Kari Lancaster | The University of New South Wales (original) (raw)
Papers by Kari Lancaster
As the number of new ‘psychoactive substances’ detected globally has risen exponentially, the pol... more 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.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2016
The International journal on drug policy, 2014
The International journal on drug policy, 2016
International Journal of Drug Policy, 2016
Addictive behaviors, 2016
The aim of this study was to establish a conceptual schema for government purchasing of alcohol a... more The aim of this study was to establish a conceptual schema for government purchasing of alcohol and other drug treatment in Australia which could encompass the diversity and variety in purchasing arrangements, and facilitate better decision-maker by purchasers. There is a limited evidence base on purchasing arrangements in alcohol and drug treatment despite the clear impact of purchasing arrangements on both treatment processes and treatment outcomes. The relevant health and social welfare literature on purchasing arrangements was reviewed; data were collected from Australian purchasers and providers of treatment giving detailed descriptions of the array of purchasing arrangements. Combined analysis of the literature and the Australian purchasing data resulted in a draft schema which was then reviewed by an expert committee and subsequently finalised. The conceptual schema presented here was purpose-built for alcohol and other drug treatment, with its overlap between health and soci...
Drug and alcohol review, Jan 30, 2015
The structures of health systems impact on patient outcomes. We present and analyse the first det... more The structures of health systems impact on patient outcomes. We present and analyse the first detailed mapping of who funds alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment and the channels and intermediaries through which funding flows from the funding sources to treatment providers. The study involved a literature review of AOD treatment financing and existing diagrammatic representations of the structure of the Australian health system. We interviewed 190 key informants to particularise the AOD treatment sector, and undertook two case examples of government funded non-government organisations providing AOD treatment. Funding sources include the Australian and state and territory governments, philanthropy, fund-raising and clients themselves. While funding sources align with the health sector generally and the broader social services sector, the complexity of flows from source to treatment service and the number of intermediaries are noteworthy. So too are the many sources of funding drawn ...
Using mainstream media communication theories, this article outlines different mechanisms by whic... more Using mainstream media communication theories, this article outlines different mechanisms by which media can impact on public perceptions of drugs and crime. The media can set the agenda and define public interest; frame issues through selection and salience; indirectly shape individual and community attitudes towards risk and norms; and feed into political debate and decision making. We demonstrate how the media can fulfill each of these roles by examining the so-called Miaow Miaow (Mephedrone) legal high 'epidemic', as reported in the United Kingdom news media from 2009-2010. In doing so we illustrate that by contributing to hysteria, exerting pressure for policy change and increasing curiosity in drug use, the media can have a potentially powerful impact on demand for drugs and public perceptions of illicit drugs and drugs policy.
Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy
International Journal of Drug Policy, 2015
The law is a key site for the production of meanings around the 'problem&... more The law is a key site for the production of meanings around the 'problem' of drugs in public discourse. In this article, we critically consider the material-discursive 'effects' of laws prohibiting peer distribution of needles and syringes in Australia. Taking the laws and regulations governing possession and distribution of injecting equipment in one jurisdiction (New South Wales, Australia) as a case study, we use Carol Bacchi's poststructuralist approach to policy analysis to critically consider the assumptions and presuppositions underpinning this legislative and regulatory framework, with a particular focus on examining the discursive, subjectification and lived effects of these laws. We argue that legislative prohibitions on the distribution of injecting equipment except by 'authorised persons' within 'approved programs' constitute people who inject drugs as irresponsible, irrational, and untrustworthy and re-inscribe a familiar stereotype of the drug 'addict'. These constructions of people who inject drugs fundamentally constrain how the provision of injecting equipment may be thought about in policy and practice. We suggest that prohibitions on the distribution of injecting equipment among peers may also have other, material, effects and may be counterproductive to various public health aims and objectives. However, the actions undertaken by some people who inject drugs to distribute equipment to their peers may disrupt and challenge these constructions, through a counter-discourse in which people who inject drugs are constituted as active agents with a vital role to play in blood-borne virus prevention in the community. Such activity continues to bring with it the risk of criminal prosecution, and so it remains a vexed issue. These insights have implications of relevance beyond Australia, particularly for other countries around the world that prohibit peer distribution, but also for other legislative practices with material-discursive effects in association with injecting drug use.
Drug and alcohol review, Jan 18, 2015
International Journal of Drug Policy, 2015
The notion of 'recovery&a... more The notion of 'recovery' as an overarching approach to drug policy remains controversial. This cross-national analysis considers how the problem of drugs was constructed and represented in two key reports on the place of 'recovery' in drug policy, critically examining how the problem of drugs (and the people who use them) are constituted in recovery discourse, and how these problematisations are shaped and disseminated. Bacchi's poststructuralist approach is applied to two documents (one in Britain and one in Australia) to analyse how the 'problem of drugs' and the people who use them are constituted: as problematic users, constraining alternative understandings of the shifting nature of drug use; as responsibilised individuals (in Britain) and as patients (in Australia); as worthy of citizenship in the context of treatment and recovery, silencing the assumption of unworthiness and the loss of rights for those who continue to use drugs in 'problematic' ways. The position of the organisations which produced the reports is considered, with the authority of both organisations resting on their status as independent, apolitical bodies providing 'evidence-based' advice. There is a need to carefully weigh up the desirable and undesirable political effects of these constructions. The meaning of 'recovery' and how it could be realised in policy and practice is still being negotiated. By comparatively analysing how the problem of drugs was produced in 'recovery' discourse in two jurisdictions, at two specific points in the policy debate, we are reminded that ways of thinking about 'problems' reflect specific contexts, and how we are invoked to think about policy responses will be dependent upon these conditions. As 'recovery' continues to evolve, opening up spaces to discuss its contested meanings and effects will be an ongoing endeavour.
As the number of new ‘psychoactive substances’ detected globally has risen exponentially, the pol... more 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.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2016
The International journal on drug policy, 2014
The International journal on drug policy, 2016
International Journal of Drug Policy, 2016
Addictive behaviors, 2016
The aim of this study was to establish a conceptual schema for government purchasing of alcohol a... more The aim of this study was to establish a conceptual schema for government purchasing of alcohol and other drug treatment in Australia which could encompass the diversity and variety in purchasing arrangements, and facilitate better decision-maker by purchasers. There is a limited evidence base on purchasing arrangements in alcohol and drug treatment despite the clear impact of purchasing arrangements on both treatment processes and treatment outcomes. The relevant health and social welfare literature on purchasing arrangements was reviewed; data were collected from Australian purchasers and providers of treatment giving detailed descriptions of the array of purchasing arrangements. Combined analysis of the literature and the Australian purchasing data resulted in a draft schema which was then reviewed by an expert committee and subsequently finalised. The conceptual schema presented here was purpose-built for alcohol and other drug treatment, with its overlap between health and soci...
Drug and alcohol review, Jan 30, 2015
The structures of health systems impact on patient outcomes. We present and analyse the first det... more The structures of health systems impact on patient outcomes. We present and analyse the first detailed mapping of who funds alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment and the channels and intermediaries through which funding flows from the funding sources to treatment providers. The study involved a literature review of AOD treatment financing and existing diagrammatic representations of the structure of the Australian health system. We interviewed 190 key informants to particularise the AOD treatment sector, and undertook two case examples of government funded non-government organisations providing AOD treatment. Funding sources include the Australian and state and territory governments, philanthropy, fund-raising and clients themselves. While funding sources align with the health sector generally and the broader social services sector, the complexity of flows from source to treatment service and the number of intermediaries are noteworthy. So too are the many sources of funding drawn ...
Using mainstream media communication theories, this article outlines different mechanisms by whic... more Using mainstream media communication theories, this article outlines different mechanisms by which media can impact on public perceptions of drugs and crime. The media can set the agenda and define public interest; frame issues through selection and salience; indirectly shape individual and community attitudes towards risk and norms; and feed into political debate and decision making. We demonstrate how the media can fulfill each of these roles by examining the so-called Miaow Miaow (Mephedrone) legal high 'epidemic', as reported in the United Kingdom news media from 2009-2010. In doing so we illustrate that by contributing to hysteria, exerting pressure for policy change and increasing curiosity in drug use, the media can have a potentially powerful impact on demand for drugs and public perceptions of illicit drugs and drugs policy.
Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy
International Journal of Drug Policy, 2015
The law is a key site for the production of meanings around the 'problem&... more The law is a key site for the production of meanings around the 'problem' of drugs in public discourse. In this article, we critically consider the material-discursive 'effects' of laws prohibiting peer distribution of needles and syringes in Australia. Taking the laws and regulations governing possession and distribution of injecting equipment in one jurisdiction (New South Wales, Australia) as a case study, we use Carol Bacchi's poststructuralist approach to policy analysis to critically consider the assumptions and presuppositions underpinning this legislative and regulatory framework, with a particular focus on examining the discursive, subjectification and lived effects of these laws. We argue that legislative prohibitions on the distribution of injecting equipment except by 'authorised persons' within 'approved programs' constitute people who inject drugs as irresponsible, irrational, and untrustworthy and re-inscribe a familiar stereotype of the drug 'addict'. These constructions of people who inject drugs fundamentally constrain how the provision of injecting equipment may be thought about in policy and practice. We suggest that prohibitions on the distribution of injecting equipment among peers may also have other, material, effects and may be counterproductive to various public health aims and objectives. However, the actions undertaken by some people who inject drugs to distribute equipment to their peers may disrupt and challenge these constructions, through a counter-discourse in which people who inject drugs are constituted as active agents with a vital role to play in blood-borne virus prevention in the community. Such activity continues to bring with it the risk of criminal prosecution, and so it remains a vexed issue. These insights have implications of relevance beyond Australia, particularly for other countries around the world that prohibit peer distribution, but also for other legislative practices with material-discursive effects in association with injecting drug use.
Drug and alcohol review, Jan 18, 2015
International Journal of Drug Policy, 2015
The notion of 'recovery&a... more The notion of 'recovery' as an overarching approach to drug policy remains controversial. This cross-national analysis considers how the problem of drugs was constructed and represented in two key reports on the place of 'recovery' in drug policy, critically examining how the problem of drugs (and the people who use them) are constituted in recovery discourse, and how these problematisations are shaped and disseminated. Bacchi's poststructuralist approach is applied to two documents (one in Britain and one in Australia) to analyse how the 'problem of drugs' and the people who use them are constituted: as problematic users, constraining alternative understandings of the shifting nature of drug use; as responsibilised individuals (in Britain) and as patients (in Australia); as worthy of citizenship in the context of treatment and recovery, silencing the assumption of unworthiness and the loss of rights for those who continue to use drugs in 'problematic' ways. The position of the organisations which produced the reports is considered, with the authority of both organisations resting on their status as independent, apolitical bodies providing 'evidence-based' advice. There is a need to carefully weigh up the desirable and undesirable political effects of these constructions. The meaning of 'recovery' and how it could be realised in policy and practice is still being negotiated. By comparatively analysing how the problem of drugs was produced in 'recovery' discourse in two jurisdictions, at two specific points in the policy debate, we are reminded that ways of thinking about 'problems' reflect specific contexts, and how we are invoked to think about policy responses will be dependent upon these conditions. As 'recovery' continues to evolve, opening up spaces to discuss its contested meanings and effects will be an ongoing endeavour.