Monaghan Mark, Yeomans Henry
School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, UK.
School of Law, University of Leeds, UK.
Int J Drug Policy. 2016 Nov;37:122-128. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.02.005. Epub 2016 Feb 26.
Alcohol policy and illicit drugs policy are typically presented as separate and different in academic discussion. This is understandable, to a degree, as the criminal law upholds a 'great regulatory divide' (Seddon, 2010: 56) separating the licit trade in alcohol from the illicit trade in substances classified as either class A, B or C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. This paper takes a different stance. In doing so, it draws upon Berridge's (2013) argument that policies governing various psychoactive substances have been converging since the mid-twentieth century and seeks to elaborate it using recent developments relating to the control and regulation of drugs and alcohol in the broader areas of criminal justice and welfare reform. Significantly, the article examines how recent policy directions relating to both drugs and alcohol in England have, under the aegis of the 'recovery agenda', been connected to a broader behavioural politics oriented towards the actions and lifestyles of an apparently problematic subgroup of the population or 'underclass'. The paper thus concludes that, although the great regulatory divide remains intact, an underclass politics is contributing towards the greater alignment of illicit drugs and alcohol policies, especially in regards to the respective significance of abstinence (or abstinence-based 'recovery').
在学术讨论中,酒精政策和非法药物政策通常被视为相互独立且不同的。在一定程度上,这是可以理解的,因为刑法秉持着一种“巨大的监管划分”(塞登,2010:56),将酒精的合法贸易与根据1971年《滥用药物法》归类为A、B或C类物质的非法贸易区分开来。本文采取了不同的立场。在此过程中,它借鉴了贝里奇(2013)的观点,即自20世纪中叶以来,管理各种精神活性物质的政策一直在趋同,并试图利用刑事司法和福利改革更广泛领域中与毒品和酒精控制及监管相关的最新发展来阐述这一观点。值得注意的是,本文考察了在“康复议程”的支持下,英国近期与毒品和酒精相关的政策方向是如何与一种更广泛的行为政治联系在一起的,这种行为政治针对的是人口中一个明显有问题的亚群体或“下层阶级”的行为和生活方式。因此,本文得出结论,尽管巨大的监管划分依然存在,但下层阶级政治正在促使非法药物政策和酒精政策更加趋于一致,尤其是在禁欲(或基于禁欲的“康复”)各自的重要性方面。