Publication Type: Roundtable
Abstract: The extensive history of Methadone Maintenance Treatment reveals the evolution of opiate drug treatment and policy into two competing fields of practice/thought. This competition has led to “turf wars” over control of the definition of opiate addiction and policy associated with treatment. A historical analysis of this history led to the question of whether it is possible to predict future directions of U.S. drug policy associated with opiate, and other illicit substances that warrant such intervention. One of the most recent examples of this “pattern of defining”, are current policies and treatment protocol being developed in conjunction with the drug buprenorphine. Given changing intervention technology, disagreements between professional fields, and increased recognition of medical changes in treatment approaches, is it possible to project future direction drug policy and intervention will take, based upon such an historical analysis? Policy, to a great extent, is dependent on underlying philosophy and epistemology of the country it is situated within (Skocpol 1984). In the United States this guiding principle or national ideology as manifested by the middle class, and as associated with substance abuse has been the Protestant ethics of sobriety, restraint and thrift (Weber 1914). Through utilizing a neo-Webarian approach, this paper attempts to reconcile U.S. ideological orientation with the professional struggle for diagnostic turf, in conjunction with increasing technological advances in drug addiction treatment. Ultimately, this paper attempts to predict an outcome given a nation’s epistemological orientation to policy and the ever-present pressure to pursue rational and efficient drug interdiction.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: How can we convey hope for the future in our scholarship and teaching? The traditional approach to both, an ?objective? stance takes ?things as they are? and presents them as ?given.? For those of us who are both cynical and pessimistic about contemporary politics and the future, this is not only depressing for our readers and students, but suicide-inducing. They are deprived of agency as well as alternatives. By contrast, if we are overly-normative in our work, we stand to be accused of ?idealism? as well as bad faith and even ?fellow travelers? of one tendency or another. A critical approach, by contrast, can be both analytical and normative. Recognizing that human society is organized around beliefs, practices, and outcomes with historical materialist and constructed sources, the ?way things are? is neither natural nor given and can be changed. In this paper, I develop this argument, with specific reference to my most recent scholarly book, Globalization, Governmentality and Global Politics (Routledge, 2005).

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: A 5-year study of opiate production, trafficking, and consumption that began with an analysis of the 2001 Afghan opium cutback yields four sets of findings on the nature of the world market; the findings, in turn, yield four lessons for national and international policymakers. This paper summarizes both the market findings and the policy lessons. How does the market function and what does it imply for policy making: what can policymakers reasonably hope to accomplish with drug controls and, in particular, what can they expect from illegality and enforcement? The findings on production, trafficking, and consumption, and the relationships among them may provide a basis for cautious optimism. Policymakers may be able to use drug controls to improve long-term outcomes, e.g., opiate consumption may diminish, but the benefits may be modest at best and the accompanying costs must be measured carefully.

This paper examines the prospects for interventions aimed at production or early stage trafficking, drawing on a new study of the economics of global heroin production and trafficking. It considers whether the segmentation of the market, in which specific consuming countries are supplied by only certain producers, offers at least the prospect for short-run gains. It also considers whether in the long-run it is possible for interventions to do more than influence the location of production and trafficking.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In September 2000 the Taliban government of Afghanistan imposed a complete ban on the production of opium, the dominant world supplier to the illegal heroin market. This sudden and unanticipated cutback in Afghanistan’s opium production in 2001 initially appeared to be the shot that was not heard around the world that year. There was no discernible supply side response, i.e., no other country increased production of heroin substantially and no new producer entered the market. There was little indication of substantial decline in consumption in 2001. Only a few regional markets saw price increases. Instead it appears that there was sufficient inventory to meet existing world demand and it did indeed enter the market.
However a longer-term analysis yields a notably different picture. The effects of the cut-back persisted long after the fall of the Taliban in late 2001. Opium prices in Afghanistan peaked not then but only in January 2003. Correspondingly, there are signs that in Western Europe, the consequences were felt only in 2002 and 2003. Just as inventory depletion dampened the initial effects of the cut-back, so rebuilding inventory may have prolonged those responses.
This paper traces the effects of the ban, primarily through changes in prices and purity, in order to improve understanding of the workings of the global heroin market. It does this by examining the episode in statistical detail and interpreting the results in terms of the economic theory of illegal markets.