Beyond the narco frontier; rethinking an imaginary of the margins

The ‘narco-frontier’ is frequently invoked in policy and popular narratives about drugs and armed conflict. The frontier is represented as an unruly, marginal and ‘ungoverned’ space, a magnate for drug traffickers, rebels and migrants. These ‘non state’ or ‘anti state’ spaces are believed to have a comparative advantage in illegality, with borderlands and frontiers becoming centres for the production, consumption and trafficking of illicit drugs. Linked to this representation is a policy narrative and set of assumptions that statebuilding, peacebuilding, development and counter narcotics policies are mutually reinforcing, and involve the extension of a state presence into these frontier zones, along with effective drug eradication, substitution and development activities. In spite of the evident inaccuracy of this portrayal of the ‘narco-frontier’ the imaginary is extremely resilient and continues to be reflected and reinforced in policy texts and narratives. This paper asks why has this been the case. What ideological work does the imaginary perform and for whom? And what are the implications of an alternative imaginary of the margins?     

Precarity,poverty and poppy: Encountering development in the uplands of Shan State,Myanmar

In recent years there have been growing calls for “development-oriented drug policies” to tackle illicit drug cultivation in the global South. Calls to integrate drugs and development have been important in demonstrating the damage caused by the war on drugs to marginalized communities and in drawing attention to how drug cultivation is inextricably linked to wider development challenges. However, this paper argues that the emerging policy agenda to ‘developmentalise’ drug policy is founded upon a simplified and misleading conceptualization of the relationship between poverty, development and illicit drug cultivation. Most problematically, it overlooks the fact that people who cultivate drugs because they are poor are not just those who have been ‘left behind’ by development. They are also those who have experienced new forms of immiseration and precarity as a consequence of processes of economic liberalization, market integration and agricultural ‘modernization’. Confronting this blindspot, this article analyses the drivers of rising illicit opium cultivation across parts of Shan State, Myanmar, since the late 1990s. The paper argues that if the current agenda to developmentalise drug policy is to make a meaningful contribution to the lives of the rural poor in drug-producing regions in Myanmar and beyond, it must confront the fact that for many households the decision to cultivate opium has been a response to the very processes of market-led rural development that policymakers claim will alleviate poverty.     

Examining the construction and representation of drugs as a policy problem in Australia's National Drug Strategy documents 1985–2010

BackgroundNational drug policies are often regarded as inconsequential, rhetorical documents, however this belies the subtlety with which such documents generate discourse and produce (and re-produce) policy issues over time. Critically analysing the ways in which policy language constructs and represents policy problems is important as these discursive constructions have implications for how we are invoked to think about (and justify) possible policy responses.MethodsTaking the case of Australia's National Drug Strategies, this paper used an approach informed by critical discourse analysis theory and aspects of Bacchi's (2009) ‘What's the Problem Represented to be’ framework to critically explore how drug policy problems are constructed and represented through the language of drug policy documents over time.ResultsOur analysis demonstrated shifts in the ways that drugs have been ‘problematised’ in Australia's National Drug Strategies. Central to these evolving constructions was the increasing reliance on evidence as a way of ‘knowing the problem’. Furthermore, by analysing the stated aims of the policies, this case demonstrates how constructing drug problems in terms of ‘drug-related harms’ or alternately ‘drug use’ can affect what is perceived to be an appropriate set of policy responses. The gradual shift to constructing drug use as the policy problem altered the concept of harm minimisation and influenced the development of the concepts of demand- and harm-reduction over time.ConclusionsThese findings have implications for how we understand policy development, and challenge us to critically consider how the construction and representation of drug problems serve to justify what are perceived to be acceptable responses to policy problems. These constructions are produced subtly, and become embedded slowly over decades of policy development. National drug policies should not merely be taken at face value; appreciation of the construction and representation of drug problems, and of how these ‘problematisations’ are produced, is essential.     

The Pat Jasan drug eradication social movement in Northern Myanmar,part three: Legal pluralism & the challenge of everyday justice

This paper provides an overview of the activities of a large drug eradication movement called Pat Jasan in northern Myanmar. It will outline the different everyday justice systems available in the Myanmar borderlands to communities who are seeking to push forward a ‘solutions focused’ agenda to manage drug-related social problems. They have at their disposal a range of statutory, customary, and quasi-statutory-customary legal processes and instruments. However, a close analysis of everyday justice highlights the complex challenges posed in this contested borderland concerning how to address these issues through multiple, overlapping authorities. The paper shows how notions of legitimacy for drug related legal processes are constructed and the key role of brokers in this environment, who are vital in managing the dilemmas of governance and legal administration. It also touches upon emerging intergenerational and gendered tensions that serve to orientate ideological and political perspectives towards different outcomes as these systems are navigated. The complexity and sensitivity of the local everyday justice social field contrasts sharply with the debates conducted about Pat Jasan at a national and drugs policy reform level, in which these local actors are marginalized as disruptive and reactionary forces that work entirely outside the rule of law. The paper invites consideration of how national and international drug policy actors engage with such social movements, as well as how concerns about illicit drug use and supply within local communities provides a helpful tool of analysis for understanding other critical issues for sustainable development and peacebuilding.     

Ontological journeys: The lifeworld of opium across the Afghan-Iranian border in/out of the pharmacy

How can we conceive alternative policy models that embrace the empirical potentialities emerging from the lifeworld of drugs? The article reflects on this question, concluding that to reassess and to reinvent current policies on drugs, we need to think with a political ontology. Incidentally, the article also responds to the critique dismissing ontological inquiries as obstructing – or, at best, not informing – alternative drug policies. In an archaeological approach inspired by the work of Giorgio Agamben, the article unearths the case study of opium maintenance programme in Iran (1969–79), a forgotten policy experiment in an understudied and yet crucial geo-cultural environment for the global study of drugs. Mobilising the conceptual framework of ontological journeys, the article recomposes the lifeworld of opium within the horizons of transformative cultural practices, international borders, policy regimes and public ethics. Here, the materiality of drug consumption under the maintenance policy links with the changes in opium's transnational political economy and with shifting regimes of health and bioethical orthodoxy. Ontological journeys, hence, develop in a fluid space and time, making it possible to illuminate the lifeworld of drugs in places and times hitherto deserted by global policy studies. In building theoretical reflections upon a non-Western case, the article also incites the possibility of theory beyond Eurocentric knowledge and Euromerican cases. In this way, the article's purpose is to analyse the be-coming of opium beyond ‘good’ or ‘evil’, as a ‘medicine’ or a ‘drug’ and its real or perceived classification as ‘licit’ or ‘illicit’ across the Afghan-Iranian border. In conclusion, the article reflects upon the significance of this forgotten policy experiment, understood as an ontological journey, for contemporary drug policy and drug studies, but also for reinventing notions of care, welfare and health.     

A critical examination of the definition of ‘psychoactive effect’ in Australian drug legislation

As the number of new ‘psychoactive substances’ detected globally has risen exponentially, the policy response of assessing and prohibiting each new substance individually has become increasingly unworkable. In an attempt to disrupt the availability of new as-yet-unscheduled substances, Ireland (2010), Poland (2011), Romania (2012), New Zealand (2013), Australia (2015) and the United Kingdom (2016) have enacted generic or blanket ban legislation that prohibits all ‘psychoactive substances’ that are not already regulated or belong to exempt categories. How such generic legislation defines ‘psychoactive substance’ is therefore crucial. While there is a growing critical literature relating to blanket bans of ‘psychoactive substances’, the Australian legislation is yet to be described or critically analysed. In this commentary, we aim to draw the attention of local and international drug policy scholars to Australia’s newest legislative approach to ‘psychoactive substances’. Using the Australian experience as a case study, we first describe and trace the origins of this generic banning approach, especially focusing on how ‘psychoactive effect’ came to be defined. Then, we critically examine the assumptions underpinning this definition and the possibilities silenced by it, drawing on the work of poststructuralist and critical scholars. In doing so, we explore and raise a series of questions about how this legislation works to stabilise drugs, drug harms and drug effects, as well as addiction realities; how the category of ‘psychoactive substances’ is produced through this legislation; and some of the material-discursive effects which accompany this rendering of the ‘problem’. We offer this commentary not as a comprehensive discussion of each of these elements but rather as a starting-point to promote further discussion and debate within the drug policy field. To this end, we conclude with a suggested research agenda that may help guide such future work.     

The role of evidence and the expert in contemporary processes of governance: The case of opioid substitution treatment policy in England

BackgroundThis paper is based on research examining stakeholder involvement in substitution treatment policy which was undertaken as part of the EU funded FP7 ALICE-RAP (Addictions and Lifestyles in Contemporary Europe – Reframing Addictions Project). In England, the research coincided with a policy shift towards a recovery orientated drug treatment framework and a heated debate surrounding the role of substitute prescribing. The study aimed to explore the various influences on the development of the new ‘recovery’ policy from the perspectives of the key stakeholders involved.MethodsThe paper is based on documentary analyses and key informant interviews with a range of stakeholders, including representatives of user organisations, treatment providers, civil servants, and members of expert committees.ResultsDrawing on the theoretical insights offered by Backstrand's ‘civic science’ framework, the changing role of evidence and the position of experts in the processes of drugs policy governance are explored. ‘Evidence’ was used to problematise the issue of substitution treatment and employed to legitimise, justify and construct arguments around the possible directions of policy and practice. Conflicting beliefs about drug treatment and about motivation for policy change emerge in the argumentation, illustrating tensions in the governance of drug treatment and the power differentials separating different groups of stakeholders. Their role in the production of evidence also illustrates issues of power regarding the definition and development of ‘usable knowledge’. There were various attempts at greater representation of different forms of evidence and participation by a wider group of stakeholders in the debates surrounding substitution treatment. However, key national and international experts and the appointment of specialist committees continued to play dominant roles in building consensus and translating scientific evidence into policy discourse.ConclusionSubstitution treatment policy has witnessed a challenge to the dominance of ‘scientific evidence’ within policy decision making, but in the absence of alternative evidence with an acceptable credibility and legitimacy base, traditional notions of what constitutes evidence based policy persist and there is a continuing lack of recognition of ‘civic science’.     

Making legitimacy: Drug user representation in United Nations drug policy settings

BackgroundThe importance of engaging people who use drugs in drug policy development is increasingly acknowledged including in recent UN documents. Little scholarly attention has been paid to ‘drug user representation’ in the global drug policy setting of the UN such as the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND). This paper examines ‘drug user representation’ in key UN drug policy processes over three decades.MethodA mapping process was undertaken using a corpus of publicly available documents from the UNGASS on Drugs and associated CND processes to identify relevant policy processes from 1987 to 2019 (n = 15) which were then assess for presence/absence of ‘drug user representation’. Those processes with positive evidence of ‘drug user representation’ (n = 9) were critically interrogated across three co-constitutive domains of the subjects, objects and forms of ‘drug user representation’.ResultsOur analysis shows that despite calls for greater involvement, dominant UN drug policy discourses and other practices delimit both the political subjectivities available to people who use/have used drugs and their capacity to bring their voices to bear in this context. The analysis also highlights that human rights-based discourses, employed by ‘drug user representatives’, have emerged as an important practice of resistance against the problematic and delimiting power effects of existing UN discourses, governing practices and modes of engagement.ConclusionsIn addition to the practices of resistance being undertaken by ‘drug user representatives’, we suggest there is a need to improve how ‘drug user representation’ is being made possible and done in the sites of UN drug policy deliberation and, that these sites should be opened for questioning. This we argue will not only have a positive impact on political legitimacy for ‘drug user representation’, but on the health and human rights of people who use/have used drugs.     

Gender,intoxication and the developing brain: Problematisations of drinking among young adults in Australian alcohol policy

In this article, we draw on recent scholarly work in the poststructuralist analysis of policy to consider how policy itself functions as a key site in the constitution of alcohol ‘problems’, and the political implications of these problematisations. We do this by examining Australian alcohol policy as it relates to young adults (18–24 years old). Our critical analysis focuses on three national alcohol policies (1990, 2001 and 2006) and two Victorian state alcohol policies (2008 and 2013), which together span a 25-year period. We argue that Australian alcohol policies have conspicuously ignored young adult men, despite their ongoing over-representation in the statistical ‘evidence base’ on alcohol-related harm, while increasingly problematising alcohol consumption amongst other population subgroups. We also identify the development of a new problem representation in Australian alcohol policy, that of ‘intoxication’ as the leading cause of alcohol-related harm and rising hospital admissions, and argue that changes in the classification and diagnosis of intoxication may have contributed to its prioritisation and problematisation in alcohol policy at the expense of other forms of harm. Finally, we draw attention to how preliminary and inconclusive research on the purported association between binge drinking and brain development in those under 25 years old has been mobilised prematurely to support calls to increase the legal purchasing age from 18 to 21 years. Our critical analysis of the treatment of these three issues – gender, intoxication, and brain development – is intended to highlight the ways in which policy functions as a key site in the constitution of alcohol ‘problems’.     

The value of unsolicited online data in drug policy research

We alert readers to the value of using unsolicited online data in drug policy research by highlighting web-based content relevant to drug policy generated by distinct types of actor: people who consume, supply or produce illicit drugs, online news websites and state or civil society organisations. These actors leave ‘digital traces’ across a range of internet platforms, and these traces become available to researchers to use as data – although they have not been solicited by researchers, and so have not been created specifically to fulfil the aims of research projects. This particular type of data entails certain strengths, limitations and ethical challenges, and we aim to assist researchers in understanding these by drawing on selected examples of published research using unsolicited online data that have generated valuable drug policy insights not possible using other traditional data sources. We argue for the continued and increased importance of using unsolicited online data so that drug policy scholarship keep pace with recent developments in the global landscape of drug policies and illicit drug practices.     

More-than-harm reduction: Engaging with alternative ontologies of ‘movement’ in UK drug services

Over the last ten years, UK drug policy has moved towards making abstinence-based recovery rather than harm reduction its primary focus. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork involving participant observations and interviews at two London drug services, we explore how this shift towards recovery materialises through the practices of drug service delivery as an ‘evidence-making intervention’. We understand recovery's making in terms of ‘movement’. Where previous policies performed harm reduction through ‘getting people into treatment’ and ‘keeping them safe in treatment’, new policies were said to be about ‘moving people through treatment’. Approaching movement as a sociomaterial process, we observe how movement is enacted in both narrow ways, towards abstinence from drugs, and more open ways, in what we call ‘more-than-harm reduction’. We think of the latter as a speculative practice of doing or ‘tinkering with’ recovery to afford a care for clients not bound to abstinence-based outcomes. This is important given the limits associated with a recovery-orientated policy impetus. By engaging with these alternative ontologies of movement, we highlight an approach to intervening that both subverts and adheres to perceptions of recovery, embracing its movement, while remaining critical to its vision of abstinence.     

Mapping drug epidemiology futures

Epidemiology is a core discipline generating evidence to inform and drive drug policy. In this essay, we speculate on what the future of drug epidemiology might become. We highlight for attention two areas shaping the future of drug epidemiology: nesting epidemiology within a ‘syndemic’ and ‘relational’ approach; and innovating in relation to causal inference in the face of complexity. We argue that shifts towards a more relational approach emphasise contingency, including in relation to how drugs might constitute benefit or harm. This leads us to speculate on a ‘positive epidemiology’; one that is configured not merely in relation to harm but also in relation to the potential benefits of drugs in relation to well-being. In responding to the complex challenges of delineating contingent causalities, we emphasise the potential of carefully conducted observational study designs that go beyond statistical associations to test causal inference. We acknowledge that each of these developments we describe – a shift towards more relational approaches which emphasise contingent causation, and methodological innovations in relation to establishing causal inference – can be at odds with the other in how they imagine drug epidemiology futures.     

Normalization as a barometer: Recreational drug use and the consumption of leisure by younger Britons

This article discusses the development of the normalization thesis in respect of monitoring sustained increases in young Britons’ consumption of illicit drugs and alcohol over the past decade. It describes five dimensions of normalization which have been applied in a cluster of studies undertaken by the author, highlighting results from the N.W. England Longitudinal Study showing easy accessibility, high rates of drug trying (76% at 22 years) and long-term recreational drugs careers involving both alcohol and illicit drugs. The social accommodation of ‘sensible’ substance use was apparent amongst most drug abstainers in the cohort who routinely had close friends who used drugs ‘recreationally’. Further cultural acceptance of recreational drug use is described. A sixth dimension – state or government responses to widespread recreational drug use – is introduced and illustrated. The article concludes by emphasizing the negative outcomes associated with recreational poly substance use in terms of personal and public health highlighting the ‘slippage’ from recreational to problem drug use as a growing phenomenon. It calls for a more integrative national strategy to address negative aspects of normalization.     

Producing the vulnerable subject in English drug policy

The concept of vulnerability is now deeply embedded in English drug policy, influential in governing practices such as prevention and treatment activity but yet to be subject to critical scrutiny. In this article, we offer an appraisal of the vulnerability zeitgeist in contemporary drug policy, drawing upon insights from similar endeavours across a range of policy areas to consider the underlying assumptions and various effects of this conceptual logic. Using an approach to policy analysis which supports the questioning of deep-seated assumptions and implications of particular representations of ‘problems’ in social policies (often referred to as the ‘What’s the Problem?’ [WPR] approach, Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016), we analyse the 2017 Drug Strategy to facilitate a close perspective on the texture of governance in relation to people who use drugs in England. We explore how vulnerability and drug use are in Bacchi’s (2018; 6) terms ‘problematized’ and ‘made ‘real’’ as a specific kind of phenomenon, drawing attention to the presuppositions and potential effects of being labelled (or not) as vulnerable. We argue that alongside bolstering targeted support, the current problematisation of vulnerability in English drug policy supports the operation of subtle disciplinary mechanisms to regulate the behaviour of those deemed vulnerable, underplaying the role of material inequalities and social divisions in the unevenness of drug-related harms. We then use the WPR approach to guide a discussion of the burgeoning multi-disciplinary literature on vulnerability, exploring orientations and effects of alternative representations of the ‘vulnerable’ drug users. Producing the ‘vulnerable’ subject in these alternative ways creates a different and deeper understanding of the ‘problem’ and consequently its ‘solutions’, allowing more space for human agency to be considered and directing attention beyond drug policy towards tackling the diverse multiple social marginalisations which make some people more likely than others to experience drug-related harms.     

Towards an ontological politics of drug policy: Intervening through policy,evidence and method

Increasing attention has been paid to matters of ontology, and its accompanying politics, in the drug policy field. In this commentary, we consider what an ‘ontological politics’ might mean for how we think about what drug policy is and what it might become, as well as for how we think about (and do) research in drug policy. Thinking ontopolitically questions the tacitly accepted status of ‘drug problems’, calls into question the realist presumptions which underpin much drug policy analysis, and provokes thinking about what counts as ‘evidence’ and the ‘evidence-based policy’ paradigm itself. We call attention to the inventive possibilities of method when grappling with the challenges thrown forth by the ontological turn, with a renewed focus on practice and relations. An ontological politics disrupts consensual claims and draws critical attention to objects that might otherwise appear ‘finished’ or ‘ready-made’, not least the things we call ‘drugs’ and ‘drug policy’. Working with ‘drug policy multiples’ invites new thinking and dialogue to provoke an ethico-political mode of intervention in the field of drug policy and drugs research.     

美国与欧盟孤儿药研发上市管理制度及对我国的启示

目的通过对美国与欧盟对孤儿药研发上市相关管理政策的分析,为我国孤儿药研发上市管理提供借鉴。方法分析美国和欧盟药政管理部门公开的法规文献和数据库检索数据,总结其对孤儿药的激励政策,分析获得孤儿药资格认定和批准上市的药物特点。结果美国和欧盟对孤儿药研发均颁布实施了诸如市场独占期、政府资助、审评专家对研究方案的指导等相应的激励政策。研发机构应采取及早申请孤儿药认定、多途径发现孤儿药及孤儿药的再开发等研发策略。结论美国和欧盟对孤儿药的研发与上市激励政策,刺激了制药企业对罕见病治疗药物的研发热情,有效缓解了罕见病无药可治的现状,对我国制定相关孤儿药政策提供了有益的借鉴。国内创新型制药企业应尽早布局孤儿药的研发,应重点关注国内已经被大众接受的罕见病和治疗,以及超说明书使用的问题;重点关注生物仿制药如单克隆抗体的研发动态;重点关注国际孤儿药专业公司的研发动态,使孤儿药在国内相关法律法规建立健全后,立即有所响应,尽早抢占孤儿药研发的领先地位和市场地位。     

‘It’s good being part of the community and doing the right thing’: (Re)problematising ‘community’ in new recovery-oriented policy and consumer accounts

The renewed focus on ‘recovery’ in alcohol and other drug policy over the last decade has been subject to sustained international attention and academic critique. However, little scholarly work has addressed how new recovery discourse has harnessed the ideals of community participation and cohesion and how people who use drugs, the targets of such proposals, experience these injunctions. Analysing the two most recent Australian National Drug Strategies – in which new recovery has featured – and interviews with people who inject drugs, I draw on Bacchi’s problematisation approach to make visible the politics of community in new recovery. My analysis demonstrates that there has been a shift in the way new recovery is framed from recovery through community reintegration and reconnection to recovery through ‘evidence-based’ treatment. However, community endures as an important dividing practice that targets people who regularly use drugs as dependent, unproductive and marginal to social life, while also claiming to be the solution to the disorder attributed to alcohol and other drug use. In the second half of this article, I draw on people’s accounts of regular drug use and recovery to explore the ‘lived effects’ of these problematisations and to pursue a critical practice of thinking otherwise. I argue that these accounts disrupt and contest the problematisations and promises underpinning recovery through community reintegration by: 1) drawing attention to the way in which the boundaries of community exclude inclusion for people who use drugs, and emphasising people’s already existing social relationships; 2) making present hitherto silenced and unproblematised barriers to social connection; and 3) critiquing the normative fantasies of healthy society and citizenship that underpin recovery. In concluding I consider the politics of appeals to community in new recovery-oriented policy, and suggest the need to foreground consumer accounts in problematisation-oriented analyses in order to better contest authoritative enactments of drug ‘problems’ that bear little resemblance to the challenges people face.     

Modification of a traditional motivational interviewing-based brief intervention training for hospital staff: The approach and refer method

Under the new Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England published by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit in , there has been an increasing focus on crime and public order issues and alcohol-related harm experienced by ‘vulnerable’ or ‘at risk’ groups. Prisoners have been identified as a vulnerable group who have high rates of dependence on alcohol and problems with alcohol-related offending. In late 2004, the Prison Service launched its first alcohol strategy. Based on an analysis of key policy documents, official enquiries and research, this paper explores how the ‘problem’ of alcohol can be defined within the prison setting and the issues it raises for both the individual prisoner and the institution. It examines the lack of policy and strategic direction prior to the publication of the new prison alcohol strategy and the possible reasons for the complacency around alcohol in prisons in contrast to illicit drugs. The paper critically assesses the new strategy in relation to the testing and treatment initiatives proposed and the lack of research and resources underpinning them. There is a real risk that the strategy will fail unless adequate resources are forthcoming to expand treatment provision. Given the neglect and complacency around alcohol, policy champions or policy entrepreneurs are needed to lobby for funding and keep the prison alcohol issue on the policy agenda.     

Reducing the risks of drug use: The case for set and setting

The central proposition of this article is that if people are thoughtful, well-prepared and aware of the means and best environments for using a particular drug, then the risks associated with the use of a particular drug – any drug – can be minimal. The types of drugs discussed in this context focus on those assumed to be the most ‘addictive’ – heroin and cocaine – to those less well-known but potentially more hazardous to use without prior knowledge and preparation – such as Yage and Fly Agaric. This proposition is discussed in the context of different definitions of relatively non-problematic patterns of drug use, specifically: controlled, recreational and unobtrusive. It is concluded that while the effect of taking a particular drug is a primary motivation to the user, the role of set and setting are of fundamental importance in ensuring that the effects of that drug are as intended for and expected by the user.     

Critical realism and the ‘ontological politics of drug policy’

This article explores the question of what we can consider to be real in drug policy. It examines two increasingly common aspects of drug policy analysis; radical constructionist critique and successionist data science. It shows how researchers using these assumptions have produced interesting findings, but also demonstrates their theoretical incoherence, based on their shared ‘flat ontology’. The radical constructionist claim that reality is produced within research methods – as seen in some qualitative studies - is shown to be unsustainably self-defeating. It is analytically ‘paralyzing’. This leads to two inconsistencies in radical constructionist studies; empirical ambivalence and ersatz epistemic egalitarianism. The Humean successionist approach of econometric data science is also shown to be unsustainable, and unable to provide explanations of identified patterns in data. Four consequent, limiting characteristics of this type of drug policy research are discussed: causal inference at a distance, monofinality, limited causal imagination, and overly confident causal claims. The article goes on to describe the critical realist approach towards ‘depth ontology’ and ‘generative causation’. It provides examples of how this approach is deployed in critical realist reviews and discourse analysis of drug policy. It concludes by arguing that critical realism enables more deeply explanatory, methodologically eclectic and democratically inclusive analysis of drug policy development and effects.