The ethical issues in conducting research on preventing HIV infection are among the most complex of any area of human subjects research. This article is an update of a 1987 article that addressed potential conflicts between research design and ethics with respect to AIDS prevention among injecting drug users. The present article reviews current ethical issues that arise in the design and conduct of HIV/AIDS prevention research focused on injecting drug users.

This article offers a critical contribution to the debate on a problematic ‘type’ of injecting drug use referred to as needle fixation. At the heart of this debate, is a questioning of the existence, prevalence and usefulness of the needle fixation concept for academics and drug treatment practitioners working with injecting drug users. The aim of this article is to extend and develop this discussion by examining the historical conditions of the needle fixation discourse. Drawing upon Michel (...) Foucault’s concept of governmentality, it uses primary and secondary sources from the 19th century to the present to trace the historical trajectory of the problematic relationship between the injecting drug user, the syringe and truth. By reconceptualizing needle fixation as a technology of government, this article will argue that needle fixation can be seen to be incompatible with contemporary rationalities found in treatment policy and practice, suggesting that we have moved beyond needle fixation as a way of governing injecting drug use and into the domain of risk management. Beyond revealing this tension, the article highlights new lines that are currently being drawn between the injecting drug user, the syringe and truth from the field of neuroscience and the risk-management potential of psychopharmacology. (shrink)

The article identifies a problem in socio-cultural-historical activity theory (SCHAT) with ignoring how hope and power constitute the theory itself, and suggests that this is why the tradition faces a bad choice between functionalist or utopianist reductions of its own social relevance. Currently, remedies for this kind of (perhaps shammed) innocence can be found in Foucauldian and Latourian approaches to knowledge. However, since these appear to presuppose the (often feigned) cynicism of a purely negative standpoint that fits all too smoothly (...) into the neoliberal management it describes, this presents us with an impossible choice or oscillation at another level. To get beyond it, we need the frankly self-reflected standpoint of ideology critique and the articulation of ‘concrete utopia’, i.e. real possibilities for social transformation. The approach is then realized and exemplified as part of an emergent practice research in the field of drug treatment. The field is broadly described as moving toward certain kinds of recognition of users’ standards, but also as filled with paradoxes that allow us to intervene with theory. One of these (sets of) paradoxes concerns the relations between state and civil (bourgeois) society that are played out in drug treatment. Contrary to the doxa of New Public Management, the (welfare) state’s normative power has not dissolved, only hides from itself. An immanent critique of practices and ideas in the field leads to the suggestion that its forms of recognition imply both submission of users, and the creation of positive standards and collectives. To intervene in this set of issues, we must expand the SCHAT reading of its own Hegelian-Marxist legacy, against the dominant liberal and scientistic trend, to engage with theories of recognition. A contemporary, participatory concept of recognition is sketched, which seeks to sublate (include and supersede) submission into the building of the generalizing ethics of a collective. (shrink)

In public health and the social sciences, there is growing recognition of the role that social context plays in determining health. Frequently, social relations of inequality are among the most important features of social context identified in this work, and emphasis is placed on identifying and addressing these inequalities in order to improve health. Within the field of HIV/AIDS prevention as well, researchers have begun to look beyond individuals for an understanding of the structural causes of HIV-related risk. This research (...) demands that greater attention be paid to the social mechanisms and contextual factors that lead to HIV risk. Among these factors are law and social policy, which form a part of the context in which risk-taking occurs and which can promote both HIV transmission and prevention. On the one hand, laws limiting access to sterile injection equipment have contributed to HIV-related risk behavioxs among injection drug users. (shrink)

This article explores the translation and migration of illegal drugs, humanistic therapies and political ideologies by focusing on China’s first residential community drug treatment center, called Sunlight. I argue that the migration of contemporary treatment therapies from one continent to another initiates certain practices that re-appropriate and remake drug-using bodies that live and work at Sunlight. Reviewing Sunlight ethnographically also allows for broader theoretical exploration. When bodies do not operate under the common trope of possessive individualism different forms (...) of biopolitical and therapeutic power are at play. In keeping with the theme of this special issue, this article begins with a discussion of why migration is a useful rubric for understanding how therapeutics and bodies become global entities and practices through the movement of three things: heroin, humanistic therapy and political ideology. It then presents an ethnographic slice of life at Sunlight to demonstrate how these practices and ideologies play out in the everyday. It finally returns to the question of why these therapies re-appropriate the post-socialist drug user’s body and psyche through a discussion of the term ‘psycho-sociability’. Psycho-sociability can be read as a demand for becoming a good biological citizen, as well as a theoretical rubric for explaining non-Western biopolitics. (shrink)

In the wake of several highly publicized lawsuits over drugs recalled for safety – most notably, Vioxx and Paxil – the Food and Drug Administration and the pharmaceutical industry have faced increasingly intense public scrutiny over the drug testing and approval process. Critics blame the FDA's shorter pre-market approval process that has resulted from the enactment of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which effected, among other changes, an increased number of reviewers, a higher review load for (...) each reviewer, and the implementation of “user fees” from companies submitting drugs for review. While many have posited that the lack of safety in some FDA-approved drugs was caused by the enactment of PDUFA, the results of a recent study from the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development have indicated that there is no statistically significant correlation between the number of drugs recalled for safety and the enactment of PDUFA. (shrink)

So-called cognitive enhancing drugs are relatively common in higher education, especially among students who are white, male, and attend highly selective institutions. Using qualitative data from a diverse sample of 32 students at an elite university, the present study aims to examine whether students perceive CED use to be advantageous, equitable, and fair. Participants were either medical or nonmedical users of CEDs—primarily ADHD stimulant medications such as Adderall. Data were first coded openly, then axially into themes, and finally arranged to (...) respond to research aims around social and ethical concerns. Ethical perceptions and behavioral justifications varied by participants’ personal use frequency, class standing, and perceived social norms surrounding CEDs. Among the salient themes to emerge was the belief that CED use is a lesser or more tenable form of cheating, that the vagueness and prevalence of ADHD justifies nonmedical use, and that above all, CEDs are advantageous. Some participants expressed concern about the advantageousness of CEDs when coupled with a perceived imbalance of their use among students from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds, with one calling it “the white version of cheating.” Implications for cheating and drug use prevention are discussed, situating cognitive enhancement as an emerging ethical and social equity concern in higher education. (shrink)

Illicit drug users are frequently identified as a ‘vulnerable population’ requiring ‘special protection’ and ‘additional safeguards’ in research. However, without specific guidance on how to enact these special protections and safeguards, research ethics committee (REC) members sometimes fall back on untested assumptions about the ethics of illicit drug use research. In light of growing calls for ‘evidence-based research ethics’, this commentary examines three common assumptions amongst REC members about what constitutes ethical research with drug users, and whether (...) such assumptions are borne out by a growing body of empirical data. The assumptions that form the focus of this commentary are as follows: (i) drug users do not have the capacity to provide informed consent to research; (ii) it is ethically problematic to provide financial incentives to drug users to participate in research; and (iii) asking drug users about their experiences ‘re-traumatizes’ and ‘re-victimizes’ them. (shrink)

The prelims comprise: Introduction 1 Should I Use Drugs? Is the State Justified in Punishing Drug Users? Conclusion References Further Reading.

The “hijacking” and “drug instrumentalization” models of psychoactive drug use predict opposite outcomes in terms of adaptive behavior and fitness benefits. Which is the range of applicability of each model? To answer this question, we need more data than those reported by studies focusing on medical, psychiatric, and legal problems in addicted users. An evolutionary analysis requires a much wider focus.

We commend Redish et al. for the progress they have made in bringing a measure of theoretical order to the processes that underlie drug addiction. However, incorporating information about situations in which drug users do not exhibit faulty decision-making into the theory would greatly enhance its generality and practical value. This commentary draws attention to the relevant human substance abuse literature.

Illegal drugs are not inherently unclean, any more than alcohol, tobacco, or canola oil. All of these are simply chemicals that people choose to ingest for enjoyment, and that can harm our health if used to excess. Most of the sordid associations we have with illegal drugs are actually the product of the drug laws: it is because of the laws that drugs are sold on the black market, that Latin American crime bosses are made rich, that government officials (...) are corrupted, and that drug users rob others to buy drugs. (shrink)

This study explored drug users’ attitudes toward and understanding of randomized controlled trials testing addiction therapies. A video portraying a fictional consent conference for a randomized controlled trial with placebo arm was shown to poor male and female drug users of diverse ethnic status and sexual orientation. The video stimulated focus group discussion in which participants’ comments often reflected “experimental realism”—a realistic view of the trial—and adequate understanding of the uncertain efficacy of the treatment being tested, as well (...) as the concepts of randomization and placebo control. However, participants’ comprehension of the nature of placebos was compromised by the widespread view that placebos are a way of testing a subject’s willpower and personal control over his or her addiction. Comments also showed a mistrust of the video investigator’s integrity and competence and signs of therapeutic misconception and misestimation. The study’s findings underscore the importance of tailoring informed consent encounters to the personal and sociohistorical context of participants’ lived experiences. (shrink)

Should the recreational use of drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and LSD, be prohibited by law? Prohibitionists answer yes. They usually argue that drug use is extremely harmful both to drug users and to society in general, and possibly even immoral, and they believe that these facts provide sufficient reasons for prohibition. Legalizers answer no. They usually give one or more of three arguments: First, some argue that drug use is not as harmful as prohibitionists believe, (...) and even that it is sometimes beneficial. Second, some argue that drug prohibition “does not work”, i.e., is not very successful in preventing drug use and/or has a number of very bad consequences. Lastly, some argue that drug prohibition is unjust or violates rights. I won’t attempt to discuss all these arguments here. Instead, I will focus on what seem to me the three most prominent arguments in the drug legalization debate: first, the argument that drugs should be outlawed because of the harm they cause to drug users; second, the argument that they should be outlawed because they harm people other than the user; and third, the argument that drugs should be legalized because drug prohibition violates rights. I shall focus on the moral/philosophical issues that these [134] arguments raise, rather than medical or sociological issues. I shall show that the two arguments for prohibition fail, while the third argument, for legalization, succeeds. (shrink)

Programs of drug testing welfare recipients are increasingly common in US states and have been considered elsewhere. Though often intensely debated, such programs are complicated to evaluate because their aims are ambiguous – aims like saving money may be in tension with aims like referring people to treatment. We assess such programs using a proportionality approach, which requires that for ethical acceptability a practice must be: reasonably likely to meet its aims, sufficiently important in purpose as to outweigh harms (...) incurred, and lower in costs than feasible alternatives. In the light of empirical findings, we argue that the programs fail the three requirements. Pursuing recreational drug users is not important in the light of costs incurred, while dependent users who may require referral are usually identifiable without testing and typically need a broader approach than one focussing on drugs. Drug testing of welfare recipients is therefore not ethically acceptable policy. (shrink)

In the United States today, the use or possession of many drugs is a criminal offense. Can these criminal laws be justified? What are the best reasons to punish or not to punish drug users? These are the fundamental issues debated in this book by two prominent philosophers of law. Douglas Husak argues in favor of drug decriminalization, by clarifying the meaning of crucial terms, such as legalize, decriminalize, and drugs; and by identifying the standards by which alternative (...) drug policies should be assessed. He critically examines the reasons typically offered in favor of our current approach and explains why decriminalization is preferable. Peter de Marneffe argues against drug legalization, demonstrating why drug prohibition, especially the prohibition of heroin, is necessary to protect young people from self-destructive drug use. If the empirical assumptions of this argument are sound, he reasons, drug prohibition is perfectly compatible with our rights to liberty. (shrink)

_Illegal Leisure _offers a unique insight into the role drug use now plays in British youth culture. The authors present the results of a five year longitudinal study into young people and drug taking. They argue that drugs are no longer used as a form of rebellious behaviour, but have been subsumed into wider, acceptable leisure activities. The new generation of drug user can no longer be seen as mad or bad or from subcultural worlds - they (...) are ordinary and everywhere. Illustrated throughout with interview material, _Illegal Leisure _shows how drug consumption has become normalised, and provides a well-informed analysis of the current debate. (shrink)

Reports in the popular press suggest that smart drugs or “nootropics” such as methylphenidate, modafinil and piracetam are increasingly being used by the healthy to augment cognitive ability. Although current nootropics offer only modest improvements in cognitive performance, it appears likely that more effective compounds will be developed in the future and that their off-label use will increase. One sphere in which the use of these drugs may be commonplace is by healthy students within academia. This article reviews the ethical (...) and pragmatic implications of nootropic use in academia by drawing parallels with issues relevant to the drugs in sport debate. It is often argued that performance-enhancing drugs should be prohibited because they create an uneven playing field. However, this appears dubious given that “unfair” advantages are already ubiquitous and generally tolerated by society. There are concerns that widespread use will indirectly coerce non-users also to employ nootropics in order to remain competitive. However, to restrict the autonomy of all people for fear that it may influence the actions of some is untenable. The use of potentially harmful drugs for the purposes of enhancement rather than treatment is often seen as unjustified, and libertarian approaches generally champion the rights of the individual in deciding if these risks are acceptable. Finally, whether the prohibition of nootropics can be effectively enforced is doubtful. As nootropics use becomes widespread among students in the future, discussion of this issue will become more pressing in the years to come. (shrink)

Neither anti-illegal drug proponents nor their detractors have wholly plausible arguments for their positions, because neither takes responsibility for drug use sufficiently seriously. Instead, only a policy that places users’ responsibility at the forefront of the problem is acceptable, one that is sufficiently respectful of actual or potential nonusers’ rights not to be wrongfully harmed, directly or indirectly, by drug use, or coerced to support it in any way.

SALMON A, BROWNE AJ, and PEDERSON A. Nursing Inquiry 2010; 17: 336–345 ‘Now we call it research’: participatory health research involving marginalized women who use drugsIn this paper, we discuss and analyse the strategies employed and challenges encountered when conducting a recent feminist participatory action research study with highly marginalized women who were illicit drug users in an inner city area of Vancouver, Canada. Through an analysis of the political economy of participatory praxis within current neoliberal contexts, we focus (...) on three main areas: (i) reconceptualizing the pragmatics of participation; (ii) the microeconomic implications of participatory research, including ethical issues in payment for research participation; and (iii) the value and limits of using research as a tool for activism and empowerment. We conclude with a brief discussion of what we see to be some of the most salient social justice implications arising from feminist and participatory approaches to health research within neoliberal political spaces. (shrink)

The recent withdrawals of Vioxx, Celebrex, and other drugs from the market have spurred high-profile hearings in Congress and increased concern over the state of drug regulation in consumer protection and academic circles. This renewed focus on national drug safety has translated ineluctably into new legislation designed to mitigate that outcry. The most notable example, the passage of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act this past September, is at least partly intended as a response to an (...) apparent lack of public confidence in existing drug safety practices.Of the many provisions in the FDAAA, perhaps none carries greater implications for drug safety than the reauthorized Prescription Drug User Fee Act. Now in its fourth iteration, the newest PDUFA differs in important respects from the statute it supersedes. (shrink)

It is a commonplace of the critical innovation literature that experiment has replaced mass production as the driving force of accumulation. But while many theorists have explored the politics and dynamics of such economies of experiment under the rubric of ‘immaterial’, cognitive or affective labour, few have examined the intersection of labour, experiment and the speculative in the clinic. Taking the clinic as representative of contemporary transformations in the commodity-form, labour and innovation, this article will look at recent attempts to (...) reform the clinical trial, arguing that these developments represent a far-reaching shift in our understanding of medicine. First, I investigate recent efforts (associated with the discourse of ‘translational medicine’) to rethink the interface between experimental lab-based science and the clinic. I also look at closely associated efforts to reintroduce an element of experimental surprise into the clinical trial process itself, through the adoption of novel trial designs. If the randomized controlled trial was conceived essentially along the lines of a product testing procedure, recent efforts have attempted to reintroduce surprise into the testing process itself – in other words, to invent a trial process capable of producing unexpected events as leads for further innovation. I then move from the experimental clinic to what I call the distributed experiment. Here I focus on efforts to outsource pharmacological innovation to a distributed public of patients through the use of social networking software. These platforms allow drug developers to escape the limits of the conventional clinical trial by tracking the experimental practices taking place in the distributed clinic of unregulated drug consumption. (shrink)

Research suggests that reducing rates of drug addiction requires a range of physical spaces where drug users and counselors can meet, build community, and work together. The efficacy of this ‘social infrastructure,’ however, depends not just on how its shared spaces facilitate access to social networks, but on how institutional rules and norms govern the social interaction that takes place in those spaces. I suggest that institutional norms nurture sobriety to the extent that the social arrangements they foster (...) are (i) discretionary, since individuals trying to re-establish sobriety have heterogeneous social preferences; (ii) unconditional, since individuals’ efforts to re-achieve sobriety frequently involve setbacks; and (iii) low-pressure, since individuals may find extraneous turmoil damaging to their renascent sobriety. To the extent that institutional norms facilitate contrary social arrangements, shared settings are liable to backfire—to undermine or at least fail to nurture sobriety—which I illustrate using the case of sobriety-oriented organizations in the Boston area. Critically, while the first two aspects are governed largely by intra-organizational norms, the third is governed by norms between multiple sobriety-oriented organizations. Upholding healthful local norms, then, demands commitment at both the organization and system levels. (shrink)

This important book was the first serious work of philosophy to address the question: Do adults have a moral right to use drugs for recreational purposes? Many critics of the 'war on drugs' denounce law enforcement as counterproductive and ineffective. Douglas Husak argues that the 'war on drugs' violates the moral rights of adults who want to use drugs for pleasure, and that criminal laws against such use are incompatible with moral rights. This is not a polemical tract but a (...) scrupulously argued work of philosophy that takes full account of all available data concerning drug use in the United States today. The author is careful to describe the properties a recreational drug would have to possess before the state would be justified in prohibiting it. Since criminal laws against the use of recreational drugs are justified neither by the harm users cause to themselves nor by the harm users cause to each other, Professor Husak concludes that such laws are, in almost all cases, unjustified. (shrink)

The war on drugs is widely criticized as unjust. The idea that the laws prohibiting drugs are unjust can easily lead to the conclusion that those laws do not deserve our respect, so that our only moral reason to obey them flows from a general moral obligation to obey the law, rather than from anything morally troubling about drug use itself. In this paper, I argue that this line of thinking is mistaken. I begin by arguing that the (...) class='Hi'>drug laws are indeed unjust. However, so long as they remain prohibited, I argue that we have strong moral reasons to avoid drug use. First, drug users are partly responsible for the violent and exploitative conditions in which many drugs are produced and distributed. Second, the unequal ways in which drug laws are enforced make drug use by many an unethical exercise of privilege. These reasons do not depend on the existence of a general moral obligation to obey the law; we ought to refrain from illegal drug use even if prohibition is unjust and even if we have no general obligation to obey the law. In fact, drug laws turn out to represent an interesting exception case within the broader debate about this obligation, and I argue that it is the very injustice of the law that generates the reasons not to violate it. (shrink)

Normative analysis of cognition-enhancing drugs frequently weighs the liberty interests of drug users against egalitarian values. Yet those who would refuse to engage in neuroenhancement may well find their liberty to do so limited in a society where such drugs are widespread. To the extent that unvarnished emotional responses are world-disclosive, neurocosmetics also threaten to foist faulty data upon all their users. This essay examines underappreciated liberty-based and epistemic rationales for regulating cognition-enhancing drugs.

This textbook introduces students to the various arguments for and against the prohibition of recreational drugs. The arguments are carefully presented and analyzed, inviting students to consider the competing principles of liberty rights, paternalism, theories of punishment, legal moralism, and the social consequences of drug use and drug laws. Meyers extends this examination by presenting alternatives to the prohibition/legalization dichotomy, including harm reduction, decriminalization, and user licensing or on-premise use. The presentation invites readers to think clearly about the (...) reasons and principles that should determine public policy and law, while also delving into the deeper philosophical questions underlying the drug prohibition debate. Is it morally wrong to use drugs? If so, would that be reason enough to make it illegal? Are there good reasons in favor of using illicit drugs? Do addicts lack free will, and if so, would it be unjust to punish them? What is (or ought to be) the purpose of punishment? Is the state justified in limiting the freedom of competent adults for their own good? What should be the goal of drug policy, reduced use or reduced harm? The purpose of the book is twofold. First, it is a review of the arguments for and against drug prohibition, a useful tool for policy makers, activists, and concerned citizens with an understanding of the relevant considerations for determining how we should reform our failing drug policy. Second, the book serves as a case study in the deeper issues of justice, the nature of law, rights and liberties, and the public good. Students studying applied ethics, political science, or public policy will benefit greatly from Meyers' approach. (shrink)

Through a fieldwork study of the practice of methadone substitution at a French addiction clinic, the classic ‘theory of action’ is criticized and an alternative one proposed. A sketch of the debates among French drug specialists, drug users and legislators shows the pertinence for these practitioners of such a theoretical question; further, the ethnographic data suggest that they can be seen as actually trying out an alternative to this ‘theory of action’.

BackgroundDrug user networks and community-based organizations advocate for greater, meaningful involvement of people with lived experience of drug use in research, programs and services, and policy initiatives. Community-based approaches to research provide an opportunity to engage people who use drugs in all stages of the research process. Conducting community-based participatory research with people who use drugs has its own ethical challenges that are not necessarily acknowledged or supported by institutional ethics review boards. We conducted a scoping review to identify (...) ethical issues in CBPR with people who use drugs that were documented in peer-reviewed and grey literature.MethodsThe search strategy focused on three areas; community-based research, ethical issues, and drug use. Searches of five academic databases were conducted in addition to a grey literature search, hand-searching, and consultation with organizational partners and key stakeholders. Peer reviewed literature and community reports published in English between 1985 and 2013 were included, with initial screening conducted by two reviewers.ResultsThe search strategy produced a total of 874 references. Twenty-five references met the inclusion criteria and were included in our thematic analysis. Five areas were identified as important to the ethics of CBPR with people who use drugs: 1) participant compensation, 2) drug user perspectives on CBPR, 3) peer recruitment and representation in CBPR, 4) capacity building, and 5) participation and inclusion in CBPR.ConclusionsWe critically discuss implications of the emerging research in this field and provide suggestions for future research and practice. (shrink)

This article examines the case of Insite, North America’s only supervised injection facility, to consider the relationship between dependence, relational autonomy, and vulnerability. At state-funded Insite, users inject illicit drugs under medical supervision. By conceiving of Insite as a health-care facility and addiction as disease, advocates evoke a shared sense of vulnerability among the nonusing public and users, garnering considerable support for the site. Through Insite, the state responds to vulnerability by reshaping the meaning of dependence and conferring recognition upon (...) users, in turn fostering users’ autonomy. However, the medicalized discourse surrounding Insite may obscure drug users’ vulnerabilities emerging not from “disease,” but from stigma and criminalization. Vulnerability analysis must emphasize not merely a naturalized conception of vulnerability, but the socially constructed nature of human beings’ experiences of vulnerability. (shrink)

Foucauldian analyses of civil society depart from classical approaches in that they don´t consider civil society to be a site of societal change or resistance as classical analyses do, but rather one of society’s multiple locations where so-called governmentality hits the ground. Although Foucauldian investigations have provided the prevailing discussion with a necessary departure from excessively idealistic images of civil society organizations as sites of resistance and societal transformation, what may have resulted in turn are overly pessimistic analyses that have (...) overlooked the emancipatory aspects of civil society organizations as sites where Foucauldian “care of the self” becomes possible. This article provides the reader with an analysis of these kind of aspects in civil society organizations’ work and, more importantly, of the conditions of their existence. The study contributes to the prevailing discussion by offering examples of the possibilities that civil society organizations have to act as a counterbalance and addition to states institutions. The context is Finnish drug treatment policies that took a client-centered and user-friendly approach at the turn of 21st century. Since then new kinds of methods to work with drug users have been initiated, which have helped the users to recast their identities and find new ways of living as a drug user. (shrink)

This article explores the claim that how we talk can inspire how we reason and act. Contemporary research suggests that the words militant Christian leaders in the Philippines use shape how they rationalize President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs. Describing drug users as “sinners,” a trope in religious language, is particularly lethal. Using work on pragmatism and philosophy of language by Richard Rorty, Robert Brandom, and Lynne Tirrell, the author examines how the term “sinner” generates pernicious claims in the (...) drug war. It explores how the use of the term inspires hermeneutic uptake, redirects discursive focus, and engenders certain social and political actions in the Philippines. (shrink)

The Vioxx drug recall and other cases of withdrawals of approved pharmaceutical products as a result of reports of serious harm to users indicate that there are many problems associated with the process of getting these products to the end user the ordinary person in the street. The problems include those related to drug/medical device research and development, clinical trials, presentation and publication of research results, approval by regulatory authorities, preparation of clinical practice guidelines, marketing of products by (...) commercial companies and post-marketing surveillance. This article discusses threats to the integrity of each of these processes and argues that the steady stream of drug recalls indicates the existence of a systemic problem. It concludes with a discussion of possible solutions to these problems. (shrink)

This paper is a study about Philadelphia’s comprehensive user engagement sites (CUESs) as the authors address and examine issues related to the upcoming implementation of a CUES while seeking solutions for its disputed questions and plans. Beginning with the federal drug schedules, the authors visit some of the medical and public health issues vis-à-vis safe injection facilities (SIFs). Insite, a successful Canadian SIF, has been thoroughly researched as it represents a paradigm for which a Philadelphia CUES can expand upon. (...) Also, the existing criticisms against SIFs are revisited while critically unpackaged and responded to in favor of the establishment. In the main section, the authors propose the layout and services of the upcoming CUES, much of which would be in congruent to Vancouver’s Insite. On the other hand, the CUES would be distinct from Insite, as the authors emphasize, in that it will offer an information center run by individuals in recovery and place additional emphasis on early education for young healthcare professionals by providing them a platform to work at the site. The paper will also briefly investigate the implementation of a CUES site under an ethical scope of the Harm Reduction Theory. Lastly, the authors recommend some strategic plans that the Philadelphia City government may consider employing at this crucial stage. (shrink)

This important book was the first serious work of philosophy to address the question: Do adults have a moral right to use drugs for recreational purposes? Many critics of the 'war on drugs' denounce law enforcement as counterproductive and ineffective. Douglas Husak argues that the 'war on drugs' violates the moral rights of adults who want to use drugs for pleasure, and that criminal laws against such use are incompatible with moral rights. This is not a polemical tract but a (...) scrupulously argued work of philosophy that takes full account of all available data concerning drug use in the United States today. The author is careful to describe the properties a recreational drug would have to possess before the state would be justified in prohibiting it. Since criminal laws against the use of recreational drugs are justified neither by the harm users cause to themselves nor by the harm users cause to each other, Professor Husak concludes that such laws are, in almost all cases, unjustified. (shrink)

This volume was initiated to meet the challenges of the increasing contemporary trend to "treat" substance users (in the broadest sense of this concept), whether in institutional settings, ambulatory programs, or even controlled environments such as prisons. Although several essays concentrate more particularly on some of the ethico-moral problems encountered by juridico-moral interventions--problems relating to criminalization, decriminalization, legalization, and interdiction--the main focus is on broadly medical or therapeutic responses to drug use, and in particular on problems encountered within the (...) domain of drug user counseling. Codes of ethics for drug user counselors can be found as an appendix. (shrink)

This study examines negotiations of motherhood among women in the illegal hard drug economy in Norway. Based on interviews with mothers who are users and dealers, this study analyzes four predominant maternal identities: grieving mothers, detached mothers, motherly dealers, and working mothers. Particularly relevant factors explaining variations in maternal identities include the timing of pregnancy, time spent with children, control over drug use, and place in the drug market hierarchy. By revealing patterns of intra-group variations by gender (...) performances and work situation, the study expands upon previous work on how mothers who are structurally disadvantaged negotiate motherhood ideals. (shrink)

This study uses a Corpus Assisted Discourse Studies methodology to provide the first systematic analysis of how trust is discursively constructed in crypto-drug markets. The data come from two purpose-built corpora. One comprises all the forum messages posted on the flag ship crypto-drug market Silk Road during the years in which it traded on the hidden net. The other corpus comprises all the reports published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime during the same period. Our (...) analysis of trust focuses on the identities of those buying and selling drugs. The findings reveal that the Silk Road community members regularly discussed vendors’ identities alongside a continuum of trust–risk calculation, explicitly identifying both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ practices and hence engaging in self-regulatory discourses, and mainly constructed drug users’ identities in relation to values of expertise, integrity and benevolence. The findings also suggest that hard law enforcement activity, such as crypto-drug market closure, may encourage technological innovation within these markets. Moreover, our results show a disconnect between the discursive reality of the policy-making documents we examined and the very crypto-drug markets that they seek to legislate. (shrink)

The stimulant “benefits” of amphetamine and its derivative, methamphetamine, have endured since the drugs first became popular nearly a century ago. The concepts of increasing energy for functional purposes related to work and productivity have been well studied. However, the broader idea of increased alertness, and what this means in the lives of users, has not yet been sufficiently examined. This article draws from ongoing research with active methamphetamine users to explore the perceived benefits, drawbacks, and meanings of remaining alert—awake (...) and vigilant—while most of the world sleeps. The experiences of several users are situated in the contexts of sociostructural and mental health issues that shape cycles of use and meanings of addiction. (shrink)

Some libertarians tend to advocate the wide availability of cognition-enhancing drugs beyond their current prescription-only status. They suggest that certain kinds of drugs can be a component of a prudential conception of the ‘good life’—they enhance our opportunities and preferences; and therefore, if a person freely chooses to use them, then there is no justification for the kind of prejudicial, authoritative restrictions that are currently deployed in public policy. In particular, this libertarian idea signifies that if enhancements are a prudential (...) ‘good’ for the user, then this can also be construed as a moral good for all rational agents. If this argument is successful, there can be no substantial distinction between the categorical benefits of enhancement, and what is labeled as an enhancement technology. In this paper, I argue that the exclusivity of egotistical choice, and an uncritical deployment of enhancement as a prudential good, underplays the role of a social and political community when creating a procedurally just and effective public policy. Principally, the argument is devoid of any ethical system to permit the external—and therefore public–appreciation of the social context of moral decisions. In effect, libertarian arguments of this sort must disregard any ideas of public ethics, because the liberty to use whatever means available to gain a socio-economic advantage actually extinguishes any professed legitimation strategy. Escaping the procedural aspects of public policy, which are considered integral to authoritative coherence, results in the erosion of any moral obligations. Thus, in a libertarian society, disenfranchised individuals—such as those harmed through addiction—are the unlucky or superfluous product of a liberal and ‘progressive’ society. (shrink)

Drug Safety Communications are used by the Food and Drug Administration to inform health care providers, patients, caregivers, and the general public about safety issues related to FDA-approved drugs. To assess patient knowledge of the messaging contained in DSCs related to the sleep aids zolpidem and eszopiclone, we conducted a large, cross-sectional patient survey of 1,982 commercially insured patients selected by stratified random sampling from the Optum Research Database who had filled at least two prescriptions for either zolpidem (...) or eszopiclone between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. Among the 594 respondents, two-thirds reported hearing generally about drug safety information prior to starting a new drug, with the remaining one-third “rarely” or “never” hearing such information. Providers and pharmacists were primary sources of drug safety information. Two-thirds of zolpidem users and half of eszopiclone users reported having heard about the related DSC messages, ability to accurately identify the major factual messages was limited. Respondents reacted to new drug safety information about their sleep aids by reporting that they would want to learn about alternative ways to help them sleep and seek out more information about the safety of their specific sleeping pill. Opportunities may exist for the FDA to work with providers and pharmacies to help ensure the DSC information is more widely received and is more fully understood by those taking the affected medications. (shrink)

The article explores some of the issues that have arisen in the discourse on pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement (PCE), that is, the use of stimulant drugs such as methylphenidate, amphetamine and modafinil by healthy individuals of various populations with the aim of improving cognitive performance. Specifically, we explore the presumed sizes of existing PCE user populations and the policy actions that have been proposed regarding the trend of PCE. We begin with an introductory examination of the academic stances and philosophical issues (...) involved in defining PCE. We then focus on an examination of the population sizes of presumed current PCE users that have been listed in the academic literature on PCE, on presuppositions, which have been problematized by some authors as based on anecdotal or misinterpreted survey data. We follow this with an empirical examination of a potential PCE user population in a national context (students at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia). We then proceed to examine the regulatory options proposed in the academic literature to address PCE, finally comparing them with an empirical overview of the policy recommendations on PCE produced in the multinational context of several national ethics advisory bodies (EABs) in Europe. Our main conclusion is that there is still little debate among the national EABs on what type of public policy responses, if any, are needed to address PCE in European countries, and that the issues they do address are similar to those discussed and proposed in the academic articles on PCE. (shrink)