Governing drug use through partnerships: Towards a genealogy of government/non-government relations in drug policy

Thomas, Natalie; Bull, Melissa; Dioso-Villa, Rachel; Smith, Catrin

doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.11.002

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It describes past events without explicitly making causal connections of sources and speakers (May, 1993;Mills, 2003;Rabinow, 1984). A genealogy is not a systematic review; rather, it is necessarily selective and partially guided by the researcher's judgment as to what is viewed as important and relevant (Thomas et al, 2016). This means that a genealogy differs from periodical studies of history.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Governance of substance use as a by-product of policing in Norway

Johansen

Debaere

Vandevelde

et al. 2018

Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this article was to study governance of drug use in Norway through a historical account. Method: A genealogy was conducted through the study of documentation and legal texts from the 1600s until contemporary times. Findings: Based on legal texts addressing people using substances (both drugs and alcohol) various strategies for governance of drug use appears. The first section describes the emergence of institutions where people with alcohol problems were confined in a system originating the Dutch discipline houses. The second section describes the poor laws of the 1800s and the practice of the local poorhouses. The third section takes a look at the Vagrancy Act of 1900 and the state-owned labour camp at Opstad. The fourth section discusses the establishment of the sobriety boards and their role in confining alcoholics at cure homes. The fifth section describes developments in post-world-war Norway, with increased attention to illicit substances. Conclusions: The terminology justifying interventions is

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A genealogy aims to critically analyse a contemporary practice, idea, or issue by tracing its historical, social, and political emergence and development (Thomas, Bull, Dioso-Villa, & Smith, 2016). The method focuses on familiarities and contingencies rather than origins.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governance of substance use as a by-product of policing in Norway

Johansen

Debaere

Vandevelde

et al. 2018

Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Australia, the national drug policy of harm minimization derives a socially integrative policy out of risk; anything associated with the pathologization or exclusion of users is neutralized and coercion is minimized (O'Malley, 2012;Thomas et al, 2016). Voluntary participation is preferred and criminal justice, as a consequence, is deployed minimally-typically only as a conduit to treatment or therapeutic practices, rather than a means to punishment or incapacitation (O'Malley, 2012;Thomas et al, 2016). This strategy is adopted not because it is humane or democratic, but because it is shown to be effective in preventing or treating illicit drug use, while actuarial techniques are considered to be counterproductive (O'Malley, 2012).…”

Section: Drug Law Enforcement As Imaginary Drug Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The national drug policy initiated during the Labor Government period (1983)(1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996) was influenced by social democratic principles, which articulated the "third way" (Thomas et al, 2016). This approach was tempered with a more conservative approach during the Liberal Government period (1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007) which was influenced by conservative rhetoric opposing harm reduction objectives.…”

Section: Drug Law Enforcement As Imaginary Drug Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaginary Drug Control and the Failures of Contemporary Australian Drug Policy

Pereira

Scott

Beem

2020

Contemporary Drug Problems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary Australian drug policy is characterized by a tension between punitive law and order responses that invoke the myth of sovereign power and responsibilizing strategies that “(re)moralize” individuals, holding them responsible for their safety, security, and well-being. This article argues that this blending of neoliberal techniques of governance, such as harm minimization, with neoconservative methods of rule typified in prohibitionist policies, presents a paradoxical policy response to illicit drug use. We explore the development and contemporary practice of a dualistic Australian drug policy that, on the one hand, promotes pragmatic interventions based on harm reduction while, on the other, relies on law and order strategies and traditional penal powers to deter illicit drug use. Drawing on Pat Carlen’s concept of imaginary penalities, we argue that this imaginary form of drug control is underpinned largely by symbolic measures that, in attempting to address public demands for safety and security, reproduce a punitive form of governance that fails to achieve its desired outcomes. Using qualitative interview data from a sample of 29 people who used drugs, and 15 professionals working in the drugs field, this article investigates responses to the contemporary governance of illicit drugs in Queensland. Based on the research findings, we argue that the conjoined nature of Australian drugs governance can be understood as imaginary drug control because it constantly recreates the conditions that perpetuate drug-related harm.

show abstract

“…Harm minimization ideology began to gain popularity in some Western neoliberal states in the 1980s (Room & Hall, 2013), as an antithesis or counteraction to the punitive waves of the ‘war on drugs’. There is still ambiguity regarding what harm minimization entails (Miller, 2001); however, it is notable that various non-state sectors and private organizations have formed partnerships with state apparatuses to provide social services and treatment (Thomas, Bull, Dioso-Villa, & Smith, 2016). The criminal justice system remains the pivotal site for drug treatment, and offers various programs to which illicit drug users can be referred for treatment offered by various non-state actors.…”

Section: Theses Of Risk and Risk Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controlling illicit drug users in China: From incarceration to community?

Yuan¹

2019

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managing a population of illicit drug users remains essentially a ‘law and order’ issue for neoliberal societies. There has been a wider disciplinary movement in the control of this population from incarceration to risk management. This paper specifically examines the community rehabilitation program in an urban city in China, in light of the claimed policy change. Using in-depth interviews with illicit drug users, it reveals how state control has been extended over this group. A comparative analysis with drug treatment in the West raises some dissonances through crime control lens. Limitations of this study as well as suggestions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Governing drug use through partnerships: Towards a genealogy of government/non-government relations in drug policy

Cited by 10 publications

References 32 publications

Governance of substance use as a by-product of policing in Norway

Governance of substance use as a by-product of policing in Norway

Imaginary Drug Control and the Failures of Contemporary Australian Drug Policy

Controlling illicit drug users in China: From incarceration to community?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About