• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The International journal of drug policy >Laws prohibiting peer distribution of injecting equipment in Australia: A critical analysis of their effects
【24h】

Laws prohibiting peer distribution of injecting equipment in Australia: A critical analysis of their effects

机译：禁止在澳大利亚同业分配注射设备的法律：对其影响的批判性分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The law is a key site for the production of meanings around the 'problem' of drugs in public discourse. In this article, we critically consider the material-discursive 'effects' of laws prohibiting peer distribution of needles and syringes in Australia. Taking the laws and regulations governing possession and distribution of injecting equipment in one jurisdiction (New South Wales, Australia) as a case study, we use Carol Bacchi's poststructuralist approach to policy analysis to critically consider the assumptions and presuppositions underpinning this legislative and regulatory framework, with a particular focus on examining the discursive, subjectification and lived effects of these laws. We argue that legislative prohibitions on the distribution of injecting equipment except by 'authorised persons' within 'approved programs' constitute people who inject drugs as irresponsible, irrational, and untrustworthy and re-inscribe a familiar stereotype of the drug 'addict'. These constructions of people who inject drugs fundamentally constrain how the provision of injecting equipment may be thought about in policy and practice. We suggest that prohibitions on the distribution of injecting equipment among peers may also have other, material, effects and may be counterproductive to various public health aims and objectives. However, the actions undertaken by some people who inject drugs to distribute equipment to their peers may disrupt and challenge these constructions, through a counter-discourse in which people who inject drugs are constituted as active agents with a vital role to play in blood-borne virus prevention in the community. Such activity continues to bring with it the risk of criminal prosecution, and so it remains a vexed issue. These insights have implications of relevance beyond Australia, particularly for other countries around the world that prohibit peer distribution, but also for other legislative practices with material-discursive effects in association with injecting drug use. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
机译：法律是在公共话语中围绕毒品“问题”产生含义的重要场所。在本文中，我们严格地考虑了禁止在澳大利亚同等分发针头和注射器的法律对材料具有干扰性的“效力”。以管辖一个地区（澳大利亚新南威尔士州）中拥有和分配注射设备的法律法规为案例研究，我们使用Carol Bacchi的后结构主义方法进行政策分析，以认真考虑支撑该立法和法规框架的假设和前提，特别着重于研究这些法律的话语性，主观性和实际效果。我们认为，除“批准程序”内的“授权人员”以外，禁止​​分配注射设备的立法构成了将毒品注射为不负责任，不合理和不值得信任的人，并重新刻画了熟悉的“毒品”成见。这些注射毒品者的建设从根本上限制了如何在政策和实践中考虑注射设备的提供。我们建议，禁止在同龄人之间分配注射设备可能还会产生其他实质性影响，并且可能不利于各种公共卫生目标。但是，某些通过注射毒品的人采取的将设备分发给同龄人的行动可能会通过反话语来破坏和挑战这些结构，在这种情况下，注射毒品的人被视为在血液传播中起着至关重要作用的活性剂。社区中的病毒预防。这种活动继续带来被起诉的风险，因此仍然是一个烦恼的问题。这些见解对澳大利亚以外的国家具有重要意义，特别是对于禁止同伴分布的世界其他国家，以及与注射毒品相关的具有物质干扰作用的其他立法实践。 （C）2015 Elsevier B.V.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号