The Role of Research Evidence in Drug Policy Development in Australia

The mantra of “evidence-based policy” is continuing to gain ground, with calls for public policy to be informed by scientific evidence. However, in many areas of public policy the role of evidence and science is highly contested. This is amply demonstrated in the area of illegal drugs policy. Illegal drugs policy, concerned with governments’ approaches to controlling the sale and use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and cannabis, is a highly contested area, and hence a fruitful case example of the complexity of policy. The features of illicit drug policy explored in this paper are: government actors, which span multiple departments; political ambivalence and multiple stakeholders outside government; community attitudes and a high media profile. These features need to be taken into account in understanding the relationship between policy and research evidence. In this context, the role of research evidence can be fraught. Examination of a number of current ‘hot topics’ in drug policy demonstrates the variety of ways in which evidence is used in drug policy processes

Australian threshold quantities for ‘drug trafficking’: are they placing drug users at risk of unjustified sanction?

This study uses data on patterns of drug user consumption and purchasing to evaluate Australian legal threshold quantities to see whether Australian drug users are at risk of exceeding the thresholds for personal use alone. Introduction Drug trafficking in Australia is deemed a very serious offence, one for which legislators and courts have ruled general deterrence is paramount and ‘little mercy’ should be shown. A principal challenge has been how to effectively differentiate and sanction participants in the drug trade—particularly how to differentiate ‘traffickers’ from those who consume or purchase illicit drugs for personal use alone. To assist in this endeavour, all Australian states and territories have adopted legal thresholds that specify quantities of drugs over which offenders are either presumed to have possessed the drugs ‘for the purposes of supply’ and liable to sanction as ‘drug traffickers’ (up to 15 years imprisonment in most states), or in the case of Queensland, liable to sanctions equivalent to drug traffickers (up to 25 years imprisonment). Yet, in spite of known risks from adopting such thresholds, particularly of an unjustified conviction of a user as a trafficker, the capacity of Australian legal thresholds to deliver proportional sanctioning has been subject to limited research to date. This paper summarises key findings from a Criminology Research Grant funded project. The broader project examined this issue in two different ways—whether the thresholds are designed to filter traffickers from users and whether they enable appropriate sanctioning of traffickers of different controlled drugs. Herein, the focus is on the former—to what extent Australian legal thresholds unwittingly place users at risk of unjustified and disproportionate charge or sanction as traffickers

How patterns of injecting drug use evolve in a cohort of people who inject drugs

This research found an overall movement away from street based drug purchasing and drug use, towards more activity in private settings, which has important implications for the harms experienced by people who inject drugs. Foreword This paper investigates the frequency of intravenous drug use in a cohort of people who inject drugs, and the decline in use over time. It provides an important indication of the effectiveness of current interventions at reducing the consumption of illicit drugs. Comparisons are made between the injection frequency of participants on or off Opioids Substitution Therapy (OST), and according to the settings in which drugs are most frequently purchased and used (eg street, house). This research found an overall movement away from street based drug purchasing and drug use, towards more activity in private settings. This has important implications for the harms experienced by people who inject drugs. Intravenous drug use was persistent, with only slow declines observed in the frequency of the cohort’s overall use. Lower injection frequency was associated with use in private rather than public locations as well as the uptake of OST. Additional work is needed to understand how this change in setting is affected by and also affects current interventions, and whether it can be used to help further reduce injecting drug use

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

The notion of ‘recovery’ as an overarching approach to drug policy remains controversial. This cross-national analysis considers how the problem of drugs was constructed and represented in two key reports on the place of ‘recovery’ in drug policy, critically examining how the problem of drugs (and the people who use them) are constituted in recovery discourse, and how these problematisations are shaped and disseminated. Bacchi's poststructuralist approach is applied to two documents (one in Britain and one in Australia) to analyse how the ‘problem of drugs’ and the people who use them are constituted: as problematic users, constraining alternative understandings of the shifting nature of drug use; as responsibilised individuals (in Britain) and as patients (in Australia); as worthy of citizenship in the context of treatment and recovery, silencing the assumption of unworthiness and the loss of rights for those who continue to use drugs in ‘problematic’ ways. The position of the organisations which produced the reports is considered, with the authority of both organisations resting on their status as independent, apolitical bodies providing ‘evidence-based’ advice. There is a need to carefully weigh up the desirable and undesirable political effects of these constructions. The meaning of ‘recovery’ and how it could be realised in policy and practice is still being negotiated. By comparatively analysing how the problem of drugs was produced in ‘recovery’ discourse in two jurisdictions, at two specific points in the policy debate, we are reminded that ways of thinking about ‘problems’ reflect specific contexts, and how we are invoked to think about policy responses will be dependent upon these conditions. As ‘recovery’ continues to evolve, opening up spaces to discuss its contested meanings and effects will be an ongoing endeavour

A ‘promising tool’? A critical review of the social and ethico-political effects of wastewater analysis in the context of illicit drug epidemiology and drug policy

Wastewater analysis has been taken up with enthusiasm in the illicit drugs field. Through a critical social science lens, we consider claims to what these ‘promising’ methods might afford in the context of drug epidemiology and policy, recognising that all methods have social effects in their specific contexts of use. We outline several ethico-political issues, highlighting how methods can have different effects as they move from one discipline (environmental science or analytic chemistry) into another (illicit drugs). Translated into the drugs field, wastewater analysis problematically shifts the focus of drug policy from harm reduction to drug use prevalence and entrenches stigma. Without comprehensive information about the social and contextual aspects of drug harms, effective drug policy is not possible

DPMP submission into the Inquiry into the Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Bill 2021

DPMP submission to the inquiry into the Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Bill in the ACT. This submission focusses solely on the proposed Bill. We have conducted extensive research on many of the topics included in the Committee’s Terms of Reference such as unmet demand for drug and alcohol treatment, treatment funding mechanisms, evidence-supported harm reduction initiatives (such as drug checking and supervised injecting and consumption spaces), and best practice policy approaches in the drug and alcohol field. We would be pleased to provide the Committee with any research, evidence or expert advice about any of the Committee’s deliberations.