Dope busts in the West: minor cannabis offences in the Western Australian criminal justice system

Comparing Drug Policy Windows Internationally

In this article, I compare and contrast policymaking processes in Canada and England and Wales between 1997 and the present day to provide insight into why the Canadian government approved the opening of a downtown Vancouver drug consumption room (DCR) named InSite in 2003, and why the British government has not yet done so. I also shed new light on why, since 2003, subsequent DCRs have not been opened in either Canada or England and Wales. I briefly consider future prospects for DCRs in both places. To accomplish this, I draw on Kingdon’s “Multiple Streams Theory,” which suggests that national government decision makers such as politicians are most likely to enact policy changes when there is an alignment of problems, policy options, and political circumstances. I argue that such conditions existed in Canada but not England and Wales, which helps explain why the Canadian government approved the opening of a DCR but the British government did not. I draw on primary data from national, provincial, and municipal government documents and national and local newspaper articles in both jurisdictions to make my argument, along with secondary data from published literature. In the process, I highlight the strengths and weaknesses of Kingdon’s (1984) work for understanding policy development in the highly controversial area of illicit drug use.

A tale of CIN--the Cannabis infringement notice scheme in Western Australia

AIMS

To describe the development and enactment of the Western Australian (WA) Cannabis Infringement Notice scheme and reflect on the lessons for researchers and policy-makers interested in the translation of policy research to policy practice.

METHODS

An insiders' description of the background research, knowledge transfer strategies and political and legislative processes leading to the enactment and implementation of the WA Cannabis Control Act 2003. Lenton and Allsop were involved centrally in the process as policy-researcher and policy-bureaucrat.

RESULTS

In March 2004, Western Australia became the fourth Australian jurisdiction to adopt a 'prohibition with civil penalties' scheme for possession and cultivation of small amounts of cannabis. We reflect upon: the role of research evidence in the policy process; windows for policy change; disseminating findings when apparently no one is listening; the risks and benefits of the researcher as advocate; the differences between working on the inside and outside of government; and the importance of relationships, trust and track record.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a window of opportunity and change was influenced by research that was communicated by a reliable and trusted source. Those who want to conduct research that informs policy need to understand the policy process more clearly, look for and help create emerging windows that occur in the problem and political spheres, and make partnerships with key stakeholders in the policy arena. The flipside of the process is that, when governments change, policy born in windows of opportunity can be a casualty.

Pot, politics and the press-reflections on cannabis law reform in Western Australia

Windows of opportunity for changing drug laws open infrequently and they often close without legislative change being affected. In this paper the author, who has been intimately involved in the process, describes how evidence-based recommendations to 'decriminalize' cannabis have recently been progressed through public debate and the political process to become law in Western Australia (WA). The Cannabis Control Bill 2003 passed the WA Parliament on 23 September. The Bill, the legislative backing behind the Cannabis Infringement Notice (CIN) Scheme, came into effect on 22 March 2004. This made WA the fourth Australian jurisdiction, after South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, to adopt a prohibition with civil penalties scheme for minor cannabis offences. This paper describes some of the background to the scheme, the process by which it has become law, the main provisions of the scheme and its evaluation. It includes reflections on the role of politics and the press in the process. The process of implementation and evaluation are outlined by the author, foreshadowing an ongoing opportunity to understand the impact of the change in legislation.