GHB (gamma hydroxybutyrate) is a significant new drug of abuse added to the United States Controlled Substance Act in 2000. The majority of the published literature on GHB consists of clinical case reports, mainly from emergency departments, and a collection of laboratory-based studies, focused mainly on anesthesia. While comments about the various experiences and behaviors of human users are often included in such studies or reports, these aspects of GHB are only just beginning to be systematically investigated or detailed. Reported here are data from a qualitative study using focus group methods on the consumption habits, experiences, and beliefs of GHB users. A total of 51 people, 30 men and 21 women, mean age of 31.1+/-7.6 years (range 18 to 52 years), who report having used GHB for an average of 4.3+/-2.5 years (range one to 11 years), were interviewed in 10 separate groups held in 2004. This article discusses broadly the general experience of the GHB high, major perceived benefits including sexual responses to the drug, perceived risks and dangers of ingestion, co-ingestion, and various contexts of use. It concludes with a discussion of the implications drawn from this information for clinicians treating patients who use GHB.

Methadone maintenance has dominated opiate addiction treatment in the United States for decades. Since 2002, opiate addiction has also been treated in general medical settings with a substance called buprenorphine. Based on interviews and participant observation conducted in northern California, this article analyzes how discourses of freedom and normalcy in patient and provider narratives reflect and affect experiences with this treatment modality. I discuss how buprenorphine treatment, in contrast to methadone maintenance, offers patients and providers a greater sense of autonomy and flexibility in how they receive and deliver treatment. It presents them with new obligations, responsibilities, and choices around care and conduct. It simultaneously perpetuates and shapes a desire to be “free” and “normal.” I argue that the therapeutics of buprenorphine govern patients and providers through this desire for freedom and normalcy. Buprenorphine is thus a technology of governmentality that extends neoliberal discourses and values and produces self-governing subjects.

No abstract

Methadone maintenance has dominated opiate addiction treatment in the United States for decades. Since 2002, opiate addiction has also been treated in general medical settings with a substance called buprenorphine. Based on interviews and participant observation conducted in northern California, this article analyzes how discourses of freedom and normalcy in patient and provider narratives reflect and affect experiences with this treatment modality. I discuss how buprenorphine treatment, in contrast to methadone maintenance, offers patients and providers a greater sense of autonomy and flexibility in how they receive and deliver treatment. It presents them with new obligations, responsibilities, and choices around care and conduct. It simultaneously perpetuates and shapes a desire to be "free" and "normal." I argue that the therapeutics of buprenorphine govern patients and providers through this desire for freedom and normalcy. Buprenorphine is thus a technology of governmentality that extends neoliberal discourses and values and produces self-governing subjects.

Introduction A recent surge in HIV outbreaks, driven by the opioid and stimulant use crises, has destabilized our progress toward targets set forth by Ending the HIV Epidemic: A Plan for America for the high-priority community of people who inject drugs (PWID), particularly Black PWID. Methods In order to ascertain the acceptability and feasibility of using a mobile syringe services program (SSP) for comprehensive HIV prevention via PrEP and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), our mixed methods approach included a quantitative assessment and semi-structured qualitative interviews with Black PWID (n = 30) in Miami-Dade County who were actively engaged in mobile syringe services. Results Participants felt that delivery of MOUD and PrEP at a mobile SSP would be both feasible and acceptable, helping to address transportation, cost, and stigma barriers common within traditional healthcare settings. Participants preferred staff who are compassionate and nonjudgmental and have lived experience. Conclusions A mobile harm reduction setting could be an effective venue for delivering comprehensive HIV prevention services to Black PWID, a community that experiences significant barriers to care via marginalization and racism in a fragmented healthcare system.