{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019943019943019943, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011396011396011397, 'mean_word_length': 5.162280701754386, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparing Drug Policy Windows Internationally

In this article, I compare and contrast policymaking processes in Canada and England and Wales between 1997 and the present day to provide insight into why the Canadian government approved the opening of a downtown Vancouver drug consumption room (DCR) named InSite in 2003, and why the British government has not yet done so. I also shed new light on why, since 2003, subsequent DCRs have not been opened in either Canada or England and Wales. I briefly consider future prospects for DCRs in both places. To accomplish this, I draw on Kingdon’s “Multiple Streams Theory,” which suggests that national government decision makers such as politicians are most likely to enact policy changes when there is an alignment of problems, policy options, and political circumstances. I argue that such conditions existed in Canada but not England and Wales, which helps explain why the Canadian government approved the opening of a DCR but the British government did not. I draw on primary data from national, provincial, and municipal government documents and national and local newspaper articles in both jurisdictions to make my argument, along with secondary data from published literature. In the process, I highlight the strengths and weaknesses of Kingdon’s (1984) work for understanding policy development in the highly controversial area of illicit drug use.