Medically supervised injecting centers, or drug consumption rooms are officially sanctioned places where people can inject or smoke illegal drugs in hygienic conditions and under supervision. Their ostensible purposes are to protect the health of drug users and contain the nuisance potential of open drug markets. This article argues that the debates and arguments supporting the establishment and existence of medically supervised injecting centers follow four interweaving narratives. These narratives can be characterized as (1) Caring and humanitarian (2) Elimination of public nuisance (3) Governance of the drug-using subject (4) Neo-liberal, utilitarian, and bureaucratic. These narratives alternatively combine and oppose each other. This means that the analysis of the benefits and problems with such initiatives depends on the perspective of the actors involved and the claims made for their effectiveness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BessantJ. (2003). Precursors to a media frenzy: Supervised chroming. young people in care and the Victorian government's drug policy,Youth Studies Australia,22 (3), 11–17.
2.
BuntonR. (2001). Knowledge, embodiment and neo-liberal drug policy,Contemporary Drug Problems,28, 221–243.
3.
ClarkeH. (2001). Some economics of safe injecting rooms,The Australian Economic Review,34 (1), 53–63.
4.
CummingsL., (2006). The Cross stripped and dying,Daily Telegraph (Sydney), April 21, 2006.
5.
FischerB., TurnbullS., PolandB. & HaydonE. (2004). Drug use, risk and urban order: Examining supervised injection sites (SISs) as “governmentality”,International Journal of Drug Policy,15, 357–365.
6.
HedrichD. (2004). European Report on Drug Consumption Rooms.Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
7.
Independent Working Group (2006). The Report of the Independent Working Group on Drug Consumption Rooms, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. www.jrf.org.uk (accessed June 10, 2006).
8.
KemmesiesU. E. (1999). The Open Drug Scene and the Safe Injection Room Offers in Frankfurt Am Main, Final Report, INDRO, Germany. www.indro-online.de/injection_room.htm (accessed June 10, 2006).
9.
KimberJ., DolanK., Van BeekI., HedrichD. & ZurholdH. (2003). Drug consumption facilities: An update since 2000,Drug and Alcohol Review,22, 227–233.
10.
KublerD. & WaltiS. (2001). Drug policy-making in metropolitan areas: Urban conflicts and governance,International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,25 (1), 35–54.
11.
LinnellG. (1998). A new fix on drugs,The Age (Melbourne), June 22, p. 11.
12.
MercerN. (2005). Why Kings Cross needs a quick fix: Residents say only immediate action can save the famous suburb from the drug dealers and users,Sunday Telegraph (Sydney), November 13, p. 20.
13.
MillerP. (2001). A critical review of the harm minimization ideology in Australia,Critical Public Health,11 (2), 167–178.
14.
MoodyR. (1998). Purple America,New York: Back Bay Books.
15.
MSIC Evaluation Committee2003. Final Report on the Evaluation of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, Sydney.
16.
O'MalleyP. & ValverdeM. (2004). Pleasure, freedom and drugs: The uses of “pleasure” in liberal governance of drug and alcohol consumption,Sociology,38 (1), 25–42.
17.
O'MalleyP. (1996). Post-social criminologies: Some implications of current political trends of criminological theory and practice,Current Issues in Criminal Justice,8 (1), 26–38.
18.
O'MalleyP. (1999). Consuming risks: Harm minimization and the government of “drug users”. In SmandychR. (ed.) Governable Places: Readings on Governmentality and Crime Control, pp. 191–213. Aldershot: Ashgate Dartmouth.
19.
PetersonA. & LuptonD. (1996). The New Public Health: Health and Self in the Age of Risk, Sydney, Allen & Unwin.
20.
RoeE. (1994). Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice,Durham: Duke University Press.
21.
RoomR. (1996). Alcohol consumption and social harm: Conceptual issues and historical perspectives,Contemporary Drug Problems,23 (3), 373–388.
22.
RoseN. (1996). Inventing Ourselves: Psychology, Power and Personhood,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
SingleE. & RohlT. (1997). The National Drug Strategy: Mapping the future, Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, Canberra.
24.
ValverdeM. (1998). Diseases of the Will: Alcohol and the Dilemmas of Freedom,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van BeekI. (2004b). In the Eye of the Needle: Diary of a Medically Supervised Injecting Centre.Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
27.
WaltiS. & KublerD. (2003). “New governance” and associative pluralism: The case of drug policy in Swiss cities,The Policy Studies Journal,31 (4), 499–525.
28.
WodakA. (2004). The 1999 NSW Drug Summit, Civil Disobedience and the Establishment of a Trial of a Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, in MendesP. & RoweJ. (eds.) Harm Minimization, Zero Tolerance and Beyond, pp. 24–32. Melbourne: Pearson, South.
29.
WolfJ., LinseenL. & de GraafI. (2003). Drug consumption facilities in the Netherlands,Journal of Drug Issues,33 (3), 649–661.
30.
ZurholdH.DegkwitzU. & HaasenC. (2003). Drug consumption rooms in Hamburg, Germany: Evaluation of the effects on harm reduction and the reduction of public nuisance,Journal of Drug Issues,33 (3), 663–688.
