Post-retirement enlightenment syndrome: Worthy of investigation.

Post-Retirement Enlightenment Syndrome is a term used by some in illicit drug policy to reflect the experience of having politicians "come out" in favour of drug policy reform only after retirement. To date, the phenomenon has not been examined in any systematic manner. While discussions of the phenomenon on social media tend to be playful, they nevertheless express real frustration with the reluctance of privately supportive sitting politicians and policing officials to speak out in favour of non-punitive and/or harm reduction-oriented policies. In this commentary, we give an overview of the phenomenon of Post-Retirement Enlightenment Syndrome. We argue that these instances of sitting officials speaking out publicly in favour of drug policy reform, as well as instances in which such apparent "enlightenment" is not publicly expressed until after retirement, are potentially highly fruitful areas for investigation. Public positions on drug policy are invariably contoured by conditions of political possibility. We raise the call for both an unpacking and examination of the structural and relational aspects of "political will" and "political courage". Sitting and retired politicians each have a role in the drug policy landscape, whether as lawmakers or as high-profile and often respected commentators. This commentary argues that a more nuanced understanding of the conditions that may support or hinder the expression of public support for drug policy reform by political office bearers, whether sitting or former, has implications for advocates and researchers invested in policy change.

Pandemic policing and the construction of publics: an analysis of COVID-19 lockdowns in public housing.

COVID-19 responses have cast a spotlight on the uneven impacts of public health policy with particular populations or sites targeted for intervention. Perhaps the starkest example in Australia was the 'hard' lockdown of nine public housing complexes in inner-city Melbourne from 4 to 18 July 2020, where residents were fully confined to their homes. These complexes are home to diverse migrant communities and the lockdown drew public criticism for unfairly stigmatising ethnic minorities. This article draws on media articles published during the lockdown and the Victorian Ombudsman's subsequent investigation to explore the implications of broad, top-down public health measures for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities. Drawing on Lea's (2020) conceptualisation of policy ecology, we analyse the lockdown measures and community responses to explore the normative assumptions underpinning health policy mechanisms, constituting 'target populations' in narrow, exclusionary terms. We argue that the lockdown measures and use of police as compliance officers positioned tower residents as risky subjects in risky places. Tracing how such subject positions are produced, and resisted at the grassroots level, we highlight how policy instruments are not neutral interventions, but rather instantiate classed and racialised patterns of exclusion, reinforcing pervasive social inequalities in the name of public health.