This article investigates the ways new forms of addiction are encountered by professionals working in the area of alcohol and other drugs. Combining interviews with policymakers, service providers, and peer advocates in three countries (Australia, Canada, and Sweden), and Mike Michael’s utilization of the notion of prehension for science communication, we track the notions of addiction, drugs, and subjectivity that emerge when alcohol and other drug professionals encounter what Fraser, Moore and Keane call the addicting of nonsubstance-related practices. The analysis has three parts: constituting addiction unity, questioning addiction unity, and conflicting logics of addicting processes. We argue that specific articulations of drugs and health and specific health professional and addiction subjects are made anew in these encounters. These notions of drugs, health, and subjectivity shape how alcohol and other drug professionals engage with substance-related addictions. In concluding, we consider the implications of new addictions for professional practice.
BarnettA. I.FryC. L. (2015). The clinical impact of the brain disease model of alcohol and drug addiction: Exploring attitudes of community-based AOD clinicians in Australia. Neuroethics, 8, 271–282. doi:10.1007/s12152-015-9236-5
2.
BellS.CarterA.MathewsR.GartnerC.LuckeJ.HallW. (2014). Views of addiction neuroscientists and clinicians of the clinical impact of a “brain disease model of addiction.”Neuroethics, 7, 19–27. doi:10.1007/s12152-013-9177-9
3.
BevirM.TrentmanF. (Eds.). (2007). Governance, consumers and citizens: Agency and resistance in contemporary politics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
BourgoisP. (2003). Crack and the political economy of social suffering. Addiction Research & Theory, 11, 31–37. doi:10.1080/1606635021000021322
5.
CampbellN. D. (2007). Discovering addiction: The science and politics of substance abuse research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
6.
CampbellN. D. (2010). Toward a critical neuroscience of “addiction.”BioSocieties, 5, 89–104. doi:10.1057/biosoc.2009.2
7.
CarrE. S. (2011). Scripting addiction: The politics of therapeutic talk and American sobriety. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
Cisneros ÖrnbergJ. (2009). The Europeanization of Swedish alcohol policy: Framing and new modes of governance. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
9.
CourtwrightD. T. (2010). The NIDA brain disease paradigm: History, resistance and spinoffs. BioSocieties, 5, 137–147. doi:10.1057/biosoc.2009.3
10.
CrawfordR. (1980). Healthism and the medicalization of everyday life. International Journal of Health Services, 10, 365–388.
11.
DuffC. (2014). Assemblages of health: Deleuze’s empiricism and the ethology of Life. New York: Springer.
12.
DumitJ. (2004). Picturing personhood: Brain scans and biomedical identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
FarrugiaA.FraserS. (2016). Science and scepticism: Drug information, young men and counterpublic health. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1363459315628042
14.
FraserS. (2013). Junk: Overeating and obesity and the neuroscience of addiction. Addiction Research & Theory, 21, 496–506. doi:10.3109/16066359.2012.749868
15.
FraserS. (2016). Articulating addiction in alcohol and other drug policy: A multiverse of habits. International Journal of Drug Policy, 31, 6–14. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.10.014
16.
FraserS.MooreD. (2008). Dazzled by unity? Order and chaos in public discourse on illicit drug use. Social Science & Medicine, 66, 740–752. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.10.012
FraserS.valentinek.SeearK. (2016). Emergent publics of alcohol and other drug policymaking. Critical Policy Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/19460171.2016.1191365
19.
HarchaouiT. M.JeanJ.TarkhaniF. (2003). Prosperity and productivity: A Canada-Australia comparison (No. 11F0027, No. 018). Ottawa, Ontario: Economic Analysis Research Paper Series Statistics Canada.
20.
IrwinA.MichaelM. (2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
21.
KarasakiM.FraserS.MooreD.DietzeP. (2013). The place of volition in addiction: Differing approaches and their implications for policy and service provision. Drug and Alcohol Review, 32, 195–204. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3362.2012.00501.x
22.
KeaneH. (2002). What’s wrong with addiction?Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
23.
LancasterK.TreloarC.RitterA. (2017). “Naloxone works” The politics of knowledge in “evidence-based” drug policy. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, 21, 278–294. doi:10.1177/1363459316688520
24.
MetzlJ. (2010). Introduction: Why “against health?” In MetzlJ.KirklandA. (Eds.), Against health: How health became the new morality (pp. 1–11). New York: New York University Press.
25.
MeurkC.MorphettK.CarterA.WeierM.LuckeJ.HallW. (2016). Scepticism and hope in a complex predicament: People with addictions deliberate about neuroscience. International Journal of Drug Policy, 32, 34–43. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.03.004
26.
MichaelM. (2002). Comprehension, apprehension, prehension: Heterogeneity and the public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27, 357–378. doi:10.1177/016224390202700302
27.
MichaelM. (2012). “What are we busy doing?” Engaging the idiot. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 37, 528–554. doi:10.1177/0162243911428624
28.
MooreD. (2009). “Workers,” “clients” and the struggle over needs: Understanding encounters between service providers and street-based injecting drug users in an Australian city. Social Science & Medicine, 68, 1161–1168. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.12.015
29.
MooreD.DietzeP. (2005). Enabling environments and the reduction of drug-related harm: Re-framing Australian policy and practice. Drug and Alcohol Review, 24, 275–284. doi:10.1080/09595230500170258
30.
MooreD.FraserS. (2013). Producing the “problem” of addiction in drug treatment. Qualitative Health Research, 23, 916–923. doi:10.1177/1049732313487027
31.
OlssonB. (2011). Ett halvt sekel med narkotika: Från panik och undergångsprofetior till hantering av ett vardagligt problem? [Half a century of (narcotic) drugs: From panic and destruction prophecies to dealing with an everyday (commonplace) problem?]. In OlssonB. (Ed.), Narkotika: Om problem och politik (pp. 15-22). Stockholm, Sweden: Norstedts Juridik.
32.
PetersenA.DavisM.FraserS.LindsayJ. (2010). Healthy living and citizenship: An overview. Critical Public Health, 20, 391–400. doi:10.1080/09581596.2010.518379
33.
ReayB.AttwoodN.GooderC. (2015). Sex addiction: A critical history. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
34.
RedfieldJ.BrodieJ. (2002). Introduction. In BrodieJ.RedfieldM. (Eds.), High anxieties: Cultural studies in addiction. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley University Press.
35.
RhodesT. (2009). Risk environments and drug harms: A social science for harm reduction approach. International Journal of Drug Policy, 20, 193–201. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2008.10.003
36.
RitterA.CameronJ. (2006). A review of the efficacy and effectiveness of harm reduction strategies for alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs. Drug and Alcohol Review, 25, 611–624. doi:10.1080/09595230600944529
37.
RitterA.LancasterK.GrechK.ReuterP. (2011). An assessment of illicit drug policy in Australia (1985-2010): Themes and trends: DPMP Monograph Series [Monograph No. 21]. Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre.
38.
RoomR. (2003). The cultural framing of addiction. Janus Head, 6, 221–234.
39.
SealeC. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London: Sage.
40.
SedgwickE. (1993). Tendencies. London: Duke University Press.
41.
SendziukP. (2007). Harm reduction and HIV prevention among injecting drug users in Australia: An international comparison. Canadian Bulletin of Medical History, 24, 113–129. doi:10.3138/cbmh.24.1.113
42.
SmithC. B. R. (2010). Socio-spatial stigmatization and the contested space of addiction treatment: Remapping strategies of opposition to the disorder of drugs. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 859–866. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.033
43.
SteniusK.WitbrodtJ.EngdhalB.WeisnerC. (2010). For the marginalized or for the intergrated? A comparative study of addiction treatment systems in Sweden and the United States. Contemporary Drug Problems, 37, 417–448. doi:10.1177/009145091003700304
44.
TiffenR.GittensR. (2004). How Australia compares. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.
45.
United Nations Development Programme. (2016). Human development report 2016: Human development for everyone. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
46.
valentinek. (2011). Pharmacotherapy as social policy, or, the public and private worlds of welfare capitalism. In FraserS.MooreD. (Eds.), The drug effect: Health, crime and society (pp. 137-152). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
VreckoS. (2010). Birth of a brain disease: Science, the state and addiction neuropolitics. History of the Human Sciences, 23, 52–67. doi:10.1177/0952695110371598
48.
WhitakerT.RyanP.CoxG. (2011). Stigmatization among drug-using sex workers accessing support services in Dublin. Qualitative Health Research, 21, 1086–1100. doi:10.1177/1049732311404031
49.
WhiteheadA. (1978). Process and reality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1929)
50.
WolfeD. (2007). Paradoxes in antiretroviral treatment for injecting drug users: Access, adherence and structural barriers in Asia and the former Soviet Union. International Journal of Drug Policy, 18, 246–254. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2007.01.012
51.
WoodE.TyndallM.SpittalO.KerrT.HoggR.MontanerJ.. . . SchechterM. (2011). Unsafe injection practices in a cohort of injection drug users in Vancouver: Could safer injecting rooms help?Canadian Medical Association Journal, 165, 405–410.
52.
ZinbergN. (1984). Drug, set and setting. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
