Performing the evidence-based drug policy paradigm

Through the lens of performance, this paper critically examines how “evidence” and the “evidence-based policy” paradigm are constituted in drug policy processes, enacted through the telling of policy stories. I argue that policy stories do not simply describe the drug policy process, but rather frame the notion of “evidence” and “evidence-based policy” in particular ways. Drawing on two Australian case studies and interviews with policy makers, advocates, researchers, and clinicians involved in the establishment of harm reduction programs to extend distribution of injecting equipment through peer networks and make naloxone available for administration by overdose witnesses, I ask: What do participants’ accounts of drug policy perform? And what might this imply? Through this analysis of participants’ accounts, I argue that what we call “evidence” is not fixed, but rather constituted by specific performances and practices. I suggest that these performances of the evidence-based drug policy paradigm are important, as they work to make and sustain (or, at times, interfere with) a set of assumptions about knowledge and rationales for policy action. This, in turn, raises questions about how the evidence-based drug policy endeavor might be reconsidered and remade in other ways.