LAW 6170 – LAW AND PHARMACOLOGY – 2022/23

“The Legal regulation of drugs is far from satisfactory; it is an unprincipled and incoherent

mess.” Discuss

Most governments use a mix of policies to regulate drugs, with one remaining dominant.1 The

emphasis in the UK is on prohibition, but others are running alongside, some integral, some less

so.2 The various policy options include prohibition, harm reduction, medicalization,

decriminalization, legal moralism, and economic liberalism.3

Harm reduction is important in government thinking, as is medicalisation, which allows heroin

addicts to receive maintenance supplies, and decriminalisation, which seeks to reduce penalties.

This essay discusses alternative approaches that are ethically preferable to the current prohibition

policy. It discusses both deontological and consequentialist perspectives. According to

deontological theories, the rightness or wrongness of acts is determined by the nature of the acts,

the duties of those performing them, and the rights of those affected. Conversely,

consequentialist theories hold that their consequences determine the rightness or wrongness of

actions.4

(i) Prohibition

Prohibition is the imposition of legal restrictions on the possession and use of selected items.

Prohibition stems from the 1961 United Nations Single Convention, the 1971 Convention on

Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 Convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs,

and is partially legitimate because the United Kingdom is a signatory to these conventions. The

1
Philip Bean, Legalising Drugs: Debates and dilemnas (University of Bristol: The Policy Press 2010).
2
Ibid
3
Ibid
4
Wodak A, “Ethics and drug policy” Psychiastry 6(2) (2007) pg 59-62
conventions require their member states to control the manufacture, possession, and import of

certain drugs, though each country has some leeway in how they do so.

Substances are controlled under The Medicines Act (1968), The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, The

Drugs Act 2005 and the, Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. Drugs are classified according to

the extent of harm they present under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, with three classes; Class A

providing the most severe penalties, and Class C providing the least severe.

When considering imposing legal controls, prohibitionists and their opponents have used similar

utilitarian arguments; prohibitionists argue that control prevents drug use (creates happiness),

while opponents argue that it makes things worse (creates harms).5 Alternatively, prohibitionists

justify control by citing the likely social consequences of legalization, citing the potential

increase in drug use and the impact on society. In typical Benthamite fashion, opponents of

prohibition claim that it leads to more crime than the laws prevent. Or that the impurities in drugs

caused by prohibition cause additional harm.

The solutions are typically utilitarian as well. Those who advocate for drug prescriptions use the

same utilitarian language, claiming that if more drugs were purchased legally or prescribed by

doctors, harms would be reduced. Proposals to decriminalise drugs appear in a similar manner; it

is claimed that reclassifying cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug will reduce penalties for

law-abiding citizens and thus promote fewer harms. If it remains a Class B drug, it will erode

public trust in the criminal justice system.6

Regardless of political hue, prohibition has remained a steadfast government position. The

assertion that the majority of the public is anti-legalization is probably correct, but that is not a

5
Supra note 1
6
Ibid
reason to keep the policy in place, though it could be an important consideration. The

government's further claim that legalization would cause untold havoc and suffering remains

unshaken, as prohibitionists continue to argue that legalization would result in dramatically

increased drug use, with attendant health and behavioral problems. And it is feared that once

established, they will take years, if not generations, to correct. This could explain why

governments are afraid of legalization and rail against what they see as the recklessness of those

who advocate for it. To them, the point is obvious: what happens after the genie is released?

There is no easy way back, or, as Kleiman and Saiger (1990)7 put it sarcastically, not all

processes are reversible, as Humpty Dumpty demonstrated. Prohibitionists warn against

venturing into the unknown, which they claim would be an abandonment of government

obligations. It's debatable whether "fear of the unknown" is an adequate defense, but it's a

popular one. Prohibition is the law's protector of social order, preventing harm to oneself and

others.

The policy framework has also been criticized, for example, how substances are classified in the

United Kingdom is somewhat perplexing and could use some discussion in order to change

policy. For instance, 'ecstasy' drug is a class 'A' substance under the MDA (1971). This means

that if one is caught in possession, they could get a maximum sentence of 7 years in prison plus a

fine, and in the case of supplying the drug, they could get a maximum sentence of life in prison

plus a fine.8 It seems that harsh penalties will be imposed for a drug known as a recreational drug

that is widely used, particularly by young people in the UK dance scene.9 There have been no
7
Kleiman M. and Saiger A.J, “Drug legalization: the importance of asking the right question” Hofstra Law Review (A
symposium on Drug Decriminalisation) vol 18 (no. 3) (1990) pg 527-65
8
GOV.UK, List of most commonly encountered drugs currently controlled under the misuse of drugs legislation
<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/controlled-drugs-list--2/list-of-most-commonly-encountered-
drugs-currently-controlled-under-the-misuse-of-drugs-legislation> accessed 20 January 2023.
9
Daren W, The war on drugs is seen by many as a failure: Is it not time to re-consider current drug policies and
adopt a more creative way of thinking? (2018) available at
reports of anyone becoming addicted to ecstasy, and there have been very few reported deaths as

a direct result of using the drug.10 Because there are hardly ever any serious psychological or

mental issues associated with regular ecstasy use, many recreational users have and continue to

have jobs, successful careers, and are good parents.11 As a result, U.K. drug policymakers may

benefit from listening to their medically trained advisors and gathering additional evidence from

a diverse range of sources, such as ex-users, to encourage legislative changes.

(ii) Legal Moralism and decriminalisation

The war on drugs appears to be motivated by the belief that the use of illegal drugs is immoral.12

However, the term "drug" in the illicit sense refers to a wide range of substances with diverse

properties that share as much in common with legal drugs as they do with each other.13 The only

difference between illegal and legal drugs is their legal status, which has been defined by

centuries of socio-political idiosyncrasies rather than an assessment of how dangerous they are.

The consequences of criminalizing drug users frequently outweigh the risks they face from drug

use, and there is no convincing evidence that this reduces overall drug use or drug-related harm.

Furthermore, punishing someone as a means of discouraging others from using drugs is

unethical. Although criminalizing the production of harmful drugs appears to be more ethically

sound, it has not reduced drug supply and precludes effective market regulation.

Discussion on the immorality of (certain) drugs

https://www.academia.edu/37623139/Dissertation_Copy_5_docx accessed 20 January 2023

10
Supra note 9
11
South N, Drugs: Cultures, Controls and Everyday Life (1 st Edn, Sage Publications: London, 1999).
12
Holland, A. “An ethical analysis of UK drug policy as an example of a criminal justice approach to drugs: a
commentary on the short film Putting UK Drug Policy into Focus.” Harm Reduct J 17, 97 (2020) available at
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-020-00434-8
13
Ibid
For some, the underlying reason for punitive drug policy appears to stem from the deontological

notion that there is something morally wrong with using illegal drugs and that doing so warrants

punishment.14 The illicit meaning of 'drug,' which fuels drug policy discourse and the paradigm

of the war on drugs, includes a wide range of substances with different effects, used by different

groups in different circumstances, and which have as much in common with each other as many

legal substances.15 In fact, the only distinguishing feature that distinguishes illegal drugs from

those that are not, such as alcohol, tobacco, or coffee, is that they are illegal. This results in a

circular argument: illegal drugs are immoral because they are illegal, and illegal drugs are illegal

because they are immoral. Because of this circularity, the position is as logically indisputable for

those who hold it as it is illogical for those who do not.

Proponents of the immorality of drug use may argue that its immorality emanates from its risk of

causing harm to a consumer. However, it is not obvious that the possibility of an act causing

harm automatically makes it immoral. Choosing to go skiing or lighting a campfire, for example,

could result in an injury or burn; however, these acts would not be granted moral standing solely

on the basis of their potential for harm. Forcing someone without training to ski down a steep

mountain or setting them on fire before doing so, on the other hand, is clearly unethical.

Suppose the morality of an act is determined by the agency of the subject who is at risk of

suffering harm as a result of that act, then it is not immoral for someone to voluntarily expose

themselves to the risk of harm by using a drug. To the contrary, it can be argued that adults have

a moral right to do whatever they want with their own bodies, including using drugs for

recreational purposes.16 Even if it were accepted that it was immoral for subjects to put

14
Ibid
15
Tupper K, “Psychoactive substances and the English language: “Drugs,” discourses, and public policy” Contemp
Drug Prob 39(3) (2012) pg 461-492
16
Husak D, Drugs and rights (1st Edn, Cambridge University Press 1992).
themselves in danger, and that this should be used to determine the legal status of various drugs,

this is not reflected in current policy because the legal classification of various drugs is not

representative of the levels of danger they pose.17 Should this position be accepted, it will have

far-reaching consequences not only for the legal status of alcohol and tobacco, but also for

unhealthy foods, extreme sports, and driving.

A more convincing explanation would be that purchasing illegal drugs is morally wrong since it

provides funding to criminal organizations, thereby facilitating other criminal activities that

cause harm to third parties. However, this argument is circular because the relationship is

dependent on current policy: possessing a drug is illegal because buying it is morally wrong;

buying it is morally wrong because it provides funding for organized criminal gangs because

they control the market for that drug; and they control the market for that drug as it is unlawful to

have it.

The idea that some drugs are immoral, and the subsequent war on drugs that stems from it

are characterised by a power configuration leading to the imposition of a set of ideas that give

some specific interests the appearance of being universal.18 It is not a natural or unavoidable state

of affairs that the consumption of certain substances, such as coffee or alcohol, is widely

accepted, if not encouraged, while the consumption of others, such as amphetamines or cannabis,

appears to justify stigma and punishment. It is only because of the influence of powerful

historical actors who benefited from the spread of this view that it is now so widely accepted.19

Proponents can direct intent focus on the specifics of the subject matter to inspire an emotive

response while at the same time diverting attention away from the incoherence of ideological

17
Nutt D, King L, Phillips L, “Drugs harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision decision analysis” The Lancet 376(9752)
(2010) pg 1558-1565
18
Geuss R, Philosophy and real politics (1st Edn, Oxford: Princeton University Press 2008).
19
Mallea P, The war on drugs: a failed experiment (1 st Edn, Toronto: Dundrum 2014).
viewpoints.20 In the case of illegal drugs, this frequently entails emphasizing the harm that drug

use causes, which can be severe in some cases. However, as previously stated, the potential to

cause harm does not automatically confer moral status on an act, and this viewpoint does not

support a moral distinction between harmful illicit drug use and harmful licit drug use or other

potentially harmful activities.

These deontological arguments based on circular reasoning and ideology are insufficiently

rigorous to serve as the foundation for policy decisions. As a result, the following ethical

analysis of drug policy is conducted primarily through a consequentialist lens; that is, does it

reduce harm? However, a more robust deontological argument will be examined concerning the

use of criminal sanctions to deter drug use than those posed against drug use itself.

Exploring criminalizing the possession of drugs

Contact with the criminal justice system is associated with a host of health and social inequalities

that may be exacerbated by prosecution, and if leading to the deprivation of liberty, this is

inherently harmful to the individual who is prevented from doing what they want to do. To be

morally justified in consequentialist terms, this approach must prevent more harm than it causes.

Proponents may argue that it reduces harm to those being punished by discouraging them from

using drugs in the future. However, there is no convincing evidence to support this claim, and

incarceration is also not a reliable deterrent as prisoners have reported drug use in prison before.

Likewise, advocates of punitive drug laws may contend that the harm they cause to individuals is

offset by a substantial decrease in harm in community as others are discouraged from using

20
Supra note 6
drugs. The following four challenges emanate from this position: the first is a direct empirical

rebuttal; the second is a consequentialist challenge related to the unintended negative

consequences of criminalizing possession; the third is a deontological challenge related to the

ethically problematic nature of using humans as a means to an end; and the fourth is a procedural

challenge highlighting the inequitable application of punitive drug laws.

First, there is no clear relationship between drug policy liberality and drug use prevalence, either

contemporaneously or later in countries that have changed their drug policy.21 Although punitive

laws may reduce drug use in some settings, it is not a necessary condition for doing so, as use of

some drugs in Portugal has continued to decrease since possession for personal use was

decriminalized.

Second, the enforcement of punitive drug laws may encourage behaviors that increase the risk of

harm in the general drug-using population. Fear of punishment may cause people to use drugs in

more secretive and risky ways, such as taking larger amounts before leaving the house or taking

drugs purchased hastily without examining them.22

Third, even if there was convincing evidence that punishing drug users deterred further use and

had no unintended negative consequences, it is still a morally problematic approach. Lastly, even

if punitive drug laws were to deter drug use effectively, resulted in no negative ramifications,

and therefore morally justifiable, they are not always applied equitably. This is because members

of some minority ethnic communities are punished disproportionately for drug possession

compared to the amount of drugs they use. This is particularly true in the United States, but also

in the United Kingdom, where prejudice persists in a world acutely aware of the shadow of racial

21
Stevens A, “Is policy ‘liberalization’ associated with higher odds of adolescent cannabis use? A re-analysis of data
from 38 countries” Int J Drug Policy (66) (2019) pg 94-99
22
Race K, “Complex events: drug effects and emergent casualty” Contemporary Drug Prob 41(3) (2014) pg 445-79
inequality. Even if there were benefits to a criminal justice approach to drugs, it would be

ethically problematic if these benefits were contingent on causing harm that was primarily borne

by specific groups based on their skin color.

Criminalising the production and trafficking of drugs

Punishing the production and distribution of harmful drugs may appear more ethically tenable

than punishing drug possession for personal consumption. On closer inspection, however, this is

not always clear, as it is not always clear whether drug market actors are better characterized as

perpetrators of crime or victims of extenuating circumstances. For instance,  exploited children

and vulnerable adults are key players in the recently identified county-lines drug market model in

the United Kingdom,23 and globally, marginalised and deprived communities face significant

financial and other pressures to produce drugs.24 Furthermore, as was the case when

distinguishing between legal drugs such as coffee and alcohol and illegal drugs such as

amphetamines and cannabis, distinguishing between producing them is nominally legal, beyond

which the ethical difference is not clear.

Ideologues of the drug war especially consequentialist may argue that it prevents drug-related

harm because the confiscation and destruction of drugs impedes their utilisation, and the

conviction of producers and traffickers helps prevent others from coming into the market,

thereby further minimizing potential availability. However, consequentialist challenges to this

position arise as follows:

23
Coomber R, Moyle L, “The changing shape of street-level heroin and crack supply in England: commuting,
holidaying and cuckooing drug dealers County Lines” Br J Criminol 58(6) (2018) pg 123-42
24
Moreno-Sanchez R, Kraybill D, Thompson S, “An econometric analysis of coca eradication policy in Colombia”
World Development 31(2) (2003) pg 375-83
First, the ninth principle of British policing states that the absence of crime, not evidence of

police action, is the test for police efficiency.25 When considering the global illicit drug market in

criminal terms, both domestic and international policing efforts have failed the test terribly.

Despite massive investments and efforts to combat the illicit drug trade, the market continues to

grow, with the short-term effects of interdiction proving as unsustainable as decapitating one

head of the proverbial hydra. Due to the astronomical profit margins available to drug traffickers,

the cost of drug seizures can easily be absorbed as a "tax" on their operations, and marginalized

drug producing communities can be incentivized to continue production despite efforts to

discourage them.26

Second, efforts to thwart drug production and distribution encourage innovation, which can

intensify and result in new types of harm. New drugs, for instance, are developed to avoid

existing detection methods and legislation; over the last two decades, more than 670 new

psychoactive substances have surfaced on the European drug market, the majority of which are

unknown in terms of their health effects or how to minimize them.27 And new distribution

methods are developed to avoid enforcement efforts; in the case of the darknet, this has increased

the availability of drugs; and in the case of the UK county lines phenomenon, this has promoted

new forms of criminality and exploitation.28

(iii) Economic Liberalism

A small but eloquent group of economists define liberalism as a libertarian position resulting

from free markets. Their central argument is that free markets outperform government-controlled

25
Supra note 1
26
Supra note 12
27
Rolles S, Kushlik D, “Proibition is a key driver of the new psychoactive substances (NPS) phenomenon” Addiction
109(10) (2014) pg 1589-90.
28
Supra note 11
markets in almost every way, particularly in regulating behavior and, in this case, eliminating

existing illegal markets.

Richard Stevenson (1994)29 provides a version for the United Kingdom. Possession, use, or trade

in drugs will no longer be a crime under Stevenson's proposal. The market should be used for

distribution and supply.

Stevenson, however, is not a complete free marketer. He wants pharmacists to be the only ones

who can sell their products, with the government providing licenses to producers and

distributors. He states unequivocally that he is not promoting or trying to encourage drug use;

“there should be no presumption that an activity is desirable simply because it is legal.”30 Drugs

would be labeled with a strong health warning.

He suggests that some drugs be legalized but not others, but that such a move should be avoided

because it would "incentivize criminals to specialize in the sale of the more dangerous kinds.”31

He questioned that a case for prohibition could be built on ethical, social, or moral grounds,

because prohibition assumes faith in governments' ability to protect citizens and restrict illegal

markets, which, he adds, is not supported by experience.

Stevenson does not make outlandish and impossible claims, nor does he make outlandish

predictions about future benefits, as some do. To him, legalization is about weighing the harms

done versus the benefits gained, and, unsurprisingly, he concludes that, while there may be some

drawbacks, the advantages will outweigh them. So, while some users will keep on committing

crimes and some felons will continue on using drugs, he believes that overall drug use will

29
Stevenson R, Winning the War on Drugs: To Legalise or Not? (Hobart Paper No. 124, London: Institute of
Economic Affairs 1994).
30
Ibid
31
Ibid
decrease. Why? Because many drug users will no longer have to commit crimes to support their

addiction. He admits that cannabis use might increase initially, but he hopes that legal drug use

would make drug use 'boring'. He contends that the rewards are real; medical benefits would

accumulate from the substitution of pharmaceutically pure products for adulterated street drugs.

According to him, the “primary benefit of legalization is that it would slow the spread of

corruption and criminality, which threatens the political and legal fabric of entire societies.”32 Of

course, given the lack of legalisation experiments to draw from, his and all other predictions

about future use must be considered speculative, or rather optimistic or pessimistic depending on

one's point of view. Stevenson is optimistic, even claiming that a drop in prices would result in

an increase in real income for users and their families.

The common idea in this and most other economic liberal proposals is that social control of

drugs should be transferred to legitimate businesspeople rather than syndicates of organized

crime. "In illegal markets, most of decisions... are made by criminals. In legal markets, they are

by businessmen within a framework of law.”33 Legalization should not be seen as handing out

drugs like candy to schoolkids, or offering a sentimental opinion of addiction as if addicts were

the victims of some grand conspiracy, or even abdicating responsibility. It is all about reducing

crime and corruption, as well as promoting health and lowering costs. It entails delegating

decisions to the market, enacting new rules consistent with a market philosophy, and letting the

market determine the means of production, supply, and distribution. The rules will remain, but

they will be different; this version of liberalism is not anarchy or a free-for-all. It is about

providing a different system of control, one based on the market rather than the government.

32
Supra note 19
33
Supra note 19
The key question is whether the market would provide a more coherent and efficient control

system than the current one. Its immediate benefit is that drugs would be bought freely from

licensed suppliers with an assured purity level, thus dodging the trappings of illegitimacy and

expelling the powers of illegal criminal groups. Consequently, it is an appealing proposal, but it

raises several questions that legalisers must address.

Furthermore, neoliberal tendencies are seen in the marketing practices of both the legal and

illegal drug markets, which disregard consumers' health and well-being for the sake of profit.34

Close regulation is required to ensure that any profit made from drugs is secondary to reducing

the risk of harm and the prevalence of problematic use and dependence. This would entail

controlling how drugs are manufactured and who can buy them, where, when, and with what

restrictions, as well as prohibiting market-wide marketing. If the goal of controlling the drug

market was to decrease the likelihood of harm and problematic drug use, this would clearly be

incompatible with the establishment of a free market for drugs, or, for example, cocaine

advertisements in the movies. However, this does not necessarily imply that all currently illegal

drugs should only be available with a prescription, as methadone is in the case of opioid

substitution therapy.

(iv) Harm Reduction Theory

Harm reduction is defined by the International Harm Reduction Association 1996 as “policies

and programmes which attempt primarily to reduce the adverse health, social and economic

consequences of mood altering substances to individual drug users, their families and their

34
McKee M, Stuckler D, “Revisiting the corporate and commercial determinants of health” Am J Public Health
108(9) (2018) pg 1167-70.
communities.”35 This theory advances the provision of measures that minimize the risk that

people face when they decide to take drugs, while acknowledging that it is not feasible to

eradicate all drug use. It provides a practical interpretation of consequentialist ethical theory.

According to them, drug policy debate should not be centred around the legal status of drugs;

rather, the primary concern should be how to reduce the harm they cause, which means limiting

the unrestricted opportunity for drug market actors to profit from their sale.

However, the concept of harm reduction is surrounded by controversy, which appears to stem

from the flawed position addressed under legal moralism: that the use of certain arbitrarily

defined substances is immoral. Alternatively, critics may be allowing the perfect to be the enemy

of the good by advocating for the abolition of all drug use, which induction would suggest is an

unrealistic goal given the ineffectiveness of the drug war. Minor policy changes would authorize

the provision of other harm reduction interventions with promising evidence in their favor, which

are presently outlawed under UK legislation.

Conclusion

There is growing political and academic support for the UK to follow Portugal's lead and

decriminalize drug possession for personal use.36 The United Nations Chief Executives Board for

Coordination, a 2019 UK House of Commons Select Committee on Drug Policy, the Royal

Society of Public Health, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Lancet

Commission on Drug Policy and Health have all made recommendations.

35
International Harm Reduction Association, What is Harm Reduction? (London: IHRA 1996).
36
Supra note 1
It has been argued that it is difficult to put an end to substance abuse when it has been a part of

cultures all over the world since man first evolved.37  If society is properly educated rather than

punished, cultural trends such as intoxication can be changed, and tobacco use in the UK is a

perfect illustration of how a government can effectively mitigate with the public in order to

change a cultural habit.38 Of course, parameters are set for where smoking is permitted, but

citizens can choose whether or not to smoke, smoking-related health warnings are all over in

UK, and most people can find help to quit smoking. It has proven to be working with

many people quit smoking every day, and more notably, changing attitudes. The current UK

drug policy appears to not only scare the public, but also to isolate and punish the illegal drug

user/ recreational user, increasing the likelihood of the user falling further into the behavior.39

The war on drugs is still ongoing and unwon.40 Drug use, and related issues have not subsided. It

appears inconceivable to wage war on our own citizens. With changes occurring in the United

States, Canada, Portugal, and other countries, the question is: with the United Kingdom being a

hugely profitable haven for drug-dealing perpetrators due to high demand, how long will the UK

government continue to promote such a failing drug policy?

37
Goldberg, T, Demystifying Drugs: A psychosocial perspective (1 st Edn, Macmillan Press Ltd: Basingstoke, 1999)
38
Kleiman M, Caulkins JP & Hawken A, Drugs and Drugs Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (1 st Edn, Oxford
University Press, 2011).
39
Butler S, “Key concepts in drugs and society.” Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 21(3) (2014) pg 256-265
40
Payan T, et al, A war that can’t be won: Binational Perspectives on the War on Drugs (1 st Edn, University of
Arizona Press 2013).
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Goldberg, T, Demystifying Drugs: A psychosocial perspective (1st Edn, Macmillan Press Ltd:

Basingstoke, 1999)

Kleiman M, Caulkins JP & Hawken A, Drugs and Drugs Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know

(1st Edn, Oxford University Press, 2011).

Butler S, “Key concepts in drugs and society.” Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 21(3)

(2014) pg 256-265

Payan T, et al, A war that can’t be won: Binational Perspectives on the War on Drugs (1st Edn,

University of Arizona Press 2013).

International Harm Reduction Association, What is Harm Reduction? (London: IHRA 1996).

McKee M, Stuckler D, “Revisiting the corporate and commercial determinants of health” Am J

Public Health 108(9) (2018) pg 1167-70.

Stevenson R, Winning the War on Drugs: To Legalise or Not? (Hobart Paper No. 124, London:

Institute of Economic Affairs 1994).

Rolles S, Kushlik D, “Proibition is a key driver of the new psychoactive substances (NPS)

phenomenon” Addiction 109(10) (2014) pg 1589-90.

Race K, “Complex events: drug effects and emergent casualty” Contemporary Drug Prob 41(3)

(2014) pg 445-79

Coomber R, Moyle L, “The changing shape of street-level heroin and crack supply in England:

commuting, holidaying and cuckooing drug dealers County Lines” Br J Criminol 58(6) (2018)

pg 123-42
Moreno-Sanchez R, Kraybill D, Thompson S, “An econometric analysis of coca eradication

policy in Colombia” World Development 31(2) (2003) pg 375-83

Stevens A, “Is policy ‘liberalization’ associated with higher odds of adolescent cannabis use? A

re-analysis of data from 38 countries” Int J Drug Policy (66) (2019) pg 94-99

Husak D, Drugs and rights (1st Edn, Cambridge University Press 1992).

Nutt D, King L, Phillips L, “Drugs harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision decision analysis”

The Lancet 376(9752) (2010) pg 1558-1565

Geuss R, Philosophy and real politics (1st Edn, Oxford: Princeton University Press 2008).

Tupper K, “Psychoactive substances and the English language: “Drugs,” discourses, and public

policy” Contemp Drug Prob 39(3) (2012) pg 461-492

GOV.UK, List of most commonly encountered drugs currently controlled under the misuse of

drugs legislation <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/controlled-drugs-list--2/list-of-

most-commonly-encountered-drugs-currently-controlled-under-the-misuse-of-drugs-legislation>

accessed 20 January 2023.

Daren W, The war on drugs is seen by many as a failure: Is it not time to re-consider current

drug policies and adopt a more creative way of thinking? (2018) available at

https://www.academia.edu/37623139/Dissertation_Copy_5_docx accessed 20 January 2023

Holland, A. “An ethical analysis of UK drug policy as an example of a criminal justice approach

to drugs: a commentary on the short film Putting UK Drug Policy into Focus.” Harm Reduct

J 17, 97 (2020) available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-020-00434-8