Imaginary Drug Control and the Failures of Contemporary Australian Drug Policy

Abstract

Contemporary Australian drug policy is characterized by a tension between punitive law and order responses that invoke the myth of sovereign power and responsibilizing strategies that “(re)moralize” individuals, holding them responsible for their safety, security, and well-being. This article argues that this blending of neoliberal techniques of governance, such as harm minimization, with neoconservative methods of rule typified in prohibitionist policies, presents a paradoxical policy response to illicit drug use. We explore the development and contemporary practice of a dualistic Australian drug policy that, on the one hand, promotes pragmatic interventions based on harm reduction while, on the other, relies on law and order strategies and traditional penal powers to deter illicit drug use. Drawing on Pat Carlen’s concept of imaginary penalities, we argue that this imaginary form of drug control is underpinned largely by symbolic measures that, in attempting to address public demands for safety and security, reproduce a punitive form of governance that fails to achieve its desired outcomes. Using qualitative interview data from a sample of 29 people who used drugs, and 15 professionals working in the drugs field, this article investigates responses to the contemporary governance of illicit drugs in Queensland. Based on the research findings, we argue that the conjoined nature of Australian drugs governance can be understood as imaginary drug control because it constantly recreates the conditions that perpetuate drug-related harm.

Imaginary Penalty and Identity Conflict: The Dilemma and Strategies of Multiple identities in Substance Abusers in Chinese Drug Policy

“…The premise of Imaginary drug control is to minimize or eliminate drug-related harm through punitive reactions. Although it has eliminated illicit drug use to some extent (Carlen, 2008;Margaret Pereira et al, 2020), it continues to create the conditions and types of identities for drugs to harm society.…”

“…Given all that, the concept of "Imaginary Penalty" focuses on how ideology affects legislation and policies. Speci cally, how to form anti-drug laws based on popular willingness and attitudes of political parties in political party disputes (Pereira, 2020). Therefore, We can de ne it as: the government based on various ideologies presupposes the formation of drug laws and policies.…”

“…The most prominent commonality of the three strategies for managing identity con icts is that the management techniques for drug problems have been transferred to individuals who demand the freedom to carry out their lives (Margaret Pereira et al, 2020). Substance abusers need to self-determine and manage identity con icts and risks.…”

“Can We Break Through the Identity Dilemma?”: The Multiple Governance, Identities Conflict, and Self-Managements for Chinese PWUD.

“…The ideology of harm reduction guides the research and practice of social identity rehabilitation of PWUD to assist them in achieving physical rehabilitation and reconstructing their identity in society. These studies on reconstructing the rehabilitation social identity of PWUD are mainly structured (Pereira et al,2020;Moore et al,2017;Turner,1973;Longabaugh et al, 2010), using structural power to assist PWUD in achieving rehabilitation. Structural power presupposes the type and situation of PWUD and sets up what they should look like after successful rehabilitation.…”

“…The most prominent commonality of the three strategies for managing identity con icts is that the management techniques for drug problems have been transferred to individuals who demand the freedom to carry out their lives (Pereira et al, 2020). PWUD need to self-determine and manage identity con icts and risks.…”