This paper draws upon an empirical comparative study of policy-making in England & Wales and the Netherlands. Recent changes in cannabis policy prima facie indicate some convergence towards a toughening of approaches, thereby suggesting commonalities in control cultures. However, analysis of findings illuminate significant differences in the policy process between these jurisdictions which contribute towards continued divergence towards small-scale supply and consumption of cannabis. It is argued that this can be understood and explained through an understanding of differences in both political institutions and cultures, and in organizational responsibilities and relations of power. Consequentially, this further supports the notion that comparative research and theorizing needs to take account of mechanisms and features which lead to variegated control cultures.
ACMD (2008) Cannabis: Classification and Public Health. London: Home Office.
2.
ACPO (2009) ACPO Guidance on Cannabis Possession for Personal Use: Revised Intervention Framework. London: ACPO.
3.
AndewegR (2008) Coalition politics in the Netherlands: From accommodation to politicization. Acta Politica43: 254–277.
4.
BennettTHollowayK (2010) Is UK drug policy evidence-based?International Journal of Drug Policy21(5): 411–417.
5.
BielemanBGoereeP (2001) Coffeeshops in Nederland: Aantallen en Gemeentelijk Beleid in 2000. Groningen: Intraval.
6.
BielemanBNijkampRBakT (2012) Coffeeshops in Nederland 2011: Aantallen Coffeeshops en Gemeentelijk Beleid 1999–2011. Groningen: Intraval.
7.
Boekhout van SolingeT (1999) Dutch drug policy in a European context. Journal of Drug Issues29(3): 511–528.
8.
BrunssonN (1989) The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
9.
ChandlerJ (2001) Local Government Today, 3rd edn.Manchester: Manchester University Press.
10.
College van Burgermeester en Wethouders (2011) Brief Wetenschappelijke Experimenten Cannabisbeleid. Utrecht: College van Burgermeester en Wethouders.
11.
CrickE (2012) Drugs as an existential threat: An analysis of the international securitization of drugs. International Journal of Drug Policy23(5): 407–414.
12.
DownesDVan SwaaningenR (2007) The road to dystopia? Changes in the penal climate of the Netherlands. In: TonryMBijleveldC (eds) Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 35. Crime and Justice in the Netherlands. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 31–72.
13.
DrakefordMGregoryL (2011) Governance and social policy in a devolved Wales. In: WilliamsC (ed.) Social Policy for Social Welfare Practice in a Devolved Wales, 2nd edn.Birmingham: Venture Press.
14.
EdwardsAHughesG (2005) Comparing the governance of safety in Europe: A geo-historical approach. Theoretical Criminology9(3): 345–363.
15.
GarlandD (1996) The limits of the sovereign state: Strategies of crime control in contemporary society. British Journal of Criminology36(4): 445–471.
16.
GarlandD (2001) The Culture of Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
Home Office (2008a) Explanatory Memorandum to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2008. London: Home Office.
18.
Home Office (2008b) Government Response to the Recommendations Made by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in Its Report Cannabis: Classification and Public Health. London: Home Office.
19.
Home Office (2009) Home Office Circular 001/2009 - Controlled Drugs: Reclassification of Cannabis. London: Home Office.
20.
House of Commons (2008a) Hansard475(89), 7May. London: House of Commons.
21.
House of Commons (2008b) Hansard482(162), 12November. London: House of Commons.
22.
House of Commons (2009) Communities and Local Government Select Committee – Sixth Report of Session 2008–09: The Balance of Power: Central and Local Government. London: House of Commons.
23.
House of Lords (1953) Hansard182, 20May. London: House of Lords.
24.
HughesG (2007) The Politics of Crime and Community. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
25.
JonesTNewburnT (2007) Policy Transfer and Criminal Justice: Exploring US Influence over British Crime Control Policy. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
26.
KingdonJ (1995) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, 2nd edn.New York: HarperCollins.
27.
LeuwE (1994) Initial construction and development of the official Dutch drug policy. In: LeuwEMarshallI (eds) Between Prohibition and Legalization: The Dutch Experiment in Drug Policy. Amsterdam: Kugler, 23–40.
28.
LoughlinJ (2001) Subnational Democracy in the European Union: Challenges and Opportunities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
MacCounRReuterP (1997) Interpreting Dutch cannabis policy: Reasoning by analogy in the legalization debate. Science278: 47–52.
30.
MatthewsR (2002) Crime and control in late modernity. Theoretical Criminology6(2): 217–226.
31.
MonaghanM (2011) Evidence Versus Politics: Exploiting Research in UK Drug Policy Making?Bristol: Policy Press.
PollittC (2001) Convergence: The useful myth?Public Administration79(4): 933–947.
36.
SayerA (1992) Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach, 2nd edn.London: Routledge.
37.
ShinerM (2015) Drug policy reform and the reclassification of cannabis in England & Wales: A cautionary tale. International Journal of Drug Policy26(7): 696–704.
38.
SosaK (2012) Proceed with Caution: Use of Out-of Court Disposals in England and Wales. London: Policy Exchange.
39.
StensonKEdwardsA (2004) Policy transfer in local crime control: Beyond naïve emulation. In: NewburnTSparksR (eds) Criminal Justice and Political Cultures: National and International Dimensions of Crime Control. Devon: Willan: 209–233.
40.
StevensA (2011) Drugs, Crime and Public Health: The Political Economy of Drug Policy. Oxon: Routledge.
41.
Tweede Kamer (2011a) Vergaderjaar 2010–11, 24 077 (259). The Hague: Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal.
42.
Tweede Kamer (2011b) Vergaderjaar 2011–12, 24 077 (265). The Hague: Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal.
43.
Tweede Kamer (2011c) Vergaderjaar 2011–12, 24 077 (267). The Hague: Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal.
44.
Tweede Kamer (2012) Vergaderjaar 2012–13, 24 077 (293). The Hague: Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal.
45.
UKDPC (UK Drug Policy Commission) (2012) How to Make Drug Policy Better: Key Findings from UKDPC Research into Drug Policy Governance. London: UKDPC.
46.
Van der GouweDEhrlichEVan LaarM (2009) Drug Policies in the Netherlands. Utrecht: Trimbos-Instituut.
47.
Van LaarMVan Ooyen-HoubenM (eds) (2009) Evaluatie van het Nederlandse Drugsbeleid. Utrecht/The Hague: Trimbos-Instituut/WODC.
48.
Van SwaaningenR (2005) Public safety and the management of fear. Theoretical Criminology9(3): 289–305.
49.
WAG (Welsh Assembly Government) (2008) Working Together to Reduce Harm: The Substance Misuse Strategy for Wales 2008-2018. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.
50.
WODC (2013) Het Besloten Club en het Ingezetenencriterium voor Coffeeshops: Evaluatie van de Implementatie en de Uitkomsten in de Periode Mei–November 2012, Tussenrapportage. The Hague: Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek en Documentatiecentrum.
51.
WoutersMBenschopAKorfD (2010) Local politics and retail cannabis markets: The case of Dutch coffeeshops. International Journal of Drug Policy21(4): 315–320.
52.
YinR (2014) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
YoungJ (2002) Searching for a new criminology of everyday life: A review of ‘The Culture of Control’. British Journal of Criminology43(1):228–243.
54.
ZednerL (2002) Dangers of dystopias in penal theory. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies22(2): 341–366.
