David Brewster

This article uses the concept of the “negotiated order” as developed by McAra and McVie to focus on the role and nature of the “family order” in shaping the initiation of methamphetamine use in Japan. Presenting empirical qualitative data from multiple life-story interviews with 11 men with a history of methamphetamine use, the findings demonstrate that while there were variegated paths that led to initiation of use, a common factor was family breakdown and exclusion. Given the “group-oriented” nature of social organization and relations in Japan and the risks emanating from marginalization from “insider” groups, understanding the importance of the ways in which the ascription and negotiation of identities within and around the family can lead to initiation in a severely stigmatized and criminalized activity in this cultural context provides useful lessons for thinking about formal and informal responses to illegal drugs.

<title>Abstract</title> Theories about crime control in Japan have largely been based around two opposing traditions. On the one hand, cultural explanations have emphasized the exceptional attributes of Japanese social relations that contribute towards shaming and re-integrative processes. On the other hand, more recent explanations assert that Japanese crime control is converging with other countries, particularly towards penal populism. Both approaches tend to reduce explanations to a monolithic characterization that disguises variegation within Japan. Through considering the governance of illegal drug use and the Kamagasaki area of Osaka, a ‘geo-historical’ perspective is advocated to better capture the complexity and contradictions of globalizing processes and social culture and their resulting manifestations in crime control within contemporary Japan.

The two reclassifications of cannabis in England &amp Wales in 2004 and 2009 have been subjected to a series of academic analyses which have largely been centred on either the relationship to evidence, or in terms of the implications and realities of policing and health under the changes. However, despite the wealth of attention on this area, there have been relatively few attempts to understand these policy movements through broader criminological theoretical frameworks. One recent exception is Shiner's (2015) utilisation of Garland's (2001) concept of 'structured ambivalence’. This paper seeks to test this application through drawing upon an alternative source of evidence, namely, a series of ‘elite’ qualitative interviews, and using Kingdon's (1995) Multiple Streams model to make sense of the policy processes. In doing so, it largely corroborates Shiner's conclusions whilst also further illuminating particular agentic aspects and their intertwining with other structural and cultural forces which led to the reclassifications. These findings demonstrate the value of triangulating evidential sources and advances knowledge about the role of individuals in pursuing policy agendas within a broader shifting political climate. This provides greater scope to further test and understand how structured ambivalence manifests itself in other cultural contexts and policy domains.