LAUSR

Calls for “evidence-based policy” and greater community “participation” are often heard in the drug policy field. Both movements are in different ways concerned with the same questions about how “drug problems” ought to be governed and the place of “expertise” and “engagement” in democratic societies. However, these calls rely on the assumption that knowledges, publics, expertise, and issues of concern are fixed and stable, waiting to be addressed or called to action, thus obscuring ontological questions about what “participation” (be that lay or expert) may do or produce. There has been limited research in the drugs field that has taken “participation” as an object of study in itself and through critical examination attempted to open up new possibilities for its remaking. In this article, we draw on science and technology studies scholarship that has sought to illuminate the relations between public deliberation and government decision-making in public affairs involving technical claims and the generative capacity of such engagement (including for democracy itself). We describe various rationales for participation and examples of experiments that have sought to remake participatory processes in other policy domains. This literature provides fruitful ground for a reengagement with (and possibly a reconfiguration of) “evidence-based policy” or community “participation” in drug policy. Through this exploration, we hope to recast and more sensitively articulate the concept of “participation” in deliberations about public affairs involving technical claims in drug policy, thus opening up possibilities for experiments and practices that redistribute expertise, “slow down” reasoning, attend to emergent publics, and disrupt consensual claims as to “what counts” and what does not.