From ‘morality’ policy to ‘normal’ policy: framing of drug consumption and gambling in Germany and the Netherlands and their regulatory consequences

Abstract

Drug consumption and gambling are regarded as morality policies, especially in the American literature. Both are perceived as sinful and treated accordingly. This highly generalized assessment is rarely analysed systematically in a nonAmerican context. Therefore, we investigate whether these policies are indeed framed morally and if this framing is stable over time in two European countries. Next, we analyse whether shifts in morality framing have consequences for regulation. In this way,we contribute to the literature on morality policies, particularly the ways in which these policies are defined and empirically identified. We identify morality policies based on how actors frame issues rather than by policies' substantive content. We show that the morality framing was once prominent but has lost its importance over time, and we find a close connection between frame shifts and policy output, although this is not a uniform development and does not characterize all cases.

Morality Framing in U.S. Drug Control Policy: An Example From Marijuana Decriminalization

“…Like same‐sex marriage, abortion, and gambling, drug control is viewed as an example of morality policy. Marijuana policy specifically is often understood as a type of morality policy, as it involves conflict over first principles or core values, lacks amenability to compromise, and has little technical complexity compared to non‐moral issues (Euchner, Heichel, Nebel, & Raschzok, ; Mooney & Schuldt, ). Recently scholars have begun to consider whether morality talk is as prevalent in issue areas that are typically viewed as examples of morality policy as is commonly assumed.…”

“…Other recent scholarship has taken a comparative approach to the study of morality policy; for example, in an examination of the moral content of gambling and drug policy in Germany and the Netherlands, Euchner et al () find that morality framing was once prominent but has declined over time. We should keep in mind that, as Knill notes, “it is possible that similar issues constitute different morality policy types in different countries” (, p. 314), and as Euchner et al observe, “policies that are often labeled as ‘moral’ in the American literature are not coherently framed that way in the European countries we analyzed” (, p. 386). Thus, it is essential that future research continue to examine the extensiveness of and reasons for cross‐country variations in policy content and advocacy on traditional “moral” issues.…”

“Donate your organs, donate life!” Explicitness in policy instruments

“…12 These cultural differences are rooted in the varying degrees to which death is a taboo topic, the importance of altruism, the "moralization" versus normality of organ donation, the role of community and family, and trust in the medical profession (Dunkel 2011;Euchner et al 2013;Manatschal and Thomann 2011;Newton 2011;Schulz et al 2006). This context affects the adoption and effectiveness of policies in general (Studlar and Burns 2015, 288) and the motivations, knowledge, and barriers associated with organ donation policy, in particular (Mossialos et al 2008;Simillis 2010).…”

“…It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a comprehensive answer as to why policy instruments display differing degrees of explicitness (see Engeli et al 2013;Euchner et al 2013). In policies that concern fundamental questions such as when life begins or ends, each intervention represents a "legal sanction of right and wrong, the validation of a particular set of basic values" (Mooney 1999: 675).…”

Is Morality Policy Different? Testing Sectoral and Institutional Explanations of Policy Change

“…In contrast, political conflict in latent morality policies can be, but certainly is not always dominated by moral frames and conflict about first principles. In areas like drug or gambling policy, for example, economic considerations as well as arguments about public health represent instrumental arguments that are often much more important to the political debate than moral arguments (Euchner, Heichel, Nebel, & Raschzok, ; Ferraiolo, ). Latent morality policies are hence based on multiple dimensions of conflict, which should facilitate negotiations and the easier identification of a compromise solution.…”