Abstract
As academics, researchers and perhaps policymakers (if you do get to read this) we are charged with finding out about the social world, discussing and reporting on it, and hopefully along the way something may happen which may mean that things are done for the greater good (Briggs, 2010). As someone who has researched in this manner for over a decade now, I was very enthusiastic to read and comment on Neil McKeganey's new work which tackles the most pressing arguments and debates in the context of drug policy and practice.
Overall, the book is extremely accessible, easy to read and well structured. Chapter 1 starts with, what seems to be, a never-ending list of questions which immediately throws the reader into the book's debates. By raising these questions of legalisation, harm reduction and law enforcement, the reader is already juggling with central issues which the book aims to disaggregate. Thereafter, McKeganey quickly sets the scene for drugs policy and outlines the structure of the book. Using the examples of HIV and AIDs epidemic in chapter 2, he charts the movement of harm reduction, debating whether it was focussed on health and welfare of drug users or was a Trojan Horse for drug legalisation. Indeed, Gerry Stimson has made similar observations at the start of the millennium (Stimson, 2000). Continuing in this vein, in chapter 3 McKeganey then examines the role of drug treatment in the UK and draws on evidence to suggest how and why the system may be failing a substantial proportion of drug users despite the NTA rhetoric (see NTA, 2007). The chapter questions the role of methadone in the recovery of drug users and draws attention to the billions of pounds which have been thrown at the treatment sector – only for a small number to remain drug free (Fox et al., 2005).
Chapter 4 addresses the myths and realities of drug enforcement: not only on a global but also on a local scale. It considers whether people are deterred as a consequence of hard-line policies on drug possession/dealing/using. This chapter contains an interesting commentary on the function of the prison in harbouring problematic drug users; the accountability which the prison institution holds in resolving these problems but also the flawed attempts at preventing drug use and dealing in prison. Here, the point could be reinforced that that regardless of seizure, prevention and enforcement strategies, a crude mixture of structural and social processes seem to continue to provide a ready stream of people to fill any gaps which become available in the drug market – from the top (Adler, 1985) to the bottom (Pitts, 2007).
In the fifth chapter, McKeganey discusses the classification and myths of cannabis – appropriately titled ‘How to make a hash out of the world's favourite drug’. Here he deconstructs the use of cannabis and its classification while touching on available data on its social use and health risks. While he concludes that cannabis is not a gateway drug (see Booth Davies, 1997), he should perhaps also draw on empirical evidence which states that other drugs such as alcohol carry heavier health and social consequences than cannabis (for example see Patton et al., 2007). This would augment his argument. Chapter 6 charts a very grey area; that of the children of drug-addicted parents. With the advent of the Baby P case, there is no doubt that this ambiguous area continues to create difficult decision-making on the part of professionals, and rightly so, McKeganey offers a discussion of agency accountability. However, there is some neglect of U.S. literature which suggests that many children and young people exposed to the various drug-related abuses of their parents during the ‘crack era’ of the 1980s and 1990s actively grew up rejecting the lifestyles of their parents – despite being exposed to these risks (Reinarman and Levine, 2004). Some consideration of this literature would have been useful here.
Chapter 7 offers a chapter which one would expect from a book with such a title: it examines the legalisation debate. Drawing on examples of policy and practice from different countries, McKeganey discusses the advantages and disadvantages of liberalising or toughening up on measures to deal with drug use. Chapter 8 is my favourite – probably because here McKeganey talks directly from his experience on the politics of researching drugs issues. Here, he reflects on the bureaucratic practicalities of doing the research, of writing the reports, of presenting the findings and dealing with the consequences. I think we have all been in these situations; where we are battling with our governmental funders over the content of our research while simultaneously trying to deter the media from pouncing on some bizarre anomaly only to make it into a next-day panic headline. Through the examples he gives, McKeganey seems to have skilfully kept his integrity intact, and impressively so, at a time when governmental/academic relations are fragile and perhaps evermore distant (Silverman, 2010). The concluding chapter presents a moving narrative which summarises our journey through drug policy and practice over the last thirty years.
Neil McKeganey has done a really great job in this book. It is skilfully crafted and accessible for all. The chapters are succinct and the examples which support his arguments are both solid and powerful. There are also some good questions for debate at the end of each chapter which are beneficial for both academic and student discussion forums. To be honest, I have come to find the world of drug research difficult to absorb especially having read Michael Agar's (2006) life testimony of the trials and tribulations of attempting to shift the dominant perspective of drugs and change the lives of those living in the margins of drug addiction and dealing. I suppose we all wonder if what we do in the research world is for some good and here, in this work, Neil McKeganey perhaps summarises our current dilemmas in our research projects as well as our life projects. He shows us that while potential disillusionment may always tempt us down a precarious path of conceding to powerful political pressures and media hysteria, we should always retain our ability to ‘tell it how it is’. This certainly seems to be what he has done.