6): 999-1022.
\nKerrigan, S. (2012)\u00a0The Prison System Expands at Frightening Pace Following Declaration of War on Drugs<\/em>, Activist Post, Tuesday, October 30, 2012, http:\/\/www.activistpost.com\/2012\/10\/the-prison-system-runs-amok-expands-at.html.
\nMacGregor, S. (1989)\u00a0Drugs and British Society: Responses to a Social Problem in the Eighties<\/em>. Routledge.
\nNadelmann, E. (2014)\u00a0Why we need to end the War on Drugs<\/em>, TED talk, http:\/\/www.ted.com\/talks\/ethan_nadelmann_why_we_need_to_end_the_war_on_dr ugs\/transcript?language=en.
\nNew Zealand Police (2014)\u00a0New Zealand Crime Statistics 2013, Illicit Drug Offences<\/em>\u00a0http:\/\/www.police.govt.nz\/sites\/default\/files\/publications\/crime-stats-national- 20131231.pdf.
\nNewcombe, R. (1992) \u2018The reduction of drug-related harm: A conceptual framework for theory, practice and research\u2019,\u00a0in\u00a0<\/em>P. A. O\u2019Hare, R. Newcombe, A. Matthews, E. C. Buning and E. Drucker (Eds.)\u00a0The Reduction of Drug-Related Harm.<\/em>\u00a0London: Routledge: 1-14.
\nNutt, D., King, L. A. and Philips, L. D. (2010) Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis.\u00a0The Lancet<\/em>, 376(9752): 1558\u20131565.
\nNutt, D., King, L. A., Saulsbury, W. and Blakemore, C. (2007) Development of a Rational Scale to Assess the Harm of Drugs of Potential Misuse,\u00a0The Lancet<\/em>, 369(9566): 1047- 1053.
\nO\u2019Hare, P. A., Newcombe, R., Matthews, A., Buning, E. C. and Drucker, E. (1992)\u00a0The Reduction of Drug Related Harm.<\/em>\u00a0Routledge.
\nPerrone, D., Helgesen, R. D. and Fischer, R. G. (2013) United States drug prohibition and legal highs: How drug testing may lead cannabis users to Spice,\u00a0Drugs: education, prevention, and policy<\/em>, 20(3): 216-224.
\nRedmond, H. (2013) The political economy of Mexico’s drug war,\u00a0International Socialist Review,<\/em>\u00a0Issue 90, http:\/\/isreview.org\/issue\/90\/political-economy-mexicos-drug-war.
\nReinerman, C., Cohen, P. D. A. and Kaal, H. L. (2004) The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco,\u00a0American Journal of Public Health,\u00a0<\/em>94(5): 836\u2013842.
\nRelease (2014) Press release – Over 80 high-profile individuals and organisations call on the pm to reform UK drug policy http:\/\/www.release.org.uk\/press-release-support-dont-punish.
\nRojek, C., Peacock, G. and Collins, S. (1989) The Haunt of Misery: Essays in Caring and Helping. London & New York: Routledge.
\nRolles, S., Murkin, G., Powell, M., Kushlick, D. and Slater, J. (2012)\u00a0The Alternative World Drugs Report: Counting the Costs of the War on Drugs<\/em>, Transform Drug Policy Foundation, http:\/\/countthecosts.org.
\nRunciman, B. (1999)\u00a0Drugs and the Law, Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971<\/em>, London Police Foundation.
\nSullum, J. (2013)\u00a0The War on Drugs Hits a New Low with the Police Probe of David Eckert’s Guts<\/em>, Forbes, http:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/jacobsullum\/2013\/11\/15\/the-war-on-drugs-hits-a-new-low-with-the-police-probe-of-david-eckerts-guts\/.
\nUNICEF (2013)\u00a0Child Well-being in Rich Countries<\/em>, http:\/\/www.unicef-irc.org\/Report-Card- 11\/.
\nUnited Nations International Drug Control Program (UNDCP) (1998)\u00a0General Assembly Twentieth Special Session 8-10 June 1998<\/em>. http:\/\/www.un.org\/ga\/20special\/
\nWashington Post (2010)\u00a0The Fair Sentencing Act corrects a long-time wrong in cocaine cases<\/em>. Editorial, (2010, August 3) The Washington Post. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2010\/08\/02\/AR2010080204360.html
\nWerb, D., Rowell, G., Guyatt, G., Kerr, T., Montaner, J. and Wood, E. (2011) Effect of drug law enforcement on drug market violence: A systematic review,\u00a0International Journal of Drug Policy<\/em>, 22(2): 87-94.
\nWilliams, E. H. (1914)\u00a0Negro Cocaine “Fiends” new southern menace<\/em>, New York Times, Sunday February 8, 1914, Shaffer Library of Drug Policy, http:\/\/www.druglibrary.org\/schaffer\/history\/negro_cocaine_fiends.htm.<\/p>\n

Notes<\/h3>\n

Based on the 11th Annual Community Justice Portal Lecture delivered at Sheffield Hallam University on 22nd May 2014. Julian Buchanan worked for Liverpool Social Services for six years before joining the Merseyside Probation Service as a qualified probation officer in 1982. In the mid-1980s as a drug specialist he pioneered a \u2018risk reduction\u2019 approach to substance misuse. During his 15 years with the probation service he held a variety of positions: probation officer; training officer; practice teacher and middle manager. In 1995 he joined Liverpool University as lecturer and programme leader for the Home Office sponsored probation qualification. In 1997 he was promoted to Senior Lecturer at University of Central Lancashire where he set up a Masters degree in Substance Misuse. In 2000 he joined Glyndwr University (Wales) where he established criminal justice and criminology BA and MA programmes, and set up the Social Inclusion Research Unit. In 2011 he joined the Institute of Criminology at Victoria University of Wellington. As an academic Julian has continued to examine issues that confronted him as a practitioner working in the community: the role of probation; effective community sentences; managing and responding to problem drug use; and understanding and tackling discrimination and social exclusion. He has researched and published widely on these issues including around forty contributions in book chapters and journal articles. In 2009 he co-edited \u2018Effective Practice in Health, Social Care and Criminal Justice: A partnership approach\u2019, now in its second edition published by Open University Press. He has been external examiner for programmes at Trinity College, Dublin and Liverpool John Moores University, and is a specialist assessor for numerous journals including: International Journal of Drug Policy, Criminology and Criminal Justice Journal, British Journal of Community Justice, Probation Journal and the Journal of Social Policy.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”2″ back_color=”color-lxmt” overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ mobile_width=”0″ width=”1\/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1593440492913{padding-right: 26px !important;padding-left: 26px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading heading_semantic=”h3″ text_font=”font-128611″ text_size=”h4″ text_weight=”500″ text_color=”color-210407″]Latest Issue[\/vc_custom_heading][uncode_index el_id=”index-163686″ loop=”size:1|order_by:date|post_type:post|categories:3″ gutter_size=”3″ post_items=”title,date” screen_lg=”1000″ screen_md=”600″ screen_sm=”480″ single_text=”overlay” single_style=”dark” single_overlay_opacity=”50″ single_overlay_anim=”no” single_text_visible=”yes” single_text_anim=”no” single_h_align_mobile=”left” single_padding=”0″ single_title_family=”font-128611″ single_title_dimension=”h4″ single_title_weight=”500″][vc_button button_color=”accent” size=”btn-xl” radius=”btn-square” wide=”yes” custom_typo=”yes” font_family=”font-128611″ font_weight=”500″ border_width=”0″ link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fmmuperu.co.uk%2Fbjcj%2Fnewsletter%2F|title:Newsletter||”]Subscribe to our Newsletter[\/vc_button][vc_raw_html]JTNDYSUyMGNsYXNzJTNEJTIydHdpdHRlci10aW1lbGluZSUyMiUyMGRhdGEtd2lkdGglM0QlMjI0MDAlMjIlMjBkYXRhLWhlaWdodCUzRCUyMjU0NSUyMiUyMGhyZWYlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRnR3aXR0ZXIuY29tJTJGYmpjb21tdW5pdHlqdXN0JTNGcmVmX3NyYyUzRHR3c3JjJTI1NUV0ZnclMjIlM0VUd2VldHMlMjBieSUyMGJqY29tbXVuaXR5anVzdCUzQyUyRmElM0UlMjAlM0NzY3JpcHQlMjBhc3luYyUyMHNyYyUzRCUyMmh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGcGxhdGZvcm0udHdpdHRlci5jb20lMkZ3aWRnZXRzLmpzJTIyJTIwY2hhcnNldCUzRCUyMnV0Zi04JTIyJTNFJTNDJTJGc2NyaXB0JTNF[\/vc_raw_html][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

After three decades of working in the drugs field (as a probation officer, researcher and\u00a0academic) and seeing little change in a drug policy largely driven by prohibition, it is\u00a0encouraging to finally see the emergence of a paradigm shift, towards drug\u00a0decriminalisation and regulation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nEnding drug prohibition with a hangover? - BJCJ<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ending drug prohibition with a hangover? - BJCJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"After three decades of working in the drugs field (as a probation officer, researcher and\u00a0academic) and seeing little change in a drug policy largely driven by prohibition, it is\u00a0encouraging to finally see the emergence of a paradigm shift, towards drug\u00a0decriminalisation and regulation.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BJCJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-03-15T13:41:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-12-19T11:02:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/assets\/uploads\/bjcj_files\/13.1_Ending_drug_prohibition_with_and_hangover_Fig.1.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Nathan Monk\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Nathan Monk\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"44 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Nathan Monk\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061\"},\"headline\":\"Ending drug prohibition with a hangover?\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-03-15T13:41:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-12-19T11:02:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":8881,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/assets\\\/uploads\\\/bjcj_files\\\/13.1_Ending_drug_prohibition_with_and_hangover_Fig.1.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Articles\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\\\/\",\"name\":\"Ending drug prohibition with a hangover? - BJCJ\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/assets\\\/uploads\\\/bjcj_files\\\/13.1_Ending_drug_prohibition_with_and_hangover_Fig.1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-03-15T13:41:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-12-19T11:02:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/assets\\\/uploads\\\/bjcj_files\\\/13.1_Ending_drug_prohibition_with_and_hangover_Fig.1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/assets\\\/uploads\\\/bjcj_files\\\/13.1_Ending_drug_prohibition_with_and_hangover_Fig.1.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/\",\"name\":\"BJCJ\",\"description\":\"British Journal of Community Justice\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061\",\"name\":\"Nathan Monk\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Nathan Monk\"},\"description\":\"I'm proud to work for some of the world\u2019s most influential brands that shape cities and define lives: Universities and colleges. I provide advice to forward-thinking senior leaders on how to exceed their organisational targets by creating user-focused, digital-first strategies.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/sleek.bio\\\/n\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/nathansmonk\\\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/author\\\/nathansmonk\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ending drug prohibition with a hangover? - BJCJ","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ending drug prohibition with a hangover? - BJCJ","og_description":"After three decades of working in the drugs field (as a probation officer, researcher and\u00a0academic) and seeing little change in a drug policy largely driven by prohibition, it is\u00a0encouraging to finally see the emergence of a paradigm shift, towards drug\u00a0decriminalisation and regulation.","og_url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/","og_site_name":"BJCJ","article_published_time":"2015-03-15T13:41:23+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-12-19T11:02:55+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/assets\/uploads\/bjcj_files\/13.1_Ending_drug_prohibition_with_and_hangover_Fig.1.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Nathan Monk","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Nathan Monk","Estimated reading time":"44 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/"},"author":{"name":"Nathan Monk","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#\/schema\/person\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061"},"headline":"Ending drug prohibition with a hangover?","datePublished":"2015-03-15T13:41:23+00:00","dateModified":"2022-12-19T11:02:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/"},"wordCount":8881,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/assets\/uploads\/bjcj_files\/13.1_Ending_drug_prohibition_with_and_hangover_Fig.1.jpg","articleSection":["Articles"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/","url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/","name":"Ending drug prohibition with a hangover? - BJCJ","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/assets\/uploads\/bjcj_files\/13.1_Ending_drug_prohibition_with_and_hangover_Fig.1.jpg","datePublished":"2015-03-15T13:41:23+00:00","dateModified":"2022-12-19T11:02:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#\/schema\/person\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/ending-drug-prohibition-with-a-hangover\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/assets\/uploads\/bjcj_files\/13.1_Ending_drug_prohibition_with_and_hangover_Fig.1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/assets\/uploads\/bjcj_files\/13.1_Ending_drug_prohibition_with_and_hangover_Fig.1.jpg"},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#website","url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/","name":"BJCJ","description":"British Journal of Community Justice","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#\/schema\/person\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061","name":"Nathan Monk","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Nathan Monk"},"description":"I'm proud to work for some of the world\u2019s most influential brands that shape cities and define lives: Universities and colleges. I provide advice to forward-thinking senior leaders on how to exceed their organisational targets by creating user-focused, digital-first strategies.","sameAs":["https:\/\/sleek.bio\/n","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/nathansmonk\/"],"url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/author\/nathansmonk\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1349","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1349"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1349\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2811,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1349\/revisions\/2811"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}