Counterpublic health and the design of drug services for methamphetamine consumers in Melbourne

Health (United Kingdom)

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 51-66

  Duff, Cameron ^a   Moore, David ^a  

^a CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

counterpublic health; drug treatment; Melbourne; methamphetamine; public health; qualitative research

Indexed keywords

METHAMPHETAMINE;

AUSTRALIA; DRUG ABUSE; DRUG USE; HARM REDUCTION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LAW ENFORCEMENT; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SOCIOECONOMICS; STANDARDS; THERAPY;

AMPHETAMINE-RELATED DISORDERS; DRUG USERS; HARM REDUCTION; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; LAW ENFORCEMENT; METHAMPHETAMINE; PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; VICTORIA;

EID: 84919622372     PISSN: 13634593     EISSN: 14617196     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1363459314530740     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Perspectives on Amphetamine Type Stimulants. Allsop SLee N, ed. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: IP Communications; 2012:
2. Ball AL.HIV, injecting drug use and harm reduction: A public health response.Addiction. 2007;102 (5): 684-690
3. Brownstein HContemporary Drug Policy. New York: Routledge; 2013:
4. Clarke ASituational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2005:
5. Des Jarlais D.Harm reduction: A framework for incorporating science into drug policy.American Journal of Public Health. 1995;85 (1): 10-12
6. Fraser S.Poetic world-making: Queer as Folk, counterpublic speech and the ‘Reader’.Sexualities. 2006;9 (2): 152-170
7. Fraser S,Moore DThe Drug Effect: Health, Crime and Society. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Cambridge University Press; 2011:
8. Greco M.Thinking beyond polemics: Approaching the health society through Foucault.Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie. 2009;34 (2): 13-27
9. Koppelman A.Drug policy and the liberal self.Northwestern University Law Review. 2006;100 (1): 279-293
10. Marlatt G.Harm reduction: Come as you are.Addictive Behaviors. 1996;21 (6): 779-788
11. Moore D.Workers, clients and the struggle over needs.Social Science & Medicine. 2009;68:1161-1168
12. Drugs and Public Health: Australian Perspectives on Policy and Practice. Moore DDietze P, ed. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Oxford University Press; 2008:
13. Moore D,Fraser S.Putting at risk what we know: Reflecting on the drug-using subject in harm reduction and its political implications.Social Science & Medicine. 2006;62 (12): 3035-3047
14. Quinn B,Stoové M,Papanastasiou C, et al.An exploration of self-perceived non-problematic use as a barrier to professional support for methamphetamine users.International Journal of Drug Policy. 2013a;24 (6): 619-623
15. Quinn B,Stoové M,Papanastasiou C, et al.Methamphetamine use in Melbourne, Australia: Baseline characteristics of a prospective methamphetamine-using cohort and correlates of methamphetamine dependence.Journal of Substance Use. 2013b;18 (5): 349-362
16. Race KPleasure Consuming Medicine: The Queer Politics of Drugs. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2009:
17. Drug Use in Australian Society. Ritter AKing THamilton M, ed. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Oxford University Press; 2013:
18. Rose NThe Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2007:
19. Southgate E,Hopwood M.The role of folk pharmacology and lay experts in harm reduction: Sydney gay drug using networks.International Journal of Drug Policy. 2001;12 (4): 321-335
20. Warner M.Publics and counterpublics.Public Culture. 2002;14 (1): 49-90
21. Woolley C.Meeting the mixed methods challenge of integration in a sociological study of structure and agency.Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2009;3 (1): 7-25