In 2021, during a drug-related death crisis in the UK, the Government published its ten-year drugs strategy. This article, written in collaboration with the Faculty of Public Health and the Association of Directors of Public Health, assesses whether this Strategy is evidence-based and consistent with international calls to promote public health approaches to drugs, which put ‘people, health and human rights at the centre’. Elements of the Strategy are welcome, including the promise of significant funding for drug treatment services, the effects of which will depend on how it is utilized by services and local commissioners and whether it is sustained. However, unevidenced and harmful measures to deter drug use by means of punishment continue to be promoted, which will have deleterious impacts on people who use drugs. An effective public health approach to drugs should tackle population-level risk factors, which may predispose to harmful patterns of drug use, including adverse childhood experiences and socioeconomic deprivation, and institute evidence-based measures to mitigate drug-related harm. This would likely be more effective, and just, than the continuation of policies rooted in enforcement. A more dramatic re-orientation of UK drug policy than that offered by the Strategy is overdue.

Drug related deaths (DRD) are at historically high levels in the United Kingdom (UK), but some approaches that have the potential to reduce risk of mortality remain controversial. Public support makes an important contribution to drug policy development but there are high levels of public stigma towards people who use drugs (PWUD), and this is partly shaped by media representations. We investigated whether depiction of the characteristics of decedents represented in news articles about DRD was associated with differences in stigmatising attitudes and support for harm reduction policy. We undertook a cross-sectional online study with a randomised design, conducted with a nationally representative sample (UK). Participants (N = 1280) were randomly presented with one of eight simulated news stories that reported on a DRD that differed with respect to drug (ecstasy or heroin), and the gender (male or female) and age (younger or older) of the decedent. Data were analysed using MANOVA. Data were obtained for 1248 participants (51.0% female; mean age 45.7±15.4). Stigma was higher towards depictions of male, older, and heroin deaths (all p < .001). Harm reduction support was higher in those participants seeing older compared to younger subjects (p = .035), and the older ecstasy decedent compared to younger decedent (p = .029). Presentation of some types of DRD are associated with higher public stigma towards the decedent than others. Those groups developing agenda-setting activities designed to reduce stigma or foster public support for harm reduction policies should consider the different ways in which audiences may respond to the depiction and framing of DRD in news media.

Background: This paper invites discussion on whether pleasure should receive more attention in public health‐oriented research on alcohol. While there is a history of sociological and anthropological literature exploring alcohol and pleasure, this is much less common in public health‐oriented alcohol research, and associated advocacy. Argument: We propose three broad reasons why more extensive engagement with issues of pleasure may be important for public health‐oriented research. The first is epistemological: because overlooking pleasure risks leaving a gap in knowledge of a key component of, and motive for, drinking. The second is ethical: because the prioritisation of long‐term health over shorter‐term pleasures is not uncontested, and needs to be explicitly justified. The third is pragmatic: because ceding the discourse on pleasure to other actors (including commercial ones) risks undermining effective engagement with target populations. Conclusions: There is strong case for more attention to pleasure in public health‐oriented alcohol research. Key to this is the further development of interdisciplinary perspectives and mixed‐methods research. This brings both conceptual and methodological challenges, many of which remain unresolved; however, bringing these issues to the surface may enable greater clarity on both normative principles (including arguments against research engaging with pleasure) and practical questions concerning the design of research and analysis in this area.

Background: People who use drugs face entrenched stigma, which fosters shame, restricts service access, and exacerbates inequalities. The use of mass media in anti-stigma interventions offers an opportunity to challenge stigmatising attitudes at scale. There are, however, inconsistencies in messaging approaches used in mass media anti-stigma interventions, and how authors conceptualise and measure 'stigma'. Methods: This scoping review maps literature on the development and/or evaluation of mass media interventions intended to reduce stigma towards people who use drugs. We systematically searched seven databases for reports about: (i) people who use drugs, (ii) stigma, (iii) mass media. We charted data about intervention (i) subjects and recipients, (ii) format, (iii) authors, (iv) content; and (v) conceptualisation and measurement of stigma. We narratively synthesised findings with qualitative content analyses. Results: From 14,256 records, we included 49 reports about 35 interventions. 25/35 were from the last five years and 19/35 were from the United States. Intended recipients included the public and/or specified subpopulations, often including healthcare workers. Most interventions were intended to reduce stigma towards people with patterns of drug use perceived to be problematic, as opposed to people who use drugs in general. Interventions ranged from single pieces of media to complex multi-format campaigns. People who use(d) drugs contributed to 22/35 interventions. Professionals working in medical disciplines co-authored 29/35 interventions. Intervention content often had a medical focus, describing dependence as a 'disease' or medical issue, and emphasised the benefits of recovery. Other interventions, however, criticised medical framings. In some interventions drug use and people who use drugs were described in markedly negative terms. 'Stigma' was often under-theorised, and measurement approaches were inconsistent, with 42 instruments used to measure phenomena associated with stigma across 19 quantitative evaluations. Conclusion: We found inconsistencies in approaches to reduce and measure stigma, potentially reflecting different motivations for intervention development. The primary motivation of many interventions was seemingly to promote drug service engagement and recovery.

There is widespread support for the introduction of Drug Consumption Rooms (DCRs) in Scotland as part of a policy response to record levels of drug-related harm. However, existing legal barriers are made more complex by the division of relevant powers between the UK and Scottish Governments. This paper reports on a national, qualitative study of key decision-makers in both local and national roles across Scotland. It explores views on the political barriers and enablers to the adoption of Drug Consumption Rooms and the potential role of these facilities in the wider treatment system. It also considers approaches to evidence, especially the types of evidence that are considered valuable in supporting decision-making in this area. The study found that Scottish decision-makers are strongly supportive of DCR adoption; however, they remain unclear as to the legal and political mechanisms that would make this possible. They view DCRs as part of a complex treatment and support system rather than a uniquely transformative intervention. They see the case for introduction as sufficient, on the basis of need and available evidence, thus adopting a pragmatic and iterative approach to evidence, in contrast to an appeal to traditional evidence hierarchies more commonly adopted by the UK Government.

This study ascertains the views of UK stakeholders on the actual, and possible, impact of a public health licensing objective in their day-to-day work. Twenty-eight interviews were conducted with members of public health teams who were actively engaged in alcohol licensing in their local area between 2017 and 2019. Six teams were based in Scotland (where there is a public health licensing objective) and 14 in England (where there is no similar objective). Scottish participants reported that while challenges remained in applying the public health licensing objective, progress had been made and the objective was beneficial to their work. Participants in England felt that an objective would increase the legitimacy, value and impact of their contributions. In both Scotland and England, constructive relationships between PHTs, licensing authorities and other key stakeholders were developing suggesting that PHTs could have a sustainable and positive role in licensing. In many Scottish areas, the alcohol licensing system is evolving to take constructive account of its public health objective. In England, PHTs that have invested resources in engaging in this area have demonstrated an ability to work effectively within licensing systems. Strong support for the adoption of a public health licensing objective among these PHTs adds weights to calls for the UK Government to reconsider its previous decision not to introduce such an objective.