duff nº 7

International Journal of Drug Policy 15 (2004) 385393

Drug use as a practice of the self: ismpo

ox 818,

June 2

Abstract

This pape ctice oFoucaults a cant gaDrug Strateg e wayson the beha whichbeen concep rgue thpractice of cs offenature of dru s for thwithin those 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Drugs; Young people; Ethics; Pleasure; Policy

In orderit is necways, toand beliecreate alpeoples

Like masive increause in rece(see AIHWhas promptamong otheand policyAustralia, taccording

Tel.: +61E-mail a

0955-3959/$doi:10.1016/jto reduce the harms caused by drugs in society,essary to accommodate drug use in less harmfulpromote the development of social norms, valuesfs that foster abstinence or moderate use, and toternatives that can replace the role of drugs inlives.

Durrant and Thakker (2003: 248)

ny nations, Australia has experienced a perva-se in the frequency and prevalence of illicit drugnt decades, particularly within youth populations, 2002; Durrant and Thakker, 2003). This shifted governments, welfare and treatment agencies,r organisations, to develop systematic programmeresponses to the problem of illicit drug use. Inhese responses have been organised and deployedto the principles and practice of harm minimi-

3 9278 8118; fax: +61 3 9328 3008.ddress: [email protected] (C. Duff).

sation (see Rohl, 2000). Harm minimisation emerged inAustralia in the early 1980s in response to the HIV/AIDSepidemic, and was quickly adopted as the conceptual andphilosophical basis of the Hawke Governments NationalCampaign Against Drug Abuse (NCADA) (ibid.). Despitechanges in government, and the increasingly vituperativerhetorical debates which have surrounded this policy, harmminimisation continues to underpin Australias drug policyposition. It is a policy that is praised by many for its prag-matic and humane approach to illicit drug use, just as it iscondemned by others as a duplicitous retreat in the war ondrugs (see Durrant and Thakker, 2003: 243247). Many ofthese debates are concerned with the philosophical and moralclaims underpinning harm minimisation policies; much lessattention has been focused on assessing the extent to whichharm minimisation remains relevant for those individualswho consume illicit substances.

This paper addresses this issue in assessing the efficacyand appropriateness of harm minimisation policies in Aus-tralia. In the course of developing this critique, I will alsoexamine the potential relevance of contemporary social the-

see front matter 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved..drugpo.2004.06.010ethics of moderation in conteCameron Duff

Centre for Youth Drug Studies, Australian Drug Foundation, PO BReceived 2 February 2004; received in revised form 14

r offers a series of critical interrogations of the principles and praccount of ethics, pleasure and moderation in pointing to some signifiy. I argue that this strategy has had only indirect impacts upon th

viour of individual users. Part of this problem lies in the ways intualised within contemporary drug policy. Following Foucault, I athe self. I argue further that Foucaults work on pleasure and ethig use for young people, as well as providing new conceptual basesettings and contexts in which drug use takes place.there any place for anrary drug policy?

North Melbourne 3051, Vic., Australia

004; accepted 20 June 2004

f harm minimisation. This critique draws from Michelps and conceptual problems within Australias Nationalin which illicit drugs are consumed in Australia, andthe cultures and the contexts of illicit drug use have

at drug use ought to be conceptualised as a distinctivers important new ways of understanding the changinge design and delivery of harm minimisation strategies

386 C. Duff / International Journal of Drug Policy 15 (2004) 385393

ory in providing new ways of thinking about illicit drug useand new ways of planning effective responses to the harmsassociated with this use. I would argue that such theory repre-sents an undrug policiturns in latMichel Fouof the selfthis materiachanging nviding newharm minimtexts in whon ethics acritiques ofit tends tothe considepolices andexigenciesfective respuse.

Changingresponses

Australiuse of illicthe consumcommunityAvailable eefforts havgests thatphetaminesthe last 20AIHW, 200of Australitralian InstDrug Stratwas condu27,000 houports that ju29 years halifetime, wrecent useThis reportcannabis, ithan was tbeginning a

It is nobecome alevels (seewealth Govper year toof law enfothe various

(see Hamilton, King, & Ritter, 2004; MCDS, 2001). Despitethese resources, clearly articulated policy objectives, and reg-ular evaluation, progress has been incremental and often in-

istentthelesent anovern

ive, chnore oralianledge

dationalso R

whatthis p

ustralimpristion,). Demof dr

ols andngingdemanICD, 2the pration wur as ticit dre, 199ung pon prolevelsree asugh thas somdone

ford, Moweveoutsid

Lentonthes

aignsnd typs assouragee, Duof thisdes anht tha

on is auratewhatdes ant peoptic or Whiteder utilised resource in the design and delivery ofes and programmes. More specifically, the paperer sections to consider the work of French thinkercault, particularly his final writings on practices

, ethics, moderation and pleasure. I argue thatl offers important new ways of understanding the

ature of drug use for young people, as well as pro-conceptual bases for the design and delivery ofisation strategies within those settings and con-

ich drug use takes place. Indeed, Foucaults worknd the use of pleasure gives rise to a series ofcontemporary drug policy and the ways in whichprivilege the problem of harms whilst elidingration of pleasure. I conclude that contemporarystrategies must find ways of accommodating the

of pleasure in planning and implementing more ef-onses to the problems associated with illicit drug

patterns of drug use: enduring policy

an responses to the problems associated with theit drugs have typically prioritised a reduction inption and availability of illicit substances in the(see Hamilton, 2004; Wodak and Moore, 2002).

pidemiological evidence would suggest that suche met with limited success. Indeed, evidence sug-the use of illicit drugs such as cannabis, am-, ecstasy and cocaine has increased in Australia inyears, particularly among young Australians (see2; MCDS, 2001). Arguably the most authoritativean studies of young peoples drug use is the Aus-itute of Health and Welfares (AIHW) Nationalegy Household Survey. The most recent surveycted in 2001 and was administered in just underseholds (see AIHW, 2002). The 2001 Survey re-st over half of all Australians aged between 14 andve tried an illicit substance of some kind in their

ith around 31% of persons in this cohort reporting (use in the last 12 months) (AIHW, 2002: 36).also suggests that, with the possible exception of

llicit drug use is more common in youth cohortshe case 10 or 20 years ago, and that this use ist an earlier age.doubt for these reasons that illicit drug use haskey concern for governments in Australia at allMCDS, 2001). As such, the Australian Common-ernment allocates on average AUS$ 80 millionits illicit drug strategy, generally through a mixrcement, treatment and prevention efforts, withstate governments allocating many millions more

cons

Noneresilieral ghensto igAustknowfoun(see

Soicy inin Ato coreduc2001rangeschoat brithus(seethatformhavioof illDietzto youcatiyeardisagalthotion hwhen(Mid

Hforts(seetratedcampdia aharmenco

Rochtionattituthougductimens

some

attituin thalema(see(see also Durrant & Thakker, 2003; Rohl, 2000).s, Australian drug policy has proven remarkablyd adaptive in this period. Even the change of Fed-ment in 1996 saw piecemeal, rather than compre-ange (Fitzgerald & Sewards, 2002). This is notr gloss over the changes that have occurred indrug policy in the last two decades, only to ac-that harm minimisation has been retained as the

, or conceptual basis, of public policy in this timeoche & Evans, 2000: 149151).have been the principal features of Australian pol-eriod? Harm minimisation as it has been defined

an policy and legislation is typically understoode three distinct branches or components: demandsupply reduction and harm reduction (see MCDS,and reduction strategies have primarily involved a

ug prevention efforts, including drug education incommunity social marketing campaigns, aimedabout a broad reduction in the consumption, andd for, illicit drugs in the Australian community003). Such strategies are premised on the notion

ovision of expert and scientifically rigorous in-ill lead individuals to modify their drug use be-

hey become more aware of the risks and dangersug use and (naturally) choose to avoid them (see8). In schools, this information has been deliveredeople through an array of sophisticated drug ed-grams, each targeted at different age groups and(see Ballard, Gillespie, & Irwin, 1994). Expertsto the overall effectiveness of these approaches,

ere appears to be some consensus that drug educa-e impact on young peoples drug use behaviours

in an integrated, sensitive and cohesive mannerunro, McBride, Snow, & Ladzinski, 2002: 367).

r, it is widely acknowledged that prevention ef-e of education settings are much more fraught, 1996). In Australia, governments have concen-

e efforts on social marketing campaigns. Thesehave been conducted in and through the mass me-ically seek to raise awareness of the risks and

ciated with illicit drug use in the hope that this willa reduction in drug consumption. As McDonald,rbridge, and Skinner (2003) note, demand reduc-

kind focuses on the importance of knowledge,d values as key determinants of behaviour. It ist the shift in attitudes and values that demand re-imed at engendering is later translated into a com-shift in behaviour. However, this neat equation iscompromised by the realisation that knowledge,d behaviour are often contradictory and uncertainle often behave in ways that they know to be prob-risky. The smoking of tobacco is a good example, Hill, Siahpush, & Bobevski, 2003). It is for this

C. Duff / International Journal of Drug Policy 15 (2004) 385393 387

reason that governments and other agencies have found itvery difficult to measure the efficacy of specific demand re-duction strategies (see Rohl, 2000). This might also explainwhy demanportion of t2002).

The liontion effortscated in thiply reductiinterdictionprotectionhave thus sganise the minto the cotection meaalso soughnational lawtle internatiregular seizacknowledinterdictionmaterials imWodak &in recent yshifted thetier suppliin an efforttice systemvidual usersystem areprograms ifreeing upinal supply& Alberti,

The thirduction. Acontroversyfrom use redefinition,duction takassociatedily, the redusense, drugthe specificthat use. Foa more prathat it reconated fromthis drug uto dependerecreationais reflecteddelivered inas needle amaintenanc

The persistently controversial nature of harm reductiondebates in Australia is indicative of the broader difficultiesthat have been associated with reaching any kind of con-

s regaammereemeationslast twave n

ammecy anuals w, conublicnot alt argumes iicit drt I meaustraliatherrch anl Drugpolicyatmenntionggestg yeaom thy direct was beeconc

sible fes, thggestalso Rast mct wite useSuttontatescemenconsu

changancesd withven thers ev

PC, 2of thee any

indivr trea

rnmen

viour.d reduction efforts account for only a small pro-he states illicit drug budget (see Wodak & Moore,

s share of this budget is devoted to supply reduc-, with some 80% of government outlays being allo-s fashion (Wodak & Moore, 2002). Australian sup-on strategies have in recent decades emphasisedincluding law enforcement, customs and border

and street policing (MCDS, 2001). Authoritiesought to apprehend the criminal networks that or-

anufacturing and importation of illicit substancesuntry, as well as reinforcing existing border pro-sures. Domestic law enforcement agencies have

t to cooperate more effectively with other inter-enforcement bodies in order to further disman-

onal manufacturing and supply networks. Despiteures and the occasional big bust, it is generally

ged (even among law enforcement agencies) thataccounts for only 1020% of all substances andported into Australia (see Sutton & James, 2000;

Moore, 2002). It is also interesting to note thatears law enforcement agencies in Australia havefocus of their efforts from end users to middleers and international organised crime, purportedlyto reduce costs and pressures in the criminal jus-(see Kutin & Alberti, 2004: 149). Those indi-

s who come into contact with the criminal justicenow increasingly handled through diversionaryncluding treatment and counselling services, thus the courts to consider those charged with crim-, manufacturing and importation offenses (Kutin2004: 149154).d tier of the National Drug Strategy is harm re-s noted, this component has provoked enduring, not least for its apparent shift of emphasis awayduction (see Crosbie, 2000). In a widely endorsedLenton and Single (1998) suggest that harm re-es as its singular aim the reduction of the harmswith the use of illicit drugs, rather than, necessar-ction or elimination of drug use in society. In thisuse is itself understood as less of a concern thanharms and problems that sometimes arise out ofr many adherents, harm reduction is regarded asgmatic and realistic approach to drug policy ingnises that drug use is never likely to be elimi-society. Hence, policy should focus on rendering

se as safe as possible, whilst directing attentionnt and problematic drug use rather than social orl use (see Wodak & Moore, 2002). This positionin the various programs and strategies that areAustralia under the aegis of harm reduction such

nd syringe programmes (NSPs) and methadonee treatment (see Lintzeris & Spry-Bailey, 2004).

sensu

progrdisagevaluin theas I hprogrefficadividnotesthe phavemighgramof illWhain Abut rresea

tionadrugto trepreveto suvenin

FrpolicdistinAs hamore

sponstancto su(seethe vcontawhos(seethe senforwhoallysubstcerne

but eof usVCDsidederivas an

and/ogovebeharding the most appropriate drug policy aims andmethods in Australia. This kind of fundamental

nt is reflected in almost all of the major drug policyand reviews that have been completed in Australiao decades (see Fitzgerald & Sewards, 2002). Yet,

oted, very few assessments of drug policies ands in this country have attempted to ascertain thed appropriateness of such strategies for those in-ho consume illicit substances. As Wodak (2000)sumer groups have been largely excluded frompolicy process in Australia, and so programmesways been appropriate to their needs. Indeed, onee that the vast majority of drug policies and pro-n Australia fail to adequately address the needsug users because they largely miss their target.n by this is that the majority of drug programmes

a are targeted not at the level of individual use,at the level of manufacturing and supply, and/ord training. In 1997, the United Nations Interna-Control Program reported that of Australias totalbudget, 84% is devoted to law enforcement, 6%

t services and the remaining 10% to research and(cited in Wodak, 2000: 184). There is no evidencethat these ratios have changed much in the inter-rs.is budget breakdown one might deduce that drugctly impacts upon individual drug users in threeys; law enforcement, treatment and prevention.n noted, law enforcement has in recent years beenerned with disrupting the criminal networks re-or the manufacture and importation of illicit sub-an with individual drug users, though this is notthat the law is now indifferent to personal useohl, 2000: 129). It remains true, however, that

ajority of individual drug users never come intoh the criminal justice system, particularly thosemight be described as intermittent or recreationaland James, 2000; VCDPC, 2003). In this sense,

harm minimisation efforts as they relate to lawt have only indirect impacts on most individuals

me illicit drugs. Moreover, it does little to actu-e the ways in which individuals consume these. Treatment, on the other hand, is directly con-

intervening in the lives of individual drug users,en, it has been estimated that fewer than 10%er present for treatment (see HRSCFCA, 2003;003). Again, the vast majority of users fall out-web of harm minimisation services and so fail toreal benefits from such efforts. Until such timeidual comes into contact with law enforcementtment services, s/he is essentially invisible tots and other agencies and so is his or her drug use


The same might be said of prevention efforts. Whilst farmore individuals have some experience of prevention pro-grammes given the prevalence of drug education in schoolsand the reaception of tsuch progralicit drug umost indivmary schooMidford etfinished wior 15 yearsrare in thesalso suggesits impactthis reasonceive booset al., 1994drug educataking decienters theirmuch preveevidence todrug use beone mightlittle to shasubstances

The onethe successtralian drugways in whtings. Therhave beento change tjecting equforts have iamong injelevels in Auof HIV/AIDvative andtralia. As Ratives assocHIV/AIDSconcerns re

reduction e(see also Lsome cons

NSP strateginjecting dso successfsubstanceslated into wto the useinjecting drto countenaways in wh

The gap between prevention and treatment: what isdrug policy missing?

woulde policprogr

h of ddrugehavi

y confiargin

e drugntionthe mf theidualstic. Yeidualsthis gausers

siderhoughll num

as limgies aother

fer theense,

e mos

ne doties orown

r probe. I wf polier thatf harm

y thatiatedss the. Then morle thatis wity hasts for

ttractence ofe evidan, 20it is cluse inthat

erns o

it is abust alch of social marketing campaigns, with the ex-his social marketing, most individuals experiencemmes well before they make the transition into il-

se. Despite wide discrepancies between the states,iduals in Australia receive drug education in pri-l and in the first years of secondary school (seeal., 2002). Hence most individuals have alreadyth their drug education by the time they reach 14of age. Evidence indicates that illicit drug use ise cohorts (see AIHW, 2002). Available researchts that drug education has a limited lifespan inon a students attitudes and behaviour. It is forthat most experts recommend that students re-

ter or refresher courses in later years (see Ballard). This also suggests however that school basedtion has only limited impacts on individual drugsions in later years, particularly once an individualtwenties. Whilst such individuals are the focus ofntion focused social marketing, there is very littlesuggest that these strategies have much impact onhaviours (see Hamilton et al., 2004). Once again,argue that existing harm minimisation efforts dope the ways in which young people consume illicitin Australia.significant exception to this argument concernsof NSPs. Indeed, this is one area in which Aus-policy has directly focused on transforming theich specific substances are used in specific set-e is now much evidence to suggest that NSPsinstrumental in encouraging injecting drug usersheir injecting practices, and to avoid sharing in-ipment in particular (see CDHA, 2002). Such ef-n turn ensured that the transmission of HIV/AIDScting drug users has remained at remarkably lowstralia (ibid.). However, it is precisely this threatS that has underscored the trialing of more inno-

controversial harm reduction approaches in Aus-oche and Evans (2000) report, the political imper-iated with the need to prevent the transmission ofin this country have generally outweighed moralgarding the dangerous messages different harmfforts might send to vulnerable young peopleintzeris & Spry-Bailey, 2004: 206207). And so,ensus has been achieved regarding the virtues ofies and the promotion of safer use guidelines for

rug users. The fact that these strategies have beenul in changing the ways in which different illicitare injected in Australia has not, however, trans-ider support for similarly innovative approaches

of other illicit substances. With the exception ofug use, Australian authorities have been reluctantnce strategies that involve attempts to change theich people actually consume illicit substances.

Iin thmentdeartdressthis brentlthe mof thpreveis, inend oindivchaoindivfillsdrugis consive ta sma

wellstrate

Into ofin a sIf likand othoriones

ful ofuturure o

furthtion opolicassoc

addreusers

use iguabas itpolicaccepare a

perieamplKeenthendrugargueconc

untilicy margue that the reason for this failure lies largelyy gap that exists between prevention and treat-ammes in Australia. This gap is manifest in therug programmes and strategies that actually ad-use in those settings and contexts within whichour takes place. Harm minimisation as it is cur-gured in Australia treats drug use behaviours at

s. It addresses drug use at the two extreme endsuse spectrum. At the one end of this spectrum,

efforts target those individuals for whom drug useain, not yet a feature of their lives. At the otherspectrum, treatment efforts are targeted at thosewhose drug use has become problematic and/ort what programmes and services exist for thosewho fall in between these two extremeswhatp? What exists for the vast majority of existingonce prevention has failed, and before treatmented? At present there exists a range of NSPs, perva-arguably ineffective social marketing campaigns,ber of outreach treatment and referral services, as

ited community initiatives such as peer educationnd other community mobilisation efforts.words, harm minimisation programs have littlevast majority of drug users in Australia because,

harm minimisation is not targeted at such people.t drug users, ones use is social or recreational,esnt arouse the interests of law enforcement au-treatment services, then essentially one is left to

devices in this country, irrespective of how harm-lematic this drug use may be at present or in theould argue that such a scenario represents a fail-tical will and policy imagination. I would arguethe problem lies at root in the very conceptualisa-

minimisation. It should not be surprising that aconcerns itself almost exclusively with the harmswith illicit drug use should find it so difficult toconcerns of more than a small minority of drug

failure here lies in the failure to conceive of druge heterogeneous and dynamic ways. For it is ar-drug use is at least as concerned with pleasure

h harms, and yet contemporary Australian drugno way of accommodating this distinction. If onea moment that the majority of illicit drug users

d to this behaviour because of the subjective ex-pleasure that is associated with it and there is

ence to support this contention (see Becker, 1965;04; OMalley & Valverde, 2004; Zinberg, 1984) ear that drug policy needs to address this aspect ofaddition to the issue of harms and risks. I would

harm minimisation will remain indifferent to thef most individuals who consume illicit substancesle to conceive of this issue of pleasure. Drug pol-so be able to recognise the shifting cultures and


contexts of drug use behaviours in better understanding therelationship between pleasure and harms, benefits and costsas they impact on the use of illicit substances. I would arguefurther thatin particulaviding newharm minim

Practices o

In the seturns to cowhat the Gr1985: 727through theof subjectivwith a partcome to shself-regulaethics (seethat such aspecific prtary actionconduct, bthemselvesFoucault dof existencestablish fosubjectivitysuch practihave not beor politicalvoted considevelopingprincipal fiHistory of

FoucaulGreeks. Alassociatedthat the priof the self,1988). Forgrounded iand the pratradition, thhow sinful;which pleato the expesociated withe maintenings with fGreeks strethe interest34). Moderexemplary

character, was expected to exercise self restraint and moder-ation at all times as a way of demonstrating this nobility ofcharacter. In exercising this moderation, an individual might

makeof gree mospeciistinceans

selvesbeaut

nced oy. In tuxcess is andrms asruptioess de

thus relf and

e Greeasure

ed of gto m

leasues fance oroccas

nes tequenpleas

ande Greof vagulatinique

ent of, this sore etreeks

tions pot obtls to dt to bf pleaontrose perh such

the isopheas to hof con).ucauland prsionscontemporary social theory, and Foucaults workr, affords a way of rethinking these issues in pro-conceptual bases for the design and delivery ofisation strategies.

f the self: ethics and the use of pleasure

cond volume of the History of Sexuality Foucaultnsider a range of classical practices of the self,eeks called askesis or self-fashioning (Foucault,7). Foucault became interested in such practicesdevelopment of his broader genealogical study

ation and the government of individualisation,icular interest in the ways in which individualsape the experience of subjectivity through the

tion of personal conductthrough the practice ofFoucault, 1983: 210213; 1988). Foucault arguestransformative ethics is established according toactices of the self; those intentional and volun-s by which men not only set themselves rules ofut also seek to transform themselves, to changein their singular being (Foucault, 1985: 1011).

escribes these ethical practices as specific artse, as the means by which individuals come tor themselves a distinctive individual identity or. Whilst Foucault acknowledges the existence of

ces in modern societies, he stresses that these artsen formally organised into a distinct social theoryphilosophy. In contrast, the Ancient Greeks de-derable attention to the various arts of existencea rich literary tradition. Foucault examines the

gures in this tradition in the second volume of theSexuality.t argues that much can be learned from the ancientthough he rejects many of the specific practiceswith the Greeks personal ethics, Foucault arguesnciple of self-fashioning, what he calls an ethicsis worthy of contemporary revival (see Foucault,the Greeks, this principle of self-fashioning wasn a set of norms and codes pertaining to pleasurectice of moderation. In contrast to the Christiane ancient Greeks did not regard pleasure as some-rather the Greeks were concerned with the ways insure was practiced and experienced. This relatedrience of all kinds of pleasures including those as-th sexual relations, with eating and drinking, withance of ones household and ones personal deal-riends and acquaintances (Foucault, 1985). Thessed that such pleasures ought to be moderated ins of right and proper conduct (Foucault, 1985:ation was in this way, thought to be the hallmark ofcharacter. The noble man, the man of honour and

alsothing

Ththreeas a das a m

themmore

enhafamiling eexces

of hato dibusinwas

onese

by thof plesidercome

one pof onenhararer

that othe frones

flowTh

mentthe reof a uelemdeedthe mthe Gscripdid nviduaoughuse o

self-cpreciwhicnisedphiloance

rules1985

Foplesproviof his character, his very identity, a work of art, aat beauty (see Foucault, 1985: 5361).deration of pleasure was thus oriented towardsfic goals. To begin with, moderation was regardedt practice of the self, as an ethic. It was understoodby which the individual might be able to transformin the creation of a more noble character and aiful life. It was also thought that such a practicenes reputation and the status and esteem of onesrn, moderation was practiced as a means of avoid-n the experience of pleasure. The Greeks regardedindulgence as great dangers, linked to all mannernd misfortune from poor physical health throughns in ones family life and misfortune in onesalings (see Foucault, 1985: 2022). Moderationcommended as a way of ensuring the health ofones family. Finally, moderation was practiced

ks in order to enhance or intensify the experience. The moderation of pleasure was, in this way, con-reat functional utility. For if the individual could

oderate the frequency of those acts that broughtre, such as sexual intercourse or the consumptionvourite wine or food, then one was also likely tointensify the experience of that pleasure on thoseions in which it occurred. The Greeks believedolerance for pleasure grew in direct proportion tocy of its experience, and so one ought to moderateure in order to retain an appreciation of intensity,nuance (see Foucault, 1985).eks practiced this moderation through the deploy-rious practices of the self. Each practice requiredon of ones personal conduct in the developmentethics of the self. The most distinctive practicalthis ethics was the setting of personal limits. In-etting of limits was the principal means by whichhical use of pleasure was to be enacted. Whilstmade some attempt to codify a set of moral pre-ertaining to the use of pleasure, such prescriptionsain the force of law and hence it was left to indi-etermine for themselves how this use of pleasure

e practiced (see Foucault, 1985). If the propersure required the exercising of moderation and

l, then each individual was required to define thesonal limits of this moderation and the means bylimits were to be maintained. The Greeks recog-

diosyncratic nature of pleasure and so the greatrs and moralists of the age set out to provide guid-ow an individual might come to establish personalduct in the practice of moderation (see Foucault,

t was in this way primarily interested in the princi-actice of Ancient Greek ethics, particularly thoserelating to the ethical fashioning of ones conduct


and identity. Foucault regarded these principles as an effec-tive antidote to the normalisation of morals and ethics in ourown time (see Foucault, 1988). However, I would argue thatthe ancientwhich theyregulate thepunitive samoderationethic. Signindividualnobility ofsures. Modof itself: ittrue art ofisation migpolicy.

Drug use alimits

The ancsure is alwand excessis a mattercultivate aown time,the state indeemed too2002). Whof lifestylerecent decafirmly prohfailed to parguably inwith their2003b; Wafailure is thislative regforceable, smoral consenforcemenargue thatin relationyouth cultubeen steadially normaof illicit su2003a; Parmate, drugto the manain the cultuof use willand contexresponsiblecultures.

This approach also acknowledges the realities of drug usein contemporary societies. As Walton (2002) stresses, druguse is an innately private experience, comprising a mix of

ures ays takenal couse m

e selfe of thn and

any yoto har

existson and, eximode

oubt ssible ured thing thettle toeffectI wough thellowilimitssible uing thes, whrence

cultu, thisthers it enjoFouc

n of thsoredmode

ous. Pmodeault poure onfectivremaiSuchtion scts befor theder su

s of iny.is wous ehat exackno; OMs also have much to offer us today in the ways inmanaged the experience of pleasure. Rather thanexperience of pleasure through legislative fiat or

nction, the Greeks attempted to foster a culture ofthat saw limit setting raised to the virtue of an

ificantly, this ethic had significant benefits for thein that it was designed to bring to that individualcharacter and the intensification of ones plea-eration was never understood as a virtue in andwas a practical means of improving ones lifeaexistence. I would argue that such a conceptual-ht provide a way of rethinking Australian drug

s a practice of the self: moderation and

ient Greeks understood that the experience of plea-ays shadowed by the antinomies of moderation. Recognising that the balance of these tensionsof personal determination, the Greeks sought toculture of moderation and self-restraint. In ourgovernments have resorted to the machinery of

prohibiting the experience of those pleasuresunruly, disruptive or unpredictable (see Walton,

ilst matters of sexual and corporeal expression,and identity, have been largely decriminalised indes, the use of (most) drugs for pleasure is stillibited. This is despite the fact that prohibition hasrevent the pervasive use of such drugs, and hascreased the array of risks and harms associated

consumption (see Davenport-Hines, 2002; Duff,lton, 2002). Stuart Walton (2002) argues that thise result of the difficulties associated with the leg-ulation of private conduct. Being largely unen-uch laws rely on the maintenance of a supportiveensus; once this moral consensus breaks down,t becomes progressively more difficult. I would

this is precisely what has happened in Australiato the use of illicit substances. Particularly withinres, the taboos proscribing illicit drug use havely eroded such that drug use has become cultur-lised, with many young people regarding the usebstances as yet another leisure activity (see Duff,ker, Aldridge, & Measham, 1998). In such a cli-policy ought to move from the prohibition of usegement of use. Without this attempt to intervenere of illicit drug use, the patterns and prevalencebe left to the vicissitudes of particular cultures

ts. It is not clear that moderation and the moreuse of pleasure are always valued within these

pleasalwapersodrugof thnatureratioin mseekthatventiIndeemore

No dsponensu

shaping limore

uals.throu

Fowithsponreducstancdiffeyouthsome

for owhilsmore

nitiosponorisevirtusuchFoucpleasTo efeachable.imisarespealsoto renneedpolic

Thtaneouse thave1993nd risks, highs and harms. Whilst drug use almosts place within a social context, it is also a matter ofnduct, of choice and compulsion. In this respect,ight itself be described as a distinctive practice

. Drug policy should thus seek to influence theis conduct in entrenching the principles of mod-self-restraint. Clearly such practices already existuth cultures and so contemporary policy shouldness and reinforce these practices. Yet, the gapin Australias drug policy regime between pre-

d treatment largely precludes such interventions.sting policies have no way of accommodating therate and/or responsible use of illicit substances.ome will demur that there can be no level of re-se of illicit substances. Yet this approach has onlyat governments have been largely ineffective in

culture of illicit drug use in Australia whilst do-prevent their use. Drug policy must therefore findive ways of shaping the private conduct of individ-ld argue that Foucault provides a way of thinkingse new approaches.

ng Foucault, drug policy ought to be concernedand moderation in the fostering of a culture of re-se. This should serve as an effective means ofe harms associated with the use of illicit sub-ilst also working to overcome the pervasive in-

to drug policies and strategies that exists in manyres (see Clark, Scott, & Cook, 2003: 3841). For

setting of limits will involve complete abstinence,t will involve abstaining from certain substancesying others in moderation. The great benefit of aauldian approach to this problem lies in the recog-e benefits of moderation. Typically, governmentharm minimisation and prevention strategies val-ration and abstinence as inherently proper anderhaps one might have more success in promotingration if one were also to identify its benefits. Asints out, moderation permits the intensification ofthose rarer occasions in which it is experienced.

ely moderate ones drug use is thus to ensure thatning episode of use is more distinct and pleasur-moderation is also clearly an effective harm min-trategy in its own right. Moderation might in these

recommended not only as a virtue in itself, butpractical benefits it delivers. This is also likely

ch policies and programmes more relevant to thedividual drug users and thus more effective as

rk should also seek to build upon the more spon-xpressions of moderation and controlled drugist in many youth cultures. As many researcherswledged (see Lupton & Tulloch, 2002; Moore,alley & Valverde, 2004; Zinberg, 1984), much


drug use takes place within distinct social settings or lo-cales which feature an array of specific norms and conven-tions that work to encourage moderation through discour-aging excetions of min many drrienced anable culturof more refiity to hand& Parker,many of thbarrassmenuse, withvalorisationnonetheleseration andcultures ansuggests thuse as a w

with that dor undesiramerit.

In closia more Fothe design oconceptualnext step inconcern thebe implememight theoproblem, Iimisation pcontexts ander to influFoucaultsmight be pmoderationpeer educaas bars andties. This mpeer to pethe practicato young periences. Fosise the mahance the eharms. Thithe broademoderate ustrategy thastances, ina more praof illicit dr

A modework of th

organisations RaveSafe, Enlighten and the PtChang Non-Violence Group. Each organisation remains grass-roots andpeer driven, and is committed to reducing the harms associ-

with ysion oon (seout-reh they

comm

n is mly respnon-j

on (seat thef illicuideli(see V

belielopmesubstaessed

more

of illicchalle

ensu

lusion

ave a

druge way

es. Wupon t, andehaviobeenmptio

e stateattem

use inful pa, in tuthe lim

are c

s drugts haseen ostratenceptuuse, a

h thesfailin

have acted tssive consumption. Slavin (2004) argues that no-essy or uncontrolled drug use are condemnedug using peer groups as the province of inexpe-d/or irresponsible users. In this sense, consider-al and social cachet is attached to the cultivationned and controlled personal habitsin the abil-le ones drug use (see also Measham, Aldridge,

2001: 124129). That said, the typical focus ofese social norms is the desire to avoid the em-t or social stigma associated with messy drug

getting out of it, rather than the more directof moderation in the use of pleasure. It does,

s, suggest that the grounds for a practice of mod-active limit-setting already exist in many youth

d across many diverse settings. Furthermore, itat a policy that might promote the moderation ofay of both intensifying the pleasures associatedrug use as well as ameliorating the more messyble consequences of this use has considerable

ng, this paper has sought to canvas the value ofucauldian appreciation of pleasure and ethics inf drug policy and so my interests have been moreor theoretical than practical or programmatic. The

the development of this line of argument mustmanner in which these ethical principles might

nted and/or operationalised. How in other wordsry be brought into practice? In thinking about thiswould argue that drug prevention and harm min-rogrammes ought to be implemented within thosed settings in which drug use takes places in or-ence the nature and conduct of that drug use.

work suggests that such a cultural transformationossible through closer attention to an ethics of. This will require new types of information andtion strategies in specific drug use settings suchnightclubs, the workplace, schools and universi-ight involve the development of more effective

er education and information strategies in whichl benefits of moderation might be communicatedople in a way that resonates with their own expe-

llowing Foucault, these strategies ought to empha-nner in which the practice of moderation might en-xperience of pleasure whilst potentially reducings work should also go some way towards shiftingr culture of drug use in ways that valorise morese whilst cautioning against excess. Moreover, at focuses on the responsible use of illicit sub-

contrast to the idealism of prohibition, is arguablygmatic and appropriate response to the problemug use in Australian society.l of such strategies might be discerned in thee Australian peer education and harm reduction

atedproviucatiofferwhicbeingsatiowidefor aductiing thuse o

use ggiesthat Idevelicitbe prage ationTheies toing.

Conc

I histinging thstancpactgionsthe bhaveconsu

of thsome

drugharmgestswithdrugstraliaefforhas bdrugof codrugwhicicant

Icorreoung peoples use of illicit substances through thef honest, non-judgmental information and ed-e VCDPC, 2003). These organisations primarilyach services to young people in those settings inconsume illicit substances, with clubs and raveson sites of operation. Importantly, each organi-

anaged and staffed by volunteers and peers and isected among young people who use illicit drugsudgmental and pragmatic approach to harm re-e VCDPC, 2003: 217229). It is also worth not-se organisations share a commitment to the saferit substances through the dissemination of safernes and other innovative harm reduction strate-CDPC, 2004: 682687). It is for these reasons

ve such organisations have much to offer in thent of an ethics of moderation in the use of il-nces. For each organisation might quite readilyinto the service of a much broader push to encour-

Foucauldian use of pleasure in the consump-it substances across a range of diverse settings.

nge remains to find ways of funding these bod-re that their efforts are more effective and endur-

s: reconguring Australian drug policy

rgued that the principal failing of Australias ex-policy regime lies in its ineffectiveness in shap-s in which most individuals consume illicit sub-

hilst law enforcement may from time to time im-he availability of certain substances in certain re-some successes have been achieved in changingurs of injecting drug users, most illicit drug users

left to determine their own cultures and norms ofn. Yet shouldnt these cultures of use be the focuss efforts? Harm minimisation arguably impliespt to shape the culture and the context of illicitthat such a policy is explicitly aimed at reducing

tterns of drug use in Australian society. This sug-rn, that drug policies should concern themselves

its of moderation, and the ways in which illicitonsumed. However, the gap that exists in Aus-policy settings between prevention and treatment

ensured that the culture of drug use in Australianly indirectly fashioned by the state and its illicitgies. In short, Australian drug policy has no wayalising the shifting patterns and cultures of illicitnd thus has been unable to conceive of ways ine cultures might be transformed. This is a signif-g.lso argued that this conceptual lacuna might be

hrough the development of a robust and dynamic


theory of ethics, pleasure and limits. The origin of this lacunalies in the inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the real-ity of the pleasures associated with the consumption of illicitdrugs. In fand the memisunderstThis is notharm minimto argue thciation of ppleasures aTo understais to providdesigning aFoucaultsconceptualways of opwork of Au

Reference

Australian InDrug Stratralian Ins

Ballard, R., Gcation in

Becker, H. (ENew York

Clark, G., ScAustralianCampaigning.

Commonweaturn on IReport. C

Crosbie, D. (G. Stokessearch of

Davenport-Hinarcotics.

Dietze, P. (19related haDrug useOxford U

Duff, C. (200normalis6(4), 433

Duff, C. (200and riskand Socie

Durrant, R.,and histo

Fitzgerald, J.proach (ACouncil o

Foucault, M.fus & P. Rhermeneu

Foucault, M.pleasure.

Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L. Martin, H. Gutman,& P. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with MichelFoucault. London: Tavistock.

ton, Mng, &nd ed.).ton, M.eventinof Rep

y Affauiry inPS.

overnmntion anberra:n, M. (ng, &nd ed.).

J., &tion. Instralia:ess.n, S. (1underses. Pertn, S., &d Alcohris, N.,ers. Instralia:ess.n, D., &luntary3124.am, F.,alth antion Bonald, Jucationimer).dictionrd, R.,inciplesucation

terial Cn on ilmmonw, D. (1ch: Thstralianlley, P.,es of pln. Soci, H., Alization, A., &Gillen

elbournT. (200alk, &ections, S. (20urnal o, A., &G. St

cy: In sess.ocusing solely on the nature of risks and harms,ans of their prevention, drug policy effectively

ands the culture and the context of illicit drug use.for a moment to suggest that the emphasis onisation is misguided, indeed, it is vital; it is only

at a focus on harms must be wedded to an appre-leasure and the ways in which harms, risks andre entwined in any experience of illicit drug use.nd and accommodate these complex interactionse a conceptual framework adequate to the task ofnd implementing good policy. I would argue thatwork on the use of pleasure might provide thisframework. The challenge now becomes findingerationalising this model within the broad frame-stralian drug policy.

s

stitute of Health Welfare (AIHW). (2002). 2001 Nationaltegy Household Survey: Detailed ndings. Canberra: Aus-titute of Health and Welfare.illespie, A., & Irwin, R. (1994). Principles for drug edu-schools. Belconnen, ACT: University of Canberra Press.d.). (1965). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance.: Free Press.ott, N., & Cook, S. (2003). Formative research with youngs to assist in the development of the National Illicit Drugs. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Ag-

lth Department of Health and Ageing (CDHA). (2002). Re-nvestment in Needle and Syringe Programs in Australia:anberra: AGPS.2000). The National Drug Strategy: A safe set of words? In, P. Chalk, & K. Gillen (Eds.), Drugs and democracy: Innew directions. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.nes, R. (2002). The pursuit of oblivion: A global history ofLondon: WW Norton and Company.98). Strategies for the prevention on alcohol and other drugrm. In M. Hamilton, A. Kellehear, & G. Rumbold (Eds.),in Australia: A harm minimisation approach. Melbourne:

niversity Press.3a). Drugs and youth culture: Is Australia experiencing the

ation of adolescent drug use? The Journal of Youth Studies,447.

3b). The importance of culture and context: Rethinking riskmanagement in young drug-using population. Health Riskty, 5(3), 285300.& Thakker, J. (2003). Substance use and abuse: Culturalrical perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications., & Sewards, T. (2002). Drug policy: The Australian ap-NCD research paper no. 5). Canberra: Australian Nationaln Drugs.(1983). Afterword: The subject and power. In H. Drey-abinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism andtics (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1985). The history of sexuality, volume two: The use of

London: Penguin.

HamilKi(2

HamilPr

HousenitinqAG

Intergve

CaKeena

Ki(2

Kutin,sa

AuPr

LentoSasu

Lentoan

Lintzeus

AuPr

LuptoVo11

Meashhecia

McDoedprAd

MidfoPrEd

MinisplaCo

Moorerea

AuOMa

us

tioParker

ma

RocheK.M

Rohl,Chdir

SlavinJo

SuttonInra

Pr. (2004). Preventing drug related harm. In M. Hamilton, T.A. Ritter (Eds.), Drug use in Australia: Preventing harmMelbourne: Oxford University Press.

, King, T., & Ritter, A. (Eds.). (2004). Drug use in Australia:g harm (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.resentatives Standing Committee on Families and Commu-

irs (HRSCFCA). (2003). Road to recovery; report on theto substance abuse in Australian communities. Canberra:

ental Committee on Drugs (ICD). (2003). Towards a pre-genda for the National Drug Strategy 2004 and beyond.AGPS.

2004). The social context of drug use. In M. Hamilton, T.A. Ritter (Eds.), Drug use in Australia: Preventing harmMelbourne: Oxford University Press.Alberti, S. (2004). Law enforcement and harm minimi-M. Hamilton, T. King, & A. Ritter (Eds.), Drug use inPreventing harm (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University

996). The essence of prevention. In C. Wilkinson & B.(Eds.), Perspectives on addiction: Making sense of the is-h: William Montgomery Press.

Single, E. (1998). The definition of harm reduction. Drugol Review, 17(2), 213220.& Spry-Bailey, P. (2004). Harm reduction with problem

M. Hamilton, T. King, & A. Ritter (Eds.), Drug use inPreventing harm (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University

Tulloch, J. (2002). Life would be pretty dull without risks:risk-taking and its pleasures. Health Risk and Society, 4(2),

Aldridge, J., & Parker, H. (2001). Dancing on drugs: Risk,d hedonism in the British Club scene. London: Free Asso-oks.

., Roche, A., Durbridge, M., & Skinner, N. (2003). Peer: From evidence to practice (an alcohol and other drugsAdelaide: National Centre for Education and Training on.Munro, G., McBride, N., Snow, P., & Ladzinski, U. (2002).

that underpin effective drug education. Journal of Drug, 32(4), 363368.ouncil on Drug Strategy (MCDS). (2001). National actionlicit drugs: 200120022003. Background paper. Canberra:ealth Department of Health and Aged Care.

993). Social controls, harm reduction and interactive out-e public health implications of an ethnography of drug use.Journal of Public Health, 17(1), 5867.

& Valverde, M. (2004). Pleasure, freedom and drugs: Theeasure in liberal governance of drug and alcohol consump-ology, 38(1), 2542.ldridge, J., & Measham, F. (1998). Illegal leisure: The nor-of adolescent drug use. London: Routledge.

Evans, K. (2000). Harm reduction. In G. Stokes, P. Chalk, &(Eds.), Drugs and democracy: In search of new directions.

e: Melbourne University Press.0). Evaluating the National Drug Strategy. In G. Stokes, P.K. Gillen (Eds.), Drugs and democracy: In search of new

. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.04). Drugs, space, and sociality in a gay nightclub in Sydney.f Contemporary Ethnography, 33(3), 265295.

James, S. (2000). Law enforcement and accountability.okes, P. Chalk, & K. Gillen (Eds.), Drugs and democ-earch of new directions. Melbourne: Melbourne University


Victorian Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee (VCDPC). (2003). In-quiry into amphetamine and party drug use in Victoria: Discussionpaper. Melbourne: Parliament of Victoria.

Victorian Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee (VCDPC). (2004). In-quiry into amphetamine and party drug use in Victoria: Final report.Melbourne: Parliament of Victoria.

Walton, S. (2002). Out of it: A cultural history of intoxication. London:Penguin.

White, V., Hill, D., Siahpush, M., & Bobevski, I. (2003). How has theprevalence of cigarette smoking among Australian adults changed?

Trends in smoking prevalence between 1980 and 2001. Tobacco Con-trol 2003, 12(Suppl. II), ii67ii74.

Wodak, A. (2000). Developing more effective responses. In G.Stokes, P. Chalk, & K. Gillen (Eds.), Drugs and democracy:In search of new directions. Melbourne: Melbourne UniversityPress.

Wodak, A., & Moore, T. (2002). Modernising Australias drug policy.Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

Zinberg, N. (1984). Drug, set, setting: The basis for controlled intoxicantuse. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Drug use as a 'practice of the self': is there any place for an 'ethics of moderation' in contemporary drug policy?Changing patterns of drug use: enduring policy responsesThe 'gap' between prevention and treatment: what is drug policy missing?

Practices of the self: ethics and the use of pleasureDrug use as a practice of the self: moderation and limitsConclusions: reconfiguring Australian drug policyReferences

duff nº 7

Documents