Injecting New Highs into Public Policy: An Analysis of the Changing Problematisations of Drug Policy Reform - the case of Safe Injection Facilities and the Decriminalisation of Cannabis

Abstract

The making of public policy involves a process of ideological contestation. Particular policy options become viable policy 'solutions' only when specific 'problems' are identified. Drug policy is a field that is contentious, involving a historical account of power relations, and advocated through consequentialist arguments from those who support, as well as those who oppose reform. Using a comparative analysis of two drug policy reform initiatives, I explore theories of problem definition, framing and the role of ideas and discourse in the making of public policy in order to reveal the contestations within this field. 'Reform' policies are somewhat of an anomaly, in the fact that they challenge international agreements on drug control. Thus, I examine through inductive research the discourses and problematisations proponents of reform were using and how these problematisations arose: essentially, how and why could a specific policy reform 'solution' come about, especially in the drug policy field. Perhaps more than any other policy arena, possibilities for reform are significantly restricted by international agreements and the structure of the international playing field. However, at the sub-national level there has been some movement for change. Reform as a policy option has come about from identifying an exogenous 'problem' that requires government intervention. Arguments for drug policy reform are supported and advocated by using three specific frames: health, justice and finances. It is through frames, as well as particular ideas and discourses, that policy 'solutions' that could not have been considered can now be formulated and advocated.