THE EVOLUTION OF DRUG POLICY, PART II – What Works and What Doesn’t
In this issue, which is a continuation of the Journal’s exploration of evolving drug policies throughout the world, subject experts will examine the history and evolution of drug policy, as well as the strategies, concerns and problems associated with drug prevalence and use. The policies of Canada and Switzerland are discussed as well as specific issues relating to US drug policies.

The article on Canadian drug policy, addresses the issues and problems associated with illicit drug use and substance abuse in Canada, but focuses specifically on how drug policy has been influenced by activism co-mingling with academia, research, professional and public authority. The resulting politicization of national drug policy is examined.

The report on the role of the physician with relation to “medical marijuana” makes the point that in states allowing liberal cannabis distribution to patients with various medical conditions; there is little scientific evidence to guide this process in a rational, ethical manner that ensures patient health and safety. This report examines the circumstances that led to this situation and explores the scientific issues involved in moving toward a resolution. It also offers recommendations to assist physicians in coping with these issues and proposes policy recommendations.

Also included in this issue is a report on a study suggesting that drug testing improves workforce productivity and attendance. The study further indicates that workers’ compensation incidence rates and employee turnover are lowered after implementation of a drug testing program.

The last article in this issue provides a critical review of the process employed in the U.S. to make decisions on scheduling of drugs, with comparison to the corresponding processes in Europe, the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

The commentary offered by a noted expert on Switzerland’s drug policy describes the history of drug policy in Switzerland since the 1980s, specifically the three pillars: Prevention, Therapy, and Law Enforcement. He lays out how the concept of Harm Reduction, the 4th pillar introduced by drug liberalizers, became the focus of drug policy in Switzerland as the Country coped with a drug addiction problem of nearly epidemic proportions. He concludes that Harm Reduction policies have been and continue to be problematic, resulting in high drug use rates remaining steady in Switzerland.

Our second commentary piece focuses on lessons learned from America’s experience with alcohol prohibition. The author describes the facts and issues relating to past alcohol prohibition and compares and contrasts them to drug prohibition and policy.