Shadow Committees: On “Drug User Voice,” Representation, and Mobilization in a Norwegian Drug Policy Reform

Abstract

Until recently, Norway remained immovable on its conservative policy that illegal drug use is a crime. In 2018, the Health Minister appointed an inquiry commission to design a less restrictive drug policy, which included two “drug user representatives.” But the Minister’s choices for these posts met massive dissatisfaction from some drug users who contended that the representatives “are not real drug users” and do not “speak for” nor “act on the behalf” of their experiences and opinions. They mobilized to establish an alternative organization, the Shadow Committee, to propose a drug policy reform shaped by “the user voices” and “not polluted by political compromises.” Yet, while performing a labor of difference, this committee, too, became caught in conflicting landscapes of representation with some members contesting strategic solidarity. Based on this case, and an ethnographic fieldwork among the protesters, this article investigates the concept of representation as understood, contested and applied by “drug users.” Exploring how they relate to “user voices” and question the authenticity of some of “user representatives,” I highlight how changing political landscapes affect understandings of representation and shape political, individual and collective forms of involvement. I draw on Pitkin’s political philosophy and apply the classical categorization of political representation to suggest reconsidering the governing assumptions regarding “user representatives” that increasingly inform drug and treatment policies in Norway. I ask if the concept of representation itself may be a barrier to meaningful involvement.

Warriors against the ‘War on Drugs’: Lay experts in Norwegian drug policy

“…Moreover, as argued by Madden et al (2021) as well, our findings suggest that drugusing identities emerge as heterogeneous, multiple and complex, and to a large degree they seem to be developed throughout the political processes (see also Bartoszko, 2021;Fraser et al, 2018), as you would expect in a policy area where interests are not crystallized and consolidated at the outset (Holst and Langvatn, 2021). In our study, some lay experts were regarded as more credible than others and, accordingly, were more likely to be successful in pursuing their approach and views.…”

“…The first Norwegian DUOs emerged in the 1990s, in relation to the first methadone trials in Oslo (Bartoszko, 2021). However, most of these organizations lived only a few years (Frank et al, 2012).…”

Pathways to Drug Dealing in the Middle and Upper Classes: Early Marginalization, Relative Disadvantage and Countercultural Opposition

“…Harry and Oliver worked actively to better the conditions of users of medical marihuana in Norway. Others, like Matthew, joined user organizations, and several participants wrote chronicles on drug-related issues, reflecting the increasing political activity among people using drugs and those in drug user organizations in Norway (Bartoszko 2021). Their overall suspicion of social norms and laws around cannabis framed its use as a health issue, sometimes implicit in talk of 'it just being a plant' and 'natural' .…”

The Participation of People in Vulnerable Situations in Interest Organisations: A Qualitative Study of Representatives Views

“…Thus, people in interest organisations may be perceived as unrepresentative, atypical, or inauthentic because of their methods of engagement (Barnes, 1999;Beresford & Campbell, 1994;Martin, 2008a), and professionals in health and welfare services might question whether such individuals have a collective or individual perspective (Mossberg, 2020). Furthermore, people with lived experiences of using public services may perceive the representatives as, therefore, not speaking on their behalf and not viewing them as real users (Bartoszko, 2021).…”