Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2008-12
Feeling Good: the Ethopolitics of Pleasure;Psychoactive Substance Use and Public Health and Criminal Justice Governance: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Courts in the USA
The drug courts in the United States exemplify how mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion are mediated by complex cultural constructions of ways in which we may `feel good' rather than mad, bad, sad or sick. I argue that such mechanisms, and public health initiatives which seek to persuade us to choose specific means to enhance our health while eschewing others, are engaging an ethopolitics of moralized pleasures associated with the trope of addiction. Technologies of pleasure associated with current public health initiatives encouraging us to manage our risky neurochemical selves are, in some senses, homologous with the practices of the drug courts in the United States. In both, normalization is anchored in the management of pleasures, while notions of addiction support neo-liberal governance strategies. The rhetoric of salvationary narratives is drawn upon as a device of purification which decontextualizes debate, marginalizing counter-theories
Abramsky, S. (2003) `The Drug War Goes Up in Smoke', The Nation 31 July.
2.
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (2007 ) ACMD Response to the Drug Strategy Consultation. London: ACMD, URL: http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/acmd/acmdconsultresponse.pdf?view=Standard&pubID=510992
3.
Alexander, B. (2001) The Roots of Addiction in Free Market Society. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
4.
Anderson, T. et al. (2002) `Welfare Reform and Housing: Assessing the Impact to Substance Abusers', Journal of Drug Issues32: 265-95.
5.
Bandow, D. (2003) `Forget the War on Drugs Already', National Review Online 19 December.
6.
Basham, P. (ed.) (2001a) Sensible Solutions to the Urban Drug Problem. Toronto: Fraser Institute Digital Publication, URL: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca
7.
Basham, P. (2001b) `Re-evaluating the War on Drugs', in P. Basham (ed.) Sensible Solutions to the Urban Drug Problem. Toronto: Fraser Institute Digital Publication, URL: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca
8.
Belenko, S. (2001) Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review 2001 Update. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.
9.
Bender, E. (2006) `Report Confirms Sad State of Drug Treatment for Inmates', Psychiatric News41(16): 4-8.
10.
Braithwaite, J. (2000) `The New Regulatory State and the Transformation of Criminology', British Journal of Criminology40(3): 222-38.
11.
Braithwaite, J. (2001) `Restorative Justice and the New Criminal Law of Substance Abuse', Youth & Society33(3): 227-48.
12.
Buechi, M. and U. Minder (2001) `Swiss Drug Policy: Harm Reduction and Heroin-Supported Therapy', in P. Basham (ed.) Sensible Solutions to the Urban Drug Problem. Toronto: Fraser Institute Digital Publication, URL: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca
13.
Byrne, F. et al. (2004) `California Drug Courts: A Methodology for Determining Costs and Avoided Costs', Psychoactive Drugs May suppl. 2: 147-56.
14.
Carey, S. et al. (2006) `California Drug Courts: Outcomes, Costs and Promising Practices: An Overview of Phase II in a Statewide Study', Psychoactive Drugs Nov suppl. 3: 345-56.
15.
Carns, T.W. et al. (2002) `Therapeutic Justice in Alaska's Courts' , Alaska L Rev52 (June): 1-43.
16.
Clancey, G. and J. Howard (2006) `Diversion and Criminal Justice Drug Treatment: Mechanism of Emancipation or Social Control?', Drug and Alcohol Review25(3): 377-85.
17.
Cook, N.L. (2002) `The Sky in a Box', Fla Coastal L J3(Spring): 135-56.
18.
Coven, M. (2004) `Our Surrender on the War on Drugs', Boston Globe 13 April.
19.
Des Rosiers, N. (2002) `Rights Are Not Enough', 18 Touro L Rev443-96.
20.
Dolich, M. (2003) `Finding Joy in the Practice of Law', Pa Law 25-FEB: 34-8.
21.
Douglas, M. (1992) `Witchcraft and Leprosy: Two Strategies for Rejection' , pp. 73-86 in M. Douglas, Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London: Routledge .
22.
Douglas, M. (1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Penguin.
23.
Eley, S. et al. (2002) Drug Treatment and Testing Orders: Evaluation of the Scottish Pilot. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research Unit.
24.
Ettner, S. et al. 2006) `Benefit-cost in the California Treatment Outcome Project: Does Substance Abuse Treatment "Pay For Itself"?', Health Services Research41(1): 192-213.
25.
Fitzpatrick, M. (2000) `Addiction Addicts', URL: http://www.spiked-online.com
Gehm, J. (1998) `Victim-Offender Mediation Programmes: An Exploration of Practice and Theoretical Frameworks',Western Criminology Review, URL: http://wer.sonoma.edu/v1n1/gehm.html
30.
Gottfredson, D. et al. (2006) `Long Term Effects of Participation in Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: Results from an Experimental Study', J Experimental Criminology2(1): 67-98.
31.
Harker, L. (2003) `Public Opinion', Times 26 August.
32.
Hellwege, J. (2003) `Comprehensive Law Makes the Case for a Kinder, Gentler Practice', Trial 39-APR: 12-16.
33.
Hoffman, M.B. (2000) `The Drug Court Scandal', North Carolina Law Review78: 1530-54.
34.
Hoffman, M.B. (2002) `Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Neo-Rehabilitationism and Judicial Collectivism', Fordham Urb L J29(June): 2063-89.
35.
Holloway, K. et al. (2006) `The Effectiveness of Drug Treatment Programmes in Reducing Criminal Behaviour: A Meta-analysis', Psicotherma18(3): 620-9.
36.
Home Office (2002) Updated Drug Strategy. London: Home Office.
37.
Home Office (2003a) Restorative Justice: The Government's Strategy. A Consultation Paper on the Government's Strategy on Restorative Justice, 22 July 2003. London: Home Office, URL: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs2/restorativestrategy.pdf
38.
Home Office (2003b) Drug Treatment and Testing Orders: Press Release, 25 September 2003. London: UK Online, URL: http://www.drugs.gov.uk/News?press-Releases/1045670561
39.
Home Office (2004) Reducing Crime: Changing Lives. London: UK Online .
40.
Hora, P.F. et al. (1999) `Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement', Notre Dame L Rev439-521.
41.
Hough, M. et al. (2003) The Impact of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders on Offending: Two Year Reconviction Rates. Home Office Findings 184 . London: Home Office.
42.
Howard, P.K. (1994) The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America. New York: Random House .
43.
Indemaur, D. and L. Roberts (2003) `Drug Courts in Australia: The First Generation' , Current Issues in Criminal Justice15(2): 136-54.
44.
Jones, T. and T. Newburn (2005) `Comparative Criminal Justice Policy-making in the United States and the United Kingdom', British Journal of Criminology45: 58-80.
45.
Karstedt, S. (2004) `Durkheim, Tarde and Beyond: The Global Travel of Crime Policies', pp. 16-29 in T. Newburn and R. SparksCriminal Justice and Political Cultures: National and International Dimensions. London: Willan.
46.
Klag, S. et al. (2005) `The Use of Legal Coercion in the Treatment of Substance Abusers: An Overview and Critical Analysis of Thirty Years of Treatment', Substance Use and Treatment40(12): 1777-95.
47.
Kovach, K. (2003) `Lawyer Ethics Must Keep Pace with Practice', Idaho L Rev39: 399-427.
48.
Latimer, J. et al. (2005) `The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Metaanalysis', The Prison Journal85(2): 127-44.
MacCoun, R. (2003) `Is the Addiction Concept Useful for Drug Policy?' , pp. 383-409 in R. Vuchinich (ed.) Choice, Behavioral Economics and Addiction. New York: Elsevier.
51.
Mackenzie, R. (2006) `Addiction in Public Health and Criminal Justice System Governance: Neuroscience, Enhancement and Happiness Research', Genomics, Society and Policy2(1): 92-109.
52.
Mackenzie, R. (2007) `Regulating Reprogenetics: Strategic Sacralisation and Semantic Massage', Health Care Analysis15: 305-19.
53.
Mackenzie, R. (2008) `Queering Spinoza's Somatechnics: Stem Cells and Strategic Sacralisations', forthcoming in N. Sullivan and S. Murray (eds) Queering Somatechnics. London: Ashgate.
54.
Marlowe, D. (2006) `Judicial Supervision of Drug-abusing Offenders' , Journal of Psychoactive Drugs Nov suppl. 3: 323-31.
55.
McSweeney, T. et al. (2002) Review of Criminal Justice Interventions for Drug Users in Other Countries. London: Criminal Policy Research Unit, South Bank University.
56.
Melossi, D. (2004) `The Cultural Embeddedness of Social Control: Reflections on a Comparison of Italian and North American Cultures Concerning Punishment' , pp. 80-103 in T. Newburn and R. Sparks (2004) Criminal Justice and Political Cultures: National and International Dimensions. London : Willan.
57.
Menkel-Meadow, C. (2007) `Restorative Justice: What Is It and Does It Work ?' Annual Review of Law and Social Science3: 161-87.
58.
Morris, A. and G. Maxwell, G. (1998) `Restorative Justice in New Zealand: Family Group Conferences as a Case Study', Western Criminology Review1(1), URL: http://wer.sonoma.edu/v1n1/morris.html
59.
National Audit Office (2004) The Drugs Testing and Treatment Order: Early Lessons: Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. London: National Audit Office.
60.
National Institute of Drug Abuse (2006) Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations: A Research Based Guide. Washington, DC: NIDA .
61.
Newburn, T. (2002) `Atlantic Crossings: "Policy Transfer" and Crime Control in the USA and Britain', Punishment and Control4: 165-94.
62.
Newburn, T. and T. Jones (2005) `Symbolic Politics and Penal Populism: The Long Shadow of Willie Horton', Crime Media Culture1: 72-87.
63.
Newburn, T. and R. Sparks (2004) `Criminal Justice and Political Cultures', pp. 1-15 in Criminal Justice and Political Cultures: National and International Dimensions. London: Willan.
64.
Nolan, J.L. (1998) The Therapeutic State: Justifying Government at Century's End. New York: New York University Press.
65.
Nutt, D. et al. (2007) `Development of a Rational Scale to Assess the Harm of Drugs of Potential Misuse', Lancet369: 1047-53.
66.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (2000 ) National Drug Control Strategy 2000 Annual Report. Washington, DC: USGPO.
67.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (2002 ) National Drug Control Strategy: FY 2003 Budget Summary. Washington, DC: Office of the President.
68.
O'Malley, P. (2004a) Risk, Uncertainty and Government. London: Glasshouse Press.
69.
O'Malley, P. (2004b) `Globalising Risk? Distinguishing Styles of "Neoliberal" Criminal Justice in Australia and the USA', pp. 30-48 in T. Newburn and R. Sparks ( 2004) Criminal Justice and Political Cultures: National and International Dimensions. London: Willan.
70.
O'Malley, P. and M. Valverde (2004) `Pleasure, Freedom and Drugs: The Uses of "Pleasure" in Liberal Governance of Drug and Alcohol Consumption', Sociology38(1): 25-42.
71.
Paquin, G. and L. Harvey (2002) `Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Transformative Mediation and Narrative Mediation', Fla Coastal LJ3(Spring): 167-99.
72.
Reith, G. (2004) `Consumption and its Discontents: Addiction, Identity and the Problems of Freedom', British Journal of Sociology55(2): 283-300.
73.
Reuter, P. and A. Stevens (2007) An Analysis of UK Drug Policy: A Monograph Prepared for the UK Drug Policy Commission. London: UKDPC.
74.
Rhodes, A. (1998) `UM Law Professor Advocates Increased Use of Drug Treatment Courts', URL: http://www.miami.edu/visitors/news/releases/980625w.htm
75.
Roche, D. (2003) Accountability in Restorative Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
76.
Room, R. (2003) `Addiction Concepts and International Control' , paper presented at conference of Senlis Council Drug Policy Advisory Forum, URL: http://www.senliscouncil.net
77.
Rose, N. (1998) `Governing Risky Individuals: The Role of Psychiatry in New Regimes of Control', Psychiatry, Psychology and Law5(2): 177-95.
78.
Rose, N. (2000) `The Biology of Culpability: Pathological Identity and Crime Control in a Biological Culture', Theoretical Criminology4(1): 5-34.
79.
Rose, N. (2001) `The Politics of Life Itself', Theory, Culture & Society18: 1-30.
80.
Rose, N. (2002) `Biological Psychiatry as a Style of Thought', paper presented at a symposium on models and cases in scientific thought, Princeton University.
81.
Rose, N. (2003a) `Neurochemical Selves', Society Nov/Dec: 46-59.
82.
Rose, N. (2003b) `The Neurochemical Self and its Anomalies', in R. V. Ericson and A. Doyle (eds) Risk and Morality. Toronto : University of Toronto Press.
83.
Royal Society of Arts (2007) Drugs: Facing Facts: The Report of the RSA Commission on Illegal Drugs, Communities and Public Policy. London: RSA.
84.
Sanford, J.S. and B.A. Arrigo (2005) `Lifting the Cover on Drugs Courts: Evaluation Findings and Policy Concerns', Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol. 49(3): 239-59.
85.
Schma, W.G. (2002) `Problem Solving Courts: Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Recognising Law as One of the Healing Arts', Mich B J 82-JAN: 25-8.
86.
Science and Technology Committee (2006) Drug Classification: Making a Hash of It?, London: Stationery Office.
87.
Seddon, T. (2006) `Drugs, Crime and Social Exclusion', British Journal of Criminology46: 680-703.
88.
Shanahan, A. et al. (2004) `Cost-effectiveness Analysis of the New South Wales Adult Court Drug Programme', Evaluation Review28: 3-27.
89.
Singer, J.( 2001) `Medicalisation: A "Third Way" to Drug Policy', in P. Basham (ed.) Sensible Solutions to the Urban Drug Problem. Toronto: Fraser Institute Digital Publication, URL: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca
90.
Slobogin, C. (1996) `Therapeutic Jurisprudence', in D. B. Wexler, and B. J. Winick (eds) Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments on Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Carolina University Press.
91.
Stevens, A. et al. (2005) `Quasi-compulsory Treatment of Drug Dependent Offenders: An International Literature Review', Substance Use and Misuse40: 269-93.
92.
Stevenson, R. (2001) `Costs of the War on Drugs', in P. Basham (ed.) Sensible Solutions to the Urban Drug Problem. Toronto: Fraser Institute Digital Publication, URL: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca
93.
Tauber, Judge Jeffrey (1994) Drug Treatment Courts Manual. California Center for Judicial Education and Research.
94.
Thayer, R. (2001) Calm Energy: How People Regulate Mood with Food and Exercise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
95.
Transform Drug Policy Foundation (2006) After the War on Drugs: Options for Control. London: TDPF.
96.
Transform Drug Policy Foundation (2007a) After the War on Drugs: Tools for the Debate. London: TDPF.
97.
Transform Drug Policy Foundation (2007b) Submission to `Drugs: Our Community, Your Say' (Drugs Strategy Consultation Paper 2007). London: TDPF.
98.
Transform Drug Policy Foundation (2008) Drug Policy 1997-2007: The Evidence Unspun - Overwhelming Failure. London: TDPF.
99.
Travis, A. (2002) `Hardcore Addicts Shown to Cause 99% of Drugs Bill' , Guardian 13 February.
100.
Travis, A. (2004) `NAO Criticises "Failing" Drug Treatment Orders' , Guardian 26 March.
101.
Turnbull, P.J. et al. (2000) Drug Treatment and Testing Orders: Final Evaluation Report: Home Office Research Study 212. London : Home Office.
102.
Umbreit, M. (1998) `Restorative Justice Through Victim-Offender Mediation: A Multi-Site Assessment', Western Criminology Review1(1), URL: http://wer.sonoma.edu/v1n1/umbreit.html
103.
United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission (2007 ) A Response to Drugs: Our Community, Your Say. London: UKDPC.
104.
United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission (2008 ) Submission to the ACMD Cannabis Classification Review 2008 . London: UKDPC.
105.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime ( 2003) Global Illicit Drug Trends. New York : UNODC.
106.
United States General Accounting Office (2002 ) Drug Courts: Better DOJ Data Collection and Evaluation Efforts Needed to Measure Impact of Drug Court Programs. Washington, DC: GAO.
107.
United States White House (2004) National Drug Control Strategy. Washington, DC: White House, URL: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs04/2004ndcs.pdf
108.
Valverde, M. (1998) Diseases of the Will: Alcohol and the Dilemmas of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
109.
Wexler, D.B. (1996) `Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Changing Conceptions of Legal Scholarship', pp. 24-55 in D. B. Wexler and B. J. Winick (eds) Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Carolina University Press.
110.
Wexler, D.B. (2000/1) `Just Some Juvenile Thinking about Delinquent Behaviour: A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approach', C I L5(1): 57-69.
111.
Wexler, D.B. (2002) `Lowering the Volume through Legal Doctrine', Fla Coastal L J3 (Spring): 123-31.
112.
Wilson, D. et al. (2006) `A Systematic Review of Drug Court Effects on Recidivism', Journal of Experimental Criminology2: 459-87.
113.
Winick, B.J. (1996) `The Jurisprudence of Therapeutic Jurisprudence' , pp. 3-22 in D. B. Wexler and B. J. Winick (eds) Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Carolina University Press.
Wolfe, E. et al. (2004) `Perspectives on the Drug Court Model Across Systems: a Process Evaluation', Psychoactive Drugs36(3): 379-86.
116.
World Health Organisation (2004) Neuroscience of Psychoactive Substance Use and Dependence. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
117.
Wright, J.K. and Garlo, D.M. (2003) `Law as a Healing Profession', Or St B Bull63-APR: 9-20.
118.
Yates, R. et al. (2006) `Coercion in Drug Treatment: The Impact on Motivation, Aspiration and Outcome', in M. Pedersen et al. (eds) Evidence Based Practice: Challenges in Substance Abuse Treatment. Helsinki: Nordic Council for Alcohol and Drug Research.
119.
Young, R. (2002) From War to Work: Drug Treatment, Social Inclusion and Enterprise. London: Foreign Policy Centre.
120.
Zehr, H. (1990) Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice . Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press.
