We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The war on drug users developed in tandem with neoliberalism. By examining the way that society polices and treat people who use drugs, Lenhard and Meng offer a perspective on how neoliberal governance individualizes responsibility and abstains from any kind of collective support. Lenhard and Meng make use of narratives drawn from their fieldwork to illustrate both what criminalized drug use looks like, and how people’s lives change when criminalization goes away. The chapter shows that it’s not necessarily the drugs that make people’s lives difficult and painful but rather the approach that is taken to their behavior. In one model of treatment – exemplified by the war on drugs and the use of methadone programs – a responsibility to change lies solely with the individual, and drug users are criminalized, surveilled, and disciplined primarily by law enforcement. Lenhard and Meng contrast this model with one where society is conceived as collectively responsible to provide support for whomever requires it (e.g., in the form of safe injection facilities) and addiction is understood as something to be managed both medically and holistically. What is interesting in the first model is the way that individual autonomy and responsibility is taken for granted as a preexisting, self-standing capacity that needs only to surveilled, incentivized, and disciplined from the side of the authorities. In the second model, on the contrary, autonomy and responsibility are conceived as capacities that needs to be nourished and cultivated within collective structures of trust and support.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.