Why are people with lived and living experience conflicted about the legalisation of drugs? Analysing qualitative data from the UK Drug Policy Voices project using Schwartz’s theory of basic values

Abstract

Introduction

Emerging research on values and moralities in drug policy research indicates that policy may become stuck because of value conflicts and tensions. To develop new knowledge in this area, this paper seeks to identify the values that emerged in discussions amongst people with lived and living experience about the legalisation of drugs; and examine the relationships between value positions, synergies and tensions within dialogue about legalisation.

Methods

The data derived from the qualitative research collected for the UK Drug Policy Voices project and included workshop, creative and interview data. All dialogue that emerged in reference to legalisation was coded against Schwartz’s ten basic values, which Schwartz presents as a circumplex where values close to one another are complimentary and values opposing one another represent value conflict. The findings structure around two sections, the first demonstrating value tensions and complexity, and the second how value clusters emerged in the dialogues around three legalisation architectures: state regulation, commercial regulation, and social justice models.

Results

The narratives were complex, overlapping and represented dialectical rather than dichotomous opinions. Security, self-direction, conformity, universalism, benevolence, power and achievement values underpin complex narrations of legalisation. Our analyses suggest a pattern whereby strict regulation models were underpinned by security and conformity values; universalism and benevolence values were the foundation of social justice approaches, and commercial models were driven by self-direction, power and achievement values. Value tensions surfaced when opposing values in the circumplex surfaced together within a narrative, for example between self-direction and conformity, and universalism and power.

Discussion

Through its focus on surfacing values, this paper illuminates new knowledge on the complexities that lie behind drug policy debates. Firstly, multiple values are held at once, which are often in conflict; secondly, there are distinct value clusters that underpin different architectures of legalisation; and thirdly, the same value can both support and challenge legalisation approaches. This paper highlights that participants were conflicted about legalisation due to its potential variegated impact on people, groups and communities, demonstrating that lived and living experience embodies more than personal consumption patterns.

Conclusion

Debates about legalisation are complex and conflicted due to value pluralism and value conflict. Multiple values were activated when considering legalisation from the position of one’s own drug use, family and friends, and the community.