Young People, Illicit Drug Use and the Question of Normalization

Abstract

The issues of young people and drug taking have a long history, although recently the topic has been debated more intensely than ever before. Of key importance here has been the dramatic rise in the availability, range and consumption of illicit drugs, a factor that, in part, has been linked to the popularity of dance/club cultures. These changes have been interpreted by some, both within and without academia, as being indicative of a process of the 'normalization' of illicit drug use. This paper reports on qualitative research data that explored young people's youth cultural identi cation and experiences while also enquiring into how such experiences may be related to the use of illicit drugs. This paper critically examines normalization theory and draws attention to weaknesses on both an empirical and a theoretical level. It is suggested in this paper that, as it stands, normalization theory presents an overly simplistic account of young people's drug use. This paper argues instead for a more differentiated understanding of normalization.

Understanding recreational ecstasy use in the United States: A qualitative inquiry

“…By prioritising their responsibilities including employment, education, and family relationships, participants appeared to frame their consumption of ecstasy around these activities and believed their drug use to be another activity that fit into their leisure or recreational time. Accordingly, they did not identify with drug users who are often typified as reckless, irresponsible, or unable to negotiate their existence in mainstream society (Shildrick, 2002;Shiner & Newburn, 1997). Instead, participants' experiences were mirrored in the literature focusing on ecstasy, demonstrating its users to be conscientious and controlled in their patterns of use (Baggott, 2002;Gamble & George, 1997;Hansen, Maycock, & Lower, 2001;Panagopolous & Ricciardelli, 2005;van de Wijngaart, Braam, de, Bruin, Fris, Maalaste, & Verbraeck, 1999).…”

The normalisation thesis – 20 years later

“…The normalisation thesis has been explored by researchers in the UK, in other parts of Europe, Australia, New Zealand and the USA. Some of this work has supported the normalisation thesis or at least elements of it (Bahora, Sterk, & Elifson, 2009;Newcombe, 2007;Taylor, 2000), some has argued that normalised drug use is limited to particular sections of the population (Duff, 2003(Duff, , 2005Holt, 2005;Hutton, 2010;Pearson, 2001), and some has contested it (Blackman, 2007;Gourley, 2004;Shildrick, 2002;Shiner & Newburn, 1997). Further work has focused on differentiated normalisation and reasserted the significance of social class and gender (MacDonald & Marsh, 2002;Measham, 2002;Shildrick, Simpson, & MacDonald, 2007); as well as on the micro-politics of normalisation (Hathaway, Comeau, & Erickson, 2011;Pennay & Moore, 2010;Rodner Sznitman, 2008) and the tensions between agency and structure in drug careers (Measham & Shiner, 2009).…”

Beyond ‘peer pressure’: Rethinking drug use and ‘youth culture’

“…In the first case, it is argued, the theoretical focus of the 'normalisation thesis' -on how individuals make choices about 'risks' in the context of information-rich environments -obscures more fundamental, structural determinants of drug use (MacDonald & Marsh 2002;Shildrick 2002). These determinants include the relative availability and cost of different types of 2 drugs (Gossop, 2000, p.38;Pearson, 1987;Parker, Bakx & Newcombe, 1988;Johnston et al, 2000;MacDonald & Marsh, 2002) as well as traditional patterns of inequality (Shildrick, 2002, p.45).…”