This chapter critically examines the ideological, structural, and policy-driven distinctions between functional and problematic drug users in the UK. It argues that UK drug policy is founded upon a punitive and moralistic framework that disproportionately targets socially marginalised individuals—those experiencing poverty, addiction, and visible public drug use—while largely ignoring the significant proportion of users who integrate drug consumption into otherwise stable, productive lives. The chapter deconstructs this dichotomy, exploring how the visibility and perceived deviance of problematic users have shaped a criminal justice-led approach, while functional users—typically middle- or upper-class, white, and discreet—are rendered invisible to policy and immune from enforcement. Using an interdisciplinary framework that draws from criminology, public health, media studies, and political sociology, the chapter highlights how punitive drug enforcement practices reinforce broader social inequalities. The analysis incorporates Situational Action Theory (Wikström et al., 2012) to explain how environmental contexts and visibility mediate criminalisation, showing that where and how drug use occurs is often more consequential than what is used. Empirical data, including studies on stop-and-search practices, arrest patterns, and sentencing disparities, reveal that Black and working-class individuals are disproportionately subject to punitive sanctions, despite similar or lower rates of drug use compared to more privileged groups. The chapter critically assesses the UK government’s drug strategies—particularly the 2017 and 2021 frameworks—and finds them to be reactive, overly focused on addiction and acquisitive crime, and resistant to adopting proven harm reduction approaches. The emphasis on abstinence-based “recovery” models serves to reinforce stigma and marginalises both functional users and those whose recovery goals do not conform to abstinence. While purporting to adopt a public health orientation, the government’s approach remains rooted in outdated moral binaries that categorise drugs as inherently harmful and users as either victims or villains. A key contribution of the chapter is its focus on the ideological erasure of functional drug users. Drawing on the work of Duff (2012) and Nutt et al. (2010), it explores how the existence of controlled, non-problematic drug use challenges the foundational justifications for prohibition. Functional users often demonstrate a higher degree of responsibility and health-consciousness in their drug use than many legal substance users. Yet they are omitted from official discourse because their presence complicates simplistic narratives of drug use as disorder. This omission enables the continued marginalisation of problematic users while allowing the privileged to escape scrutiny, thus reinforcing the status quo. The chapter also critiques the moral economy underpinning the legal classification of substances in the UK. Substances like alcohol and tobacco—responsible for significant health and social harms—remain legal and culturally embedded, while less harmful drugs such as cannabis, MDMA, or psilocybin remain criminalised due to historical prejudice and political expediency. This inconsistency reflects a policy landscape more concerned with moral order and political optics than with evidence-based harm reduction. Finally, the chapter proposes a shift from punitive drug policy to a comprehensive public health model that accounts for the full spectrum of drug use. This includes the decriminalisation of possession for personal use, expanded access to harm reduction services (such as drug checking and supervised consumption rooms), and a re-evaluation of the legal status of substances based on scientific risk assessments. It calls for the inclusion of all user voices in drug policy development, recognising the legitimacy of controlled, functional use alongside support for those experiencing problematic patterns. Until such reforms are implemented, the UK’s drug policy will remain a mechanism of social control—a war not on drugs, but on the poor. The chapter concludes that addressing this injustice is not only a matter of effectiveness but of equity, dignity, and human rights.

Functional vs. Problematic Drug Users in the UK: A Policy Blind Spot

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Elizabeth Peatfield

摘要

This chapter critically examines the ideological, structural, and policy-driven distinctions between functional and problematic drug users in the UK. It argues that UK drug policy is founded upon a punitive and moralistic framework that disproportionately targets socially marginalised individuals—those experiencing poverty, addiction, and visible public drug use—while largely ignoring the significant proportion of users who integrate drug consumption into otherwise stable, productive lives. The chapter deconstructs this dichotomy, exploring how the visibility and perceived deviance of problematic users have shaped a criminal justice-led approach, while functional users—typically middle- or upper-class, white, and discreet—are rendered invisible to policy and immune from enforcement. Using an interdisciplinary framework that draws from criminology, public health, media studies, and political sociology, the chapter highlights how punitive drug enforcement practices reinforce broader social inequalities. The analysis incorporates Situational Action Theory (Wikström et al., 2012) to explain how environmental contexts and visibility mediate criminalisation, showing that where and how drug use occurs is often more consequential than what is used. Empirical data, including studies on stop-and-search practices, arrest patterns, and sentencing disparities, reveal that Black and working-class individuals are disproportionately subject to punitive sanctions, despite similar or lower rates of drug use compared to more privileged groups. The chapter critically assesses the UK government’s drug strategies—particularly the 2017 and 2021 frameworks—and finds them to be reactive, overly focused on addiction and acquisitive crime, and resistant to adopting proven harm reduction approaches. The emphasis on abstinence-based “recovery” models serves to reinforce stigma and marginalises both functional users and those whose recovery goals do not conform to abstinence. While purporting to adopt a public health orientation, the government’s approach remains rooted in outdated moral binaries that categorise drugs as inherently harmful and users as either victims or villains. A key contribution of the chapter is its focus on the ideological erasure of functional drug users. Drawing on the work of Duff (2012) and Nutt et al. (2010), it explores how the existence of controlled, non-problematic drug use challenges the foundational justifications for prohibition. Functional users often demonstrate a higher degree of responsibility and health-consciousness in their drug use than many legal substance users. Yet they are omitted from official discourse because their presence complicates simplistic narratives of drug use as disorder. This omission enables the continued marginalisation of problematic users while allowing the privileged to escape scrutiny, thus reinforcing the status quo. The chapter also critiques the moral economy underpinning the legal classification of substances in the UK. Substances like alcohol and tobacco—responsible for significant health and social harms—remain legal and culturally embedded, while less harmful drugs such as cannabis, MDMA, or psilocybin remain criminalised due to historical prejudice and political expediency. This inconsistency reflects a policy landscape more concerned with moral order and political optics than with evidence-based harm reduction. Finally, the chapter proposes a shift from punitive drug policy to a comprehensive public health model that accounts for the full spectrum of drug use. This includes the decriminalisation of possession for personal use, expanded access to harm reduction services (such as drug checking and supervised consumption rooms), and a re-evaluation of the legal status of substances based on scientific risk assessments. It calls for the inclusion of all user voices in drug policy development, recognising the legitimacy of controlled, functional use alongside support for those experiencing problematic patterns. Until such reforms are implemented, the UK’s drug policy will remain a mechanism of social control—a war not on drugs, but on the poor. The chapter concludes that addressing this injustice is not only a matter of effectiveness but of equity, dignity, and human rights.