Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

International Journal of Drug Policy 19 (2008) 353358

Commentary

Erasing pleasure from public discourse on illicit drugs:On the creation and reproduction of an absence

y, GPO Box U1987, Perth WA 6845, Australiauly 2007; accepted 17 July 2007

Abstract

In 1988, s in the drugs field was the pathology paradigm and that, as aconsequence lised. As Mugford noted, an understanding of the subjectivemotives for sponse. Twenty years on, it appears that little has changed. Inthis paper, I oing absence of discourses of pleasure in the drugs field. Thepaper is divi drug research as a social field, arguing that power relationsbetween rese searching pleasure does not generate useful forms of researchcapital. Seco ction of a neo-liberal drug-using subject, limits opportunitiesfor consider roader historical and contemporary context for drug research,policy and p the legitimacy granted to particular forms of pleasure in theprivileging o 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Drug use; Discourse; Pleasure; Research; Harm reduction; Bodies

Introducti

In 1988dominantogy paradiof pleasu(Mugford,the subjectan essentiaon, it appe2004 and 2the Reductpleasure i2005 progrthese confetained plea(conducted

Tel.: +61E-mail ad

0955-3959/$doi:10.1016/jon

, sociologist Stephen Mugford argued that theframework in the drugs field was the pathol-gm and that, as a consequence, considerationsre in relation to drug use were marginalised1988). As Mugford noted, an understanding ofive motives for drug use, including pleasure, isl part of any coherent response. Twenty yearsars that little has changed. A scan of the 2001,006 programs of the International Conference forion of Drug-Related Harm reveals no instances ofn the titles of presentations. (The 2002, 2003 andams were not available electronically. I attendedrences and noted two papers in 2005 that con-sure in their titles.) A Google advanced search9/11/2006) yielded the following results:

8 9266 1600; fax: +61 8 9266 1611.dress: D.Moore@curtin.edu.au.

Search term Google hitsDrugs and pleasure 2,030Drug-related harm 151,000Drug benefitsa 1,050,000Drug problems 1,600,000

a A scan of the first several pages of hits suggests that the term drug benefits oftenappears in relation to claims about the properties of pharmaceutical drugs.

A search of several commonly-cited drug journals (conducted 9/11/2006)yielded the following results:Journal (years searched) pleasure in titles

or abstractsharm in titlesor abstracts

Addiction (19972006) 512a 2,151Drug and Alcohol Dependence

(19752006)6 46

Drug and Alcohol Review(19902006)

0 84

International Journal of Drug Policy(19982006)

5 179

a A scan of the first 50 articles suggests that the term pleasure often appearsin studies of alcohol or tobacco use or in neurobiological research rather than indiscussions of the subjective motives for drug use.

see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved..drugpo.2007.07.004David Moore National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University of Technolog

Received 2 April 2007; received in revised form 5 J

ociologist Stephen Mugford argued that the dominant framework, considerations of pleasure in relation to drug use were margina

drug use, including pleasure, is an essential part of any coherent reconsider some of the processes that may have contributed to the ongded into three sections. In the first, following Bourdieu, I focus onarch disciplines work against considerations of pleasure, and that rend, I argue that harm reduction policy and practice, in its constru

ing the role of pleasure in drug use. The final section explores the bractice by considering the discursive formations that contribute tof a civilised body over a grotesque body.

354 D. Moore / International Journal of Drug Policy 19 (2008) 353358

In this paper, I consider some of the processes that mayhave contributed to the ongoing absence of discourses of plea-sure in the drugs field. First, following Bourdieu, I focus ondrug researforces andpower relaconsideratinot generatthat harm rof a neo-liconsideringexplores thdrug researsive formaparticular fbody over

Beforedefining pthe disciplpleasure inor reframiDictionarydefines plethe experiedesirable.evocative dThe Heroin

I murmuThe rushdistant thing. A btowardsA feelinThe feelto a devatop of yoYou wontoo mucyour heakling smstraighttingling,you arelaw.Are youMy chinIm juswonderf

For thepleasure asaction of pwhile, at thhaps evendiscursive

Drug research as a social eld

First, as Stewarts work demonstrates, discussions of plea-are notith dr

itativets, 199rch paug usey the dmacygy and pre

y in todoloer scievolvedvernm

on andusefu

ledgedieu, a

. a netjectivenationtitutiostruc

pital) wofits the relatmolog

ermor

a spaeld oconfi

ucturedergirnts ofsafeguincipleoducts

pplyinworkakers

instituservicgh re, and tles andhat dt pleasblic hch as a social field that is, as a space of socialstruggles (Wacquant, 1989, p. 38) arguing thattions between research disciplines work againstons of pleasure, and that researching pleasure doese useful forms of research capital. Second, I argueeduction policy and practice, in its construction

beral drug-using subject, limits opportunities forthe role of pleasure in drug use. The final section

e broader historical and contemporary context forch, policy and practice by considering the discur-tions that contribute to the legitimacy granted toorms of pleasure in the privileging of a civiliseda grotesque body.proceeding, it is also worth acknowledging thatleasure is not straightforward. As I show below,ines involved in researching drug use define

different ways, when they are not ignoringng it as something else. The Oxford English(http://dictionary.oed.com; retrieved 27/11/2006)asure as the condition or sensation induced bynce or anticipation of what is felt to be good orDesirable sensations are central in the followingescription of drug-related pleasure from StewartsUsers (1996, p. 36):

red a wordless response as the smack came on.is so hard to describe. Its like waiting for a

understorm to move overhead. A strange forebod-izarre, awesome calm. Its in your blood, movingyour brain, relentlessly; unstoppable, inevitable.g starts to grow like a rumble from the horizon.ing swells, surging, soaring, crashing, screamingstating crescendo. The gear smashes against theur skull with the power of an uncapped oil well.t be able to bear the intense ecstasy. It is all

h. Your body may fall apart. The rock that is ind shatters harmlessly into a million sparkling, tin-ithereens. They tumble at a thousand miles an hourback down over your body, warming, insulating,denying all pain, fear and sadness. You are stoned,high. You are above and below reality and the

OK? he asked again.was on my chest, my eyes closed, I suppose.

t great, I murmured. Im fine. Its fantastic. Itsul. I want to do this forever . . ..

purposes of this paper, I define drug-relateddesirable bodily experience arising from the inter-harmacology, subjectivity, culture and history,e same time, acknowledging the difficulty, per-the impossibility, of constructing an analytical,account of such corporeal experience.

sure

use w

QualCrofresea

of drularllegiticholoby anrioritmethgreathas eof goficati

AknowBour

. .

obmiinstheca

prtivho

Furth

Asa thestrun

patoprpr

Aa neticy manddrugthroulenceenab

Wabouits pucompletely absent from research accounts of drugug users themselves articulating such discourses.researchers (e.g., Fitzgerald, Louie, Rosenthal, &9; MacLean, 2005), reporting the views of theirrticipants, have also written about the pleasures. But these are subjugated knowledges partic-iscourses of drug users that struggle for equalwith the dominant discourses of medicine, psy-d epidemiology. This domination is underpinnedserved through greater funding, numerical supe-erms of researchers and projects, and the use ofgical and analytical approaches that are accordedntific credibility. More broadly, this dominationas part of the development of neo-liberal forms

entality involving the expert surveillance, classi-regulation of populations.

l way of thinking about subjugated/dominants is to see drug research as a social field. For

social field is:

work . . . of objective relations between positionsly defined, in their existence and in the deter-s they impose upon their occupants, agents orns, by their present and potential situation . . . inture of the distribution of species of power (orhose possession commands access to the specific

at are at stake in the field, as well as by their objec-ion to other positions (domination, subordination,y, etc.). (Wacquant, 1989, p. 39)

e:

ce of potential and active forces, the field is alsof struggles aimed at preserving or transformingguration of these forces. Concretely, the field as aof objective relations of force between positions

ds and guides the strategies whereby the occu-these positions seek, individually or collectivelyard or improve their position, and to impose theof hierarchization most favourable to their own

. (Wacquant, 1989, p. 40)

g this frame, the drugs field is constituted throughof positions occupied by individuals (e.g., pol-, practitioners, researchers, community members)tions (e.g., federal, state and local government,es, research centres). These positions are relatedlations of domination, subordination or equiva-hrough struggles over a distribution of power thatreproduces access to scarce resources.

o the dominant research disciplines have to sayure and drugs? Epidemiological work reflectingealth origins, the duty of modern citizens to be

D. Moore / International Journal of Drug Policy 19 (2008) 353358 355

health-promoting and risk-averse, and the role of institutionsand governments in encouraging self-care tends to focuson quantity and frequency of drug use and related harms oron risk faccomes of drrisks/harmsceivably ina utilitarianbodily expe(1987, p. 6of utilitaria

. . . utilitbenefit,these areequatablof utilitamade frowith theneeds, wwas larg

Furthermrisks as ifbe thought

Psycholdrugs. Accthe psychotopic . . ., a(Russell, 2tive emotioIn these diparison wibecause it c161). In neuactions of pspatial procentific foc1979), dopity (Martin2001). Suctruths aboupower (Dr

A recogof the resofunding anaccess to tdemiologyprofits ofinstitutionaversities mThere is incnationally ctenders antralias Natlimited fun

to fund studies of pleasure. Drug research must compete forthese scarce resources with heart disease and cancer, so thereis a vested interest in focusing on, and possibly amplifying,

relatee of fdingsoverntitativeachessearchate anis lik

notherlicy a

rch neof evems,theoreded lrtanceexistet pleast takinart folnot serienceese pasure

arn a r

fessio

subjec

e secngoining onr, 200constrtunitialley ais sileuse foneedtheytes wns onalley at ratio

ed outn anaer poice coh-consetermto mitors. More recently, the more neutral term out-ug use has been used, thus encompassing both theand the benefits of drug use, which could con-

clude its pleasures. But the term benefits importsfocus, which removes pleasure from the realm ofrience. This may be the result of what Campbell

0) has termed the original careless formulationnism:

y is described as that property which producesadvantage, pleasure, good, or happiness. Sincevery different concepts (or, at least, the third is note with the first two), the subsequent developmentrianism required that some selection should bem this list, and . . . the good became identifiednecessary, that which served to meet human

ith the consequence that the concept of pleasureely ignored.

ore, the term benefits is usually coupled withto ensure that benefits, including pleasures, cannotof outside their relationship to risks.ogical work also rarely focuses on pleasure andording to the Introduction to a special issue onlogy of pleasure, pleasure is the most neglectedt least in relation to claims about its importance003). Psychology transforms pleasure into posi-n, impulse driven behaviour and hedonic tone.scourses, pleasure is seen as frivolous in com-th more pressing health issues, or unscientific,annot be quantified (Coveney & Bunton, 2003, p.ropsychology, psychiatry and medicine, the inter-harmacology with historical, cultural, social andesses are eschewed in favour of a reductive sci-

us on sensation-seeking syndrome (Zuckerman,amine release (Keane, 1999) and neuronal activ--Soelch, Leenders, Chevalley, Missimer, & Kunig,h dominant knowledges reinforce unassailablet drugs beyond or separate from ideology oriscoll, 2000, p. 8).nition of power relations forces a considerationurces at stake in the drug research field such asd impact on policy and practice and who hashem. The capital possessed by psychology, epi-and medicine allows them better access to thesethe field. Struggles over funding arise in a widerl research landscape in Australia in which uni-ust position themselves as research-intensive.reasing pressure to generate external funding fromompetitive research bodies, government research

d consultancies. Health agencies such as Aus-ional Health and Medical Research Council haveds, often supporting priority areas, so are unlikely

drug-degreof finand gquanapproof reregulthink

Aon poresea

riseprobltive,accor

impoof itsabouof noStewdoesexpe

Thof plenot eis pro

The

Ththe oDrawFrasein itsoppoOMtiondrugtermThis,operaoptioOMis thadesir

Aanothpracthealtself-dorderd harms. Government tenders may also entail aunder control over the analysis and dissemination(Miller, Moore, & Strang, 2006). Health funds

ment departments are also more comfortable withmethods and analysis, or with rapid assessment

, and their timelines are more suited to these types. Aware of these limitations, researchers self-d strategise through second-guessing what they

ely to be funded.important area for drug researchers is their impactnd practice. In order to have maximum impact,eds to focus on assessing or reducing harm. Theidence-based policy and practice also createsas accounts of pleasure produced by interpre-tically driven research, or by drug users, may beess weight. In this climate, it is hard to sell the

of studying pleasure despite implicit acceptancence. And there is also a professional risk in writingure, of being identified as pro-drug or accusedg seriously drug-related problems. Interestingly,lows the passage cited earlier by stating that sheek to advertise a deadly pursuit but to record anthat is attractive.

rocesses contribute to the erasing or marginalisingin research accounts. Writing about pleasure doesesearcher much in the way of research capital, so itnally safer to accept the focus on risks and harms.

t of harm reduction

ond set of processes that may have contributed tog absence of pleasure centres on harm reduction.

ideas developed more fully elsewhere (Moore &6), I argue that harm reduction policy and practice,ruction of a neo-liberal drug-using subject, limitses for considering the role of pleasure in drug use.nd Valverde (2004) have noted that harm reduc-nt on pleasure there are instead references tor personal and social needs (as they note, the

s is redolent of necessity and thus compulsion).argue, is very puzzling because harm reductionith a rational actor, who freely selects behaviouralthe basis that they deliver more pleasure than pain.nd Valverde suggest that one possible explanationnal choice models engineer choice in favour of

comes in this case, the non-use of drugs.lysis of the politics of harm reduction offersssible explanation. Harm reduction policy andnstructs a particular form of drug-using subject acious citizen capable of rational decision-making,ination, self-regulation and risk management innimise drug-related harm. This neo-liberal vision

356 D. Moore / International Journal of Drug Policy 19 (2008) 353358

of the drug-using subject is a positive development in thesense that it attempts to dislodge previous understandingsof drug users as irrational, and it accords them the statusand attriburacies. Neoempowerindrug-relate

But therject obscurfrom inequprevent druof their lifeing a neo-ldo not sitpleasure, dstructuralispeople maytives becauor anger, .from other(Lupton, 19

Resistanatives . .the uncoare repreexternalnon-con

reproduc

Recent(SIF) provWood, 200stated thatrience heavthose whooverdose:

Same ththere ensome nu

and shitright? [Yenjoy my

Hence, drucumstancesof the desir

Howeveas desire, pusers is alstion of drudesires andemploymenanswer to wsubject or r

best advances the interests of drug users, but the adoption of aneo-liberal subject in harm reduction policy and practice mayhave erased as a legitimate activity consideration of pleasure

ts purs

es, ple

e thirrasingWestelas (1iderMy s

e Enlil relatd hiera; see athe chrban phite, 1legingof proentallns ted bybody we itassoc

ensuou

scipling (Corse an

ast, thure, on, 20ealm,s [r]e, p. 17heresque aiberalpatib

pting,dersonorceure sorst pldersoentityct, isand fr). Addhe caperal a

ted wites granted to other citizens of neo-liberal democ--liberal subjectivity may also be experienced asg by drug users, thus enabling them to deal withd problems and services more effectively.e is also a downside. Adopting a neo-liberal sub-es the material constraints on practice that ariseitable social and political structures. It may alsog users from developing a more politicised viewsituation. Most importantly for this paper, adopt-

iberal subject displaces from view attributes thatcomfortably with this version of the subject esire, emotion. Applying Luptons (1995) post-t critique of health promotion, we could argue thatresist, negotiate or ignore harm reduction impera-se of a conscious sense of frustration, resentment. . [or] because they derive greater pleasure . . .practices of the self (1995, p. 133). Furthermore95, p. 156):

ce to and negotiation of [harm reduction] imper-. may also originate at the emotional level ornscious, places where desire, fear and pleasuressed, emerge and are constantly in tension withgovernment imperatives, or at the level of the

scious, where bodily practices are adopted anded as part of the habits of everyday life.

research on Vancouvers safer injection facilityides some relevant data (Kerr, Small, Moore, &7). While supportive of the facility, some SIF usersthey did not always use it if their aim was to expe-y intoxication, as SIF staff would typically rouseappeared to be copping a nod in order to avoid

ing when youre on the nod, and youre sittingjoying your high, and all of a sudden youve gotrse, Hey! You okay? You all right? Shaking youlike that. Like, a lot of people take offence to that,eah]. Yeah, fuck, Im all right . . . cant I evenfucking high?

g users did not use the SIF in precisely those cir-that placed them at high risk of overdose, because

e to experience acute pleasure.r, to insist on the incorporation of such attributesleasure and emotion in any form of subject for drugo extremely risky. It may reinforce the stigmatisa-g users as irrational and animated by compulsivepleasures, and further entrench discrimination int, health and welfare contexts. There is no clearhich of these options embracing the neo-liberalejecting it in favour of alternative formulations

and i

Bodi

Ththe eraryDougthe wated.in thsociateste1986withthe u& Wprivibodyscendregiodireclowlesquwere

the sbe dilutinpervecontrpleasBunttive rIt wa2003

Wgrotethe lincomcorru

Mantive fpleasthe fi(Manof idaddiomyp. 49and tof libequauit.

asure and drugs

d set of processes that may have contributed toof pleasure concerns historical and contempo-

rn discourses on bodies, pleasure and drugs. As986) has noted, scientific work is not isolated fromcultural and social contexts in which it is situ-tarting point is the historical process, beginningghtenment, whereby bodies, subjects, spaces andions were increasingly constructed through con-rchies of high and low (Stallybrass & White,lso Elias, 2000). High discourses were associatedurch, the state, the university; low discourses withoor, the marginalised, the colonised (Stallybrass986, p. 4). A central theme in this struggle was theof high representations of the bourgeois, liberalgressive rationalism an ordered, classical, tran-y individualist body which prioritised the upperthe head, the spirit, reason and which wasrationality. By contrast, in the high discourse, theas deemed to be grotesque, sensual, carniva-

was erotic, licentious, physical. Grotesque bodiesiated with carnal pleasures which emerged froms body a vulgar, volatile body that refuse[d] toed, was highly disordered, dangerous and pol-

veney & Bunton, 2003, p. 169) and unpredictable,d risky (Coveney & Bunton, 2003, p. 171). Bye liberal body was associated with disciplinedpleasure that has been rationalized (Coveney &03, p. 170), emerging from the verbal and cogni-to be reflected on as aesthetic, civilized pleasure.asoned, reasonable and safe (Coveney & Bunton,1).do illicit drugs fit in this struggle between thend the (neo-)liberal body? Illicit drugs threatenbody and its disciplined pleasures. They are

le with rationality and discipline contaminating,seducing and destroying the will (Keane, 2002;, 2005, p. 38). They are a powerful and destruc-(Keane, 1999, p. 64) and present a promise ofpotent, so alluring, that it tricks the subject in

ace, then traps them and finally entombs themn, 2005, p. 44). Drug possession leads to lossand agency; the drug user, most specifically thea threat to the modern liberal ideology of auton-eedom (Keane, 2002, pp. 34; Manderson, 2005,iction is seen as depriving a person of free willacity for autonomous choice both key attributesctors (Keane, 2002). In particular, addiction is

th disorder, fragmentation and self-destruction. It

D. Moore / International Journal of Drug Policy 19 (2008) 353358 357

undermines the reason and rationality necessary to practicedisciplined pleasure. Drugs represent illusory pleasures thatlead to compromised will in the form of craving (Keane,1999). In tof disciplinestingly, wliberal bodisants are po

My firstbodies conin an AustAge (broaan extract d

Its cheap, higmethamphethe minds a

Ice is filling ealarm of doTheyre thin my life heroin seem

Four CornersMatthew Ca netherwothemselves

This tribe of jstay manicacrash and eover again.

Were the frican barelywithout ice. . . who kn

Lenore boasShe obsessIts her wayher from us

Another frienpicks constto be livingcommon am

(http://www.aABC; retrie

In the tinstances oemergencyuser who dextract andfied above:as dangerofragmentat

My secobodies con(1997) arguare deniedpimp, whivictims ofand much sresent wom

and sexual depravity. Although she notes that drugs haveoften been a vehicle for articulating profound social anx-ieties, including the despoiled or hypersexual woman,

hat wdiseasmporer, 19ypothchemis disccomek and, dru5), [cs dickowevee discofromlbeit l. Rom

natinginiste of dpursuone c

xplorm andd to ction ow ex

alley &e moham (glish

to comhedonuse oc

imits,ationa-outecessa

deredty, ansum

cultuof au

2132is mags assque bich dpatibthrea

ure vider ant queshis view, drugs lead away from valorised formsed pleasure to produce grotesque bodies. Inter-

hereas illicit drugs are positioned as corrupters ofes, medically prescribed drugs such as antidepres-sitioned as restorers of liberal bodies.example of the discourse on grotesque, drugged

cerns the methamphetamine skater, as depictedralian current affairs program entitled The Icedcast by the ABC, 20/3/2006). Below I reproduceescribing the program on the ABC website:

hly addictive and ultra-powerful. Ice, or crystaltamine, is now more popular than heroin, playing havoc withnd bodies of nearly 50,000 Australians.mergency wards with psychotic, dangerous patients, to thectors who thought theyd seen everything.e most out of control, violent human beings I have ever seenand Ive been around for a long time, says one. It makeslike the really good old days.

goes to the heart of this destructive new epidemic. Reporterarney takes his camera intorld inhabited by hardcore ice addicts or skaters as they call who live for their next hit.unkies roams the inner city, scoring and shooting up. Theylly high for up to a week, without food or sleep. Finally, theyat, before the welfare cheque arrives and the cycle starts all

nge-dwellers, says Mick, whose veins are so wrecked hefind a place to inject. His mate Mattie cant imagine a life: It just seems to find me, its like everywhere I go, its thereows whats gonna happen in 10 years time mate?ts 23 personalities, each with its own name.ively sorts through rubbish for days on end when shes on ice.

of making order out of her chaos. Asked what would stoping ice, she replies: Death.d, John, is covered in scabs. Heantly at his skin to rid himself of ice bugs that he imaginesinside him, the result of a bad batch of ice. His delusion isong ice addicts.

bc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1593168.htm; 2007ved 8/11/2006, emphasis added)

elevised program, Ice is also linked with otherf the grotesque body such as the hypersexualpatient who masturbates for 16 hours and a drugiscusses injecting Ice into his penis. The websiteprogram inscribes several of the themes identi-illicit drugs as threats to autonomy and freedom;us, powerful forces; as producing disorder andion; and as polluting.nd example of discourses of grotesque, druggedcerns the hypersexual crack whore. Maheres that one of the ways in which women drug users

agency is through the discourse of crack-pipe-as-ch positions female crack users as overdeterminedpharmacology (Maher, 1997, p. 8). The mediaocial science literature, according to Maher, rep-en crack users as prone to violence, immorality,

and tous,

conte(Mahual hwithin thifor inof risAIDSp. 19glas

Habovawaying, adrugsorigiless sriskswhotakeself-eitalislinkesumpto neOM

ThMeasof Enshiftlateddrugtive lrecre

timeout nconsisocieist coand asense

pp. 3Th

drugrotein whincomegorypleasdisormighomens bodies have often been seen as danger-ed, and polluted, their sexualized status withinary drug discourse warrants special consideration97, pp. 194195). She focuses on the hypersex-esis, in which crack use is graphically equatedcally induced sexual slavery. Women crack users,ourse, respond indiscriminately to opportunitiesgeneration. They are inscribed in a discoursecontagion and readily positioned as vectors of

g use, and moral contamination (Maher, 1997,]orrupted and polluted by their passions for the (Maher, 1997, p. 194).r, as Valverde (2002) has noted, whereas in theurse, excessive use of dangerous drugs leadstruth and rationality, there is another longstand-ess prominent, discourse on bodies, pleasure andanticism, the artistic and intellectual movementin the late eighteenth century, accorded drugs a

r, even a valuable position. In this discourse, therugs could be managed by self-governing userse occasional civilised pleasures. Drugs couldloser to truth, could reveal, through hedonistication, the real, authentic self, buried beneath cap-social convention. This ethic, over time, becameommodity consumption and pleasures. The con-f pleasurable commodities became an avenue

periences and new identities (Campbell, 1987;Mugford, 1991).

st recent expression of this view is offered by2004). She argues that the normalised drug useyouth is not pathological but part of a broadermodified pleasure in the leisure sphere a calcu-ism or controlled loss of control. This form ofcurs within temporal, spatial, social and consump-and expresses a rational cost-benefit analysis inl drug use (Measham, 2004, p. 319). It allows arelease from work and other responsibilities with-rily interfering with them. Such drug use can beas both problem and solution in contemporary

s both a reaction to and expression of capital-er society. Where there is ontological insecurityre of control, reflexive risk-calculation allows atonomy and a form of escape (Measham, 2004,2).y be a period, then, where the dominant discoursecorrupters of rationality, drugs as producers ofodies is being challenged by another discourserug use and disciplined pleasure are not seen asle. The discourse of normalisation poses a cat-t the pursuit of disciplined and commodified

a substances that are associated with irrationality,d fragmentation. Although, like Holt (2005), wetion its valorisation of sensible and strategic use

358 D. Moore / International Journal of Drug Policy 19 (2008) 353358

and, following Lupton, query its promotion of neo-liberalnorms and the regulation of unruly bodies, which mightfurther stigmatise those unable or unwilling to adopt such dis-ciplined practices, the normalisation discourse does highlightthe cultural links between drugs, pleasure and capitalist con-sumer society. It exposes a fundamental and ongoing refusalby the drugs field to accept the close interweaving of druguse and contemporary forms of culture an ongoing inabil-ity to genuinely step outside the pathology paradigm. Makingdrugs and pleasure more visible might be a first step towardscreating a discursive space in which, as Driscoll (2000, p. ix)has argued in the US context, we can construct other dis-courses about drugs [and, we might add, about drug users]that will not produce the damaging consequences that we arecurrently experiencing.

Acknowled

The Nating from thand Ageingees and co-comments

Reference

Campbell, C.sumerism

Coveney, J., &cations fo

Douglas, M. (Paul.

Driscoll, L. (2drug disco

Elias, N. (200Fitzgerald, J.

ing of theProblems,

Holt, M. (20ResearchRetrievedau/pdf%2

Keane, H. (1999). Adventures of the addicted brain. Australian FeministStudies, 14(29), 6376.

Keane, H. (2002). Whats wrong with addiction? Melbourne: MelbourneUniversity Press.

Kerr, T., Small, W., Moore, D., & Wood, E. (2007). A micro-environmentalintervention to reduce the harms associated with drug-related overdose:Evidence from the evaluation of Vancouvers safer injection facility.International Journal of Drug Policy, 18(1), 3745.

Lupton, D. (1995). The imperative of health: Public health and the regulatedbody. London: Sage.

MacLean, S. (2005). It might be a scummy-arsed drug but its a sick buzz:Chroming and pleasure. Contemporary Drug Problems, 32(2), 295318.

Maher, L. (1997). Sexed work: Gender, race and resistance in a Brooklyndrug market. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Manderson, D. (2005). Possessed: Drug policy, witchcraft and belief. Cul-tural Studies, 19(1), 3663.

Martin-Soelch, C., Leenders, K. L., Chevalley, A.-F., Missimer, J., & Kunig,G. (2001). Reward mechanisms in the brain and their role in depen-dence: Evidence from neurophysiological and neuroimaging studies.Brain Research Reviews, 36, 139149.

Measham, F. (2004). The decline of ecstasy, the rise of binge drinking andpersis

, P., Monding bctor? In, D., &drug-u

cial Scird, S.integra

d Newgust 22

lley, P.,dities:

75.lley, P.,pleasuciologyll, J. A.1165.brass, P.ndon: Mrt, T. (1de, M. (d ethicaant, L.

erre Borman, Mousal. Hgements

ional Drug Research Institute receives core fund-e Australian Government Department of Health. I thank Suzanne Fraser, two anonymous refer-editors Martin Holt and Carla Treloar for helpfulon earlier drafts.

s

(1987). The romantic ethic and the spirit of modern con-. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Bunton, R. (2003). In pursuit of the study of pleasure: Impli-r health research and practice. Health, 7(2), 161179.1986). How institutions think. London: Routledge and Kegan

000). Reconsidering drugs: Mapping Victorian and modernurses. New York: Palgrave.0). The civilizing process (Revised ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.L., Louie, R., Rosenthal, D., & Crofts, N. (1999). The mean-rush for initiates to injecting drug use. Contemporary Drug26(3), 481504.

05). Young people and illicit drug use in Australia. SocialIssues Paper 3 (National Centre in HIV Social Research).

21st December 2006 from http://nchsr.arts.unsw.edu.0reports/SRIP03.pdf.

theMiller

fuse

MooretheSo

Mugfoan

an

AuOMa

mo

49OMa

ofSo

Russe16

StallyLo

StewaValver

an

WacquPi

Zuckeartence of pleasure. Probation Journal, 51(4), 309326.ore, D., & Strang, J. (2006). The regulation of research by

odies: An emerging ethical issue for the alcohol and other drugternational Journal of Drug Policy, 17(1), 1216.Fraser, S. (2006). Putting at risk what we know: Reflecting onsing subject in harm reduction and its political implications.ence and Medicine, 62(12), 30353047.(1988). Pathology, pleasure, prot and the state: Towardsted theory of drug use. Paper presented at the Australian

Zealand Society of Criminology Annual Conference, Sydney,.& Mugford, S. (1991). The demand for intoxicating com-Implications for the War on Drugs. Social Justice, 18(4),

& Valverde, M. (2004). Pleasure, freedom and drugs: The usesre in liberal governance of drug and alcohol consumption., 38(1), 2542.(2003). The return of pleasure. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2),

, & White, A. (1986). The politics and poetics of transgression.ethuen.

996). The heroin users. London: Pandora.2002). Experience and truthtelling: Intoxicated autobiographyl subjectivity. Outlines, 1, 318.D. (1989). Towards a reflexive sociology: A workshop with

urdieu. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 2663.. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of

illsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Erasing pleasure from public discourse on illicit drugs: On the creation and reproduction of an absenceIntroductionDrug research as a social fieldThe subject of harm reductionBodies, pleasure and drugsAcknowledgementsReferences