Comparing Drug Policy Windows Internationally

Abstract

In this article, I compare and contrast policymaking processes in Canada and England and Wales between 1997 and the present day to provide insight into why the Canadian government approved the opening of a downtown Vancouver drug consumption room (DCR) named InSite in 2003, and why the British government has not yet done so. I also shed new light on why, since 2003, subsequent DCRs have not been opened in either Canada or England and Wales. I briefly consider future prospects for DCRs in both places. To accomplish this, I draw on Kingdon's ''Multiple Streams Theory,'' which suggests that national government decision makers such as politicians are most likely to enact policy changes when there is an alignment of problems, policy options, and political circumstances. I argue that such conditions existed in Canada but not England and Wales, which helps explain why the Canadian government approved the opening of a DCR but the British government did not. I draw on primary data from national, provincial, and municipal government documents and national and local newspaper articles in both jurisdictions to make my argument, along with secondary data from published literature. In the process, I highlight the strengths and weaknesses of Kingdon's (1984) work for understanding policy development in the highly controversial area of illicit drug use.

Understanding successful policy innovation: The case of Portuguese drug policy

“…Other authors applied the theoretical frameworks developed by public policy researchers. Notably, John Kingdon's theory of 'Multiple Streams' has proved useful to explain changes in illicit drug policy, such as the creation of supervised drug consumption facilities, or softening or hardening of illicit drug legislation [5,[27][28][29][30]]. Kingdon's premise is that there are three 'streams' of policy that operate relatively independently: problems (which often become visible after a 'crisis'), policies (the availability of a solution to the problem) and politics (receptive leaders and supporting public opinion).…”

“…While those theories have proved useful, they also have some weaknesses. Mainly, Kingdon's theory does not theorize the interactions between the three streams, and case studies have shown that the existence of already-available policy proposals and distinct policy entrepreneurs are not necessary conditions for change to happen [29][30][31][32]. Regarding the ACF, crises such as the AIDS/HIV epidemics have not always led to fundamental changes, ¶ the latter also occurring in the absence of a crisis or elections # [22].…”

“…1. Attention shifts towards an issue, which can be triggered by the issue's severity and/or visibility [54][55][56]; and the media and powerful groups (such as health professionals in public health) playing a central role in selecting and framing issues and evidence [16,28,29,57]. When the media or the decision-makers' direct experience alerts them, a policy window opens [27].…”

“…Considering the obstacles described above, our premise is that the accumulation of a series of facilitating variables is necessary for an original policy innovation to be implemented and successful. Basing ourselves on existing theories and our empirical knowledge, we argue that successful policy innovation in democracies will only occur when the following six institutional and individual ‘stars’ are aligned: Attention shifts towards an issue, which can be triggered by the issue’s severity and/or visibility [54–56]; and the media and powerful groups (such as health professionals in public health) playing a central role in selecting and framing issues and evidence [16,28,29,57]. When the media or the decision‐makers’ direct experience alerts them, a policy window opens [27].…”

A critical examination of the introduction of drug detection dogs for policing of illicit drugs in New South Wales, Australia using Kingdon’s ‘multiple streams’ heuristic

“…Terpstra and Fyfe (2014) examined macro-level police changes (structure, governance and accountability of police forces) across two nations (Scotland and the Netherlands). However, Kingdon's approach has been used in the drug policy field more broadly to examine, for example, the emergence of methamphetamine as a policy issue in Australia (Lancaster et al, 2014), cannabis policy in Canada (Hyshka, 2009) and drug consumption rooms policy in Canada, England and Wales (Hayle, 2015). By applying Kingdon's approach, these studies have illuminated the complexity of the drug policy process and the limitations of the 'evidence-based policy' paradigm in this contested policy domain.…”