When exploring the interplay between drug policy and human rights, commentators tend to adopt a harm reductionist approach, and centre their research on rectifying the vast amount of human rights violations carried out in the name of drug control. These violations include the use of the death penalty, the infliction of torture, and the denial of basic healthcare, to name but a few. Though this approach ameliorates some of the worst effects resulting from prohibition, a harm reductionist approach can only ever perpetuate the current regime. The thesis puts forth an alternative human rights perspective, one which explores the human rights of individuals to consume psychoactives, to challenge the moral hegemony of the global drug regime and prohibitionist logic. Part I (Chapters 1-3) comprehensively challenges the value of ‘human rights’ on a philosophical, political, legal and institutional basis- to appreciate their capacity to provide a new perspective on drug control. Part I concludes that: human rights are conceptually broad living instruments, capable of reflecting the complex reality of human psychoactive usage; human rights can better address the State/individual binary which is identified to be at the crux of drug policies and; human rights and drug control regimes are legally compatible. This bona fide human rights perspective is then applied to Part II (Chapters 4-5), which employs health and religious rights as conceptual starting points, to demonstrate how human rights could improve the drug control framework, and how the lens of human rights can point to different ways of regulating drug consumption. The broader regulatory implications resulting from this unique perspective call for an application of human rights which moves beyond medical and traditional prohibitive paradigms, to integrate broader categorisations such as ‘human flourishing’. This broader perspective accounting for pleasure, well-being and spirituality etc. would more thoroughly appreciate the often interconnected nature, and significance an individual accords their drug use. The thesis also concludes that drug policy is inherently political, and through centring upon the relationship between the State and the individual, a human rights perspective can comprehensively unpack the moral arguments involved. By introducing normative thinking in this sphere, as well as presenting the empirical evidence when weighing up the benefits and harms from psychoactives, a more open-minded, transparent approach to the issue of drug control can be adopted. Analysing (predominately) domestic and international case law which explores the conflict between the human rights and the drug control regimes, finally demonstrates that human rights have a transformative capacity to alter the drug control system, even while operating within the prevailing prohibitionist paradigm. The medical cannabis cases, and the religious exemptions for peyote and ayahuasca particularly demonstrate this, and give credence to the notion that the global regime of drug control is beginning to fall apart. Ultimately, this thesis uses the lens of human rights to provide a new perspective and direction to the issue of drug control.

This study examines how rave subculture is constructed differently by participants of the rave scene and by external observers of the rave scene. Mainstream national media articles are compared to interviews with self-identified ravers to understand how rave subculture is constructed. Subcultural and Post-Subcultural theory support this method and illustrates how concepts of subcultures have changed over time. The construction of rave culture by the media as associated with drug abuse and illegal activity attracted drug abusers and irresponsible young people to the rave scene. This consequently led to a change in the rave scene and a criminalization of rave culture and the rave promoters through passing of the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act

Over the past decade, a significant shift has taken place in British drug policy. The publication of the 2010 drug strategy shifted the primary focus of treatment away from attracting and retaining drug users in services, towards encouraging individuals to complete and exit treatment in 'recovery'. The introduction of the recovery agenda emerged alongside widespread reform to the public health system and during a period of sustained economic downturn that has witnessed the introduction of pervasive austerity measures by successive UK governments. With the reorientation towards recovery in this climate, important questions have been raised over the shape of drug treatment provision on the ground. However, despite much speculation, there remains a lack of empirical research in this area. This thesis presents a qualitative, exploratory study of the impact of the shift to recovery in two local authorities in the north of England. Through a total of 36 semi-structured interviews with drug treatment commissioners, staff and service users, this research provides an original contribution to the field by demonstrating the impact of the shift to recovery on local level policy and practice during a time of reform and economic austerity. It is argued that cuts to funding and changes to the commissioning of drug treatment services have created a highly competitive treatment system in which the success of providers is measured primarily through their ability to record successful completions of drug treatment. This has generated perverse incentives within the sector, giving rise to risky practices performed by treatment providers in the aim of demonstrating success. It is argued that these developments are best understood as the manifestation of neoliberal notions of competition, risk, choice and responsibility at the level of practice. This thesis concludes by offering important policy and practice recommendations.

Ph.D.

This study examines the effects of more lenient marijuana policy on recidivism rates. Using data of prisoners by state it examined the effect that more lenient drug laws by state on that state's recidivism rates.

<p>The Essential Drugs Programme (EDP) is one of the tools developed to achieve the objectives of the South African National Drug Policy. Occupational health (OH) services are largely in the private sector and usually provide an element of Primary Health Care in addition to Occupational Hygiene, Medicine and Nursing. The aim of this study was to determine the challenges of implementing the Essential Drugs Programme into Occupatinal Health settings in the Port Elizabeth and East London areas. A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out. Respondents cited the evidence-based approach to management of clients as a motivating factor for adopting the EDP in Occupational Health clinics.</p>

O presente trabalho analisa o impacto do exercício da repressão penal sobre os usuários de crack na busca pelo tratamento, avaliando a coerência entre os fins declarados pela atual política de drogas e os meios previstos em lei para sua consecução. O estudo se desenvolveu por meio de pesquisa qualitativa com seres humanos operada através de entrevistas com usuários e ex-usuários de crack em tratamento, bem como com os profissionais da equipe multidisciplinar do local de tratamento. / This paper analyzes the impact of criminal repression on crack users seeking treatment, evaluating the coherence between the purposes declared by the current drug policy and the means provided by law for its achievement. This paper was conducted by means of a qualitative research with humans beings, operated through interviews with crack users and former users in treatment, as well as with professionals in the multidisciplinary team from the treatment site.

<p>The Essential Drugs Programme (EDP) is one of the tools developed to achieve the objectives of the South African National Drug Policy. Occupational health (OH) services are largely in the private sector and usually provide an element of Primary Health Care in addition to Occupational Hygiene, Medicine and Nursing. The aim of this study was to determine the challenges of implementing the Essential Drugs Programme into Occupatinal Health settings in the Port Elizabeth and East London areas. A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out. Respondents cited the evidence-based approach to management of clients as a motivating factor for adopting the EDP in Occupational Health clinics.</p>

Doctor of Philiosophy (PhD) / Since 1998 anti-doping policy has undergone massive change. The level of world-wide cooperation involved in establishing an international anti-doping system is unprecedented in the history of the regulation of performance enhancing substances in sport. Such cooperation and the unipartite nature of public doping discourse give the impression that anti-doping policy is clear, unproblematic and universally acceptable. However, scratching the harmonious surface of modern anti-doping approaches reveals fundamental problems and inconsistencies, the two most basic of which go to the very core of the policy. Basic issues — what constitutes doping and the reasons why we prohibit it — are still unsettled, lack clarity and give rise to many significant operational issues. For instance, the definition of ‘doping’ in doping discourse is quite different from the definition in the World Anti-Doping Code: what is thought of as ‘doping’ is very different from what is punished as ‘doping.’ Moreover, the commonly suggested anti-doping rationales do not adequately explain the present prohibition on the use of performance enhancing substances in sport. In light of this uncertainty, two questions arise: why is there so much confusion and why do we prohibit doping in sport? Desmond Manderson, in his study of the origins of illicit drug laws, has wrestled with a similar question; his conclusions are that drugs have been prohibited more for what they symbolise than their pharmacological properties. This thesis argues that, in a similar way to illicit drug policy, the symbolism of performance enhancing substances in sport has played a major role in the development of anti-doping policy. To demonstrate the influence of such symbolism, three significant time periods in anti-doping history are considered in the thesis: the 1920s, the 1960s and the 1970s. The most formative aspect of symbolism in the 1920s, when anti-doping rules were first passed, was the association between doping and illicit drug taking. The stigma attached to stereotypical images of illicit drug-users contributed to ‘doping’ being viewed as contrary to the amateur ethos and the adoption of a regulatory system modelled on illicit drug policy approaches. In the 1960s, when anti-doping policy began in earnest, illicit drug symbolism was also extremely influential. Concerns regarding drug addiction in sport fuelled fears about the health of the athlete which were prominent in doping discourse at this time. Combined with a strong belief in the power of drugs in general, illicit drug symbolism led to the expansion of the illicit drug model of regulation to include illicit drug style testing. Doping changed in the 1970s with the emergence of training drugs such as anabolic steroids. Steroids became strongly associated with ‘communist’ athletes and were viewed as extremely powerful transforming drugs. A kind of steroid hysteria was thereby created in doping discourse. Simultaneously, the continuing influence of illicit drug symbolism meant that the previously adopted illicit drug model was also applied to steroids. The conclusion of the thesis is that anti-doping policy is not fundamentally a rational system: instead it has been driven much more by emotional factors such as public opinion than rational argument. Such a basis is bound to create confusion and explains many of the problems of current anti-doping policy. The way in which symbolism has led to the regulatory decisions in anti-doping history is summarised as constituting the ‘reactive regulation model’ in the concluding section of the thesis. This pattern of regulation has produced a number of important operational difficulties in current anti-doping law, the prime example being the ‘fallacy’ of in-competition drug testing to deal with the issue of training drugs such as steroids. Finally, it is argued that in light of the reactive nature of anti-doping policy, it is unlikely that recent challenges, such as gene doping and the use of non-analytical evidence, will be treated any differently to past challenges. Anti-doping policy has always been largely driven by reactions to symbolism; there is no reason to suspect this type of approach will change.

Doctor of Philiosophy (PhD) / Since 1998 anti-doping policy has undergone massive change. The level of world-wide cooperation involved in establishing an international anti-doping system is unprecedented in the history of the regulation of performance enhancing substances in sport. Such cooperation and the unipartite nature of public doping discourse give the impression that anti-doping policy is clear, unproblematic and universally acceptable. However, scratching the harmonious surface of modern anti-doping approaches reveals fundamental problems and inconsistencies, the two most basic of which go to the very core of the policy. Basic issues — what constitutes doping and the reasons why we prohibit it — are still unsettled, lack clarity and give rise to many significant operational issues. For instance, the definition of ‘doping’ in doping discourse is quite different from the definition in the World Anti-Doping Code: what is thought of as ‘doping’ is very different from what is punished as ‘doping.’ Moreover, the commonly suggested anti-doping rationales do not adequately explain the present prohibition on the use of performance enhancing substances in sport. In light of this uncertainty, two questions arise: why is there so much confusion and why do we prohibit doping in sport? Desmond Manderson, in his study of the origins of illicit drug laws, has wrestled with a similar question; his conclusions are that drugs have been prohibited more for what they symbolise than their pharmacological properties. This thesis argues that, in a similar way to illicit drug policy, the symbolism of performance enhancing substances in sport has played a major role in the development of anti-doping policy. To demonstrate the influence of such symbolism, three significant time periods in anti-doping history are considered in the thesis: the 1920s, the 1960s and the 1970s. The most formative aspect of symbolism in the 1920s, when anti-doping rules were first passed, was the association between doping and illicit drug taking. The stigma attached to stereotypical images of illicit drug-users contributed to ‘doping’ being viewed as contrary to the amateur ethos and the adoption of a regulatory system modelled on illicit drug policy approaches. In the 1960s, when anti-doping policy began in earnest, illicit drug symbolism was also extremely influential. Concerns regarding drug addiction in sport fuelled fears about the health of the athlete which were prominent in doping discourse at this time. Combined with a strong belief in the power of drugs in general, illicit drug symbolism led to the expansion of the illicit drug model of regulation to include illicit drug style testing. Doping changed in the 1970s with the emergence of training drugs such as anabolic steroids. Steroids became strongly associated with ‘communist’ athletes and were viewed as extremely powerful transforming drugs. A kind of steroid hysteria was thereby created in doping discourse. Simultaneously, the continuing influence of illicit drug symbolism meant that the previously adopted illicit drug model was also applied to steroids. The conclusion of the thesis is that anti-doping policy is not fundamentally a rational system: instead it has been driven much more by emotional factors such as public opinion than rational argument. Such a basis is bound to create confusion and explains many of the problems of current anti-doping policy. The way in which symbolism has led to the regulatory decisions in anti-doping history is summarised as constituting the ‘reactive regulation model’ in the concluding section of the thesis. This pattern of regulation has produced a number of important operational difficulties in current anti-doping law, the prime example being the ‘fallacy’ of in-competition drug testing to deal with the issue of training drugs such as steroids. Finally, it is argued that in light of the reactive nature of anti-doping policy, it is unlikely that recent challenges, such as gene doping and the use of non-analytical evidence, will be treated any differently to past challenges. Anti-doping policy has always been largely driven by reactions to symbolism; there is no reason to suspect this type of approach will change.