2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2006.01.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Harm reduction by a “user-run” organization: A case study of the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

7
98
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 123 publications
(106 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
7
98
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This supports earlier claims, such as that made by Kerr, Small, Peeace, Douglas, Pierre, and Wood (2006), where peers in the Downtown Eastside were said to have "demonstrated that drug users can organize themselves and make valuable contributions to their community" (67). In addition, some of the peers have extended their activism by voicing concerns about quality of life issues with respect to injection drug users and residents of the community.…”
Section: Activismsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…This supports earlier claims, such as that made by Kerr, Small, Peeace, Douglas, Pierre, and Wood (2006), where peers in the Downtown Eastside were said to have "demonstrated that drug users can organize themselves and make valuable contributions to their community" (67). In addition, some of the peers have extended their activism by voicing concerns about quality of life issues with respect to injection drug users and residents of the community.…”
Section: Activismsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Moreover, here drug user organizations have existed since the mid-1990s, though with rather distinct trajectories. Similar to other social movement organizations, drug user organizations reflect their environment (Kerr et al, 2006). This means that even if the Nordic countries resemble each other when it comes to the welfare system, the drug policies have differed from country to country, providing different opportunities and challenges for drug users who have sought to organize.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…We do not propose to offer a full-blown theoretical argument that gives full credit to the different theoretical stances, but rather to formulate some general lessons or theses concerning the character, the strengths, and the weaknesses of these organizations. The article builds on earlier research on drug user organizations in general and the possibilities and influences they have on society (Anker et al, , 2009Herkt, 1993;Kerr et al, 2006;Mold & Berridge, 2008;Van de Wijngaart, 1991). Earlier studies have been comparative in scope, but only few have been comparing drug user organizations in different countries (Anker, 2008;Crofts, Kaldor, Elford, Wodak, & Kidd, 1993;Friedman et al, 1987).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…See, e.g., Husak (1992 Einstein (in press). See also Crofts and Herkt (1995), Kerr et al (2006), and Hunt, Albert, and Montañés Sánchez (2010 for what in many communities are often claimed to be the deleterious effects of drug use are secondary effects of its criminalization. 3 The argument must be freed from its current social trappings, especially as it can plausibly be argued that greater stigmatization and harm arise from criminalization than from the drug use itself.…”
Section: The Most Fundamental One Concerns Normalizationmentioning
confidence: 96%