"在瑞典,你一文不值。在丹麦,你又有了自己的身份"--关于在不同的毒品政策环境下,吸毒者被视为吸毒者并受到接纳的问题。

IF 4 2区 社会学 Q1 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Julie Holeksa
{"title":"\"在瑞典,你一文不值。在丹麦,你又有了自己的身份\"--关于在不同的毒品政策环境下,吸毒者被视为吸毒者并受到接纳的问题。","authors":"Julie Holeksa","doi":"10.1186/s12954-024-01035-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Policies to address substance use differ greatly between settings, where goals may range from zero-tolerance to harm reduction. Different approaches impact formats of care, policing, and even interpersonal interactions, and may play a role in the labelling and stigmatization of people who use drugs (PWUD). Where Sweden has a more restrictive policy, aiming to have a society free from drugs, Denmark has embraced harm reduction principles. The aim of this study was to explore PWUDs' experiences of interpersonal interactions, policing, and service formats in the two countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The data consists of 17 qualitative semi-structured interviews with Swedish PWUD who have been in both Sweden and Denmark. Recruitment took place at harm reduction sites in both countries, and through snowball sampling.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants reflected on how they were perceived by those in public spaces, and received by care systems and personnel. In public settings in Sweden, participants felt they were ignored, rendered invisible, and lost their humanity. In Denmark, they were perceived and acknowledged, valued as people. This was simultaneously linked to being embodied by the availability of differing service offerings and policing practices, which solidified their \"right to be out\" in public. Reflecting on their reception in the treatment system, strict formatting in Sweden caused participants to feel that an identity was projected upon them, limiting their opportunities or growth of new facets of identity. Care relations in Denmark fostered more opportunity for autonomy and trust.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A zero-tolerance policy and associated public discourses could solidify and universalize stigmatizing categorizations as a central feature of PWUD identity and reception from those around them, exacerbating social exclusion. Conversely, harm reduction-centered policies fostered positive interactions between individuals with care providers, public, and police, which may promote inclusion, empowerment, and wellbeing.</p>","PeriodicalId":12922,"journal":{"name":"Harm Reduction Journal","volume":"21 1","pages":"117"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11181536/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"In Sweden you are worthless. In Denmark you get an identity again\\\" - on being perceived and received as a person who uses drugs in different drug policy settings.\",\"authors\":\"Julie Holeksa\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12954-024-01035-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Policies to address substance use differ greatly between settings, where goals may range from zero-tolerance to harm reduction. Different approaches impact formats of care, policing, and even interpersonal interactions, and may play a role in the labelling and stigmatization of people who use drugs (PWUD). Where Sweden has a more restrictive policy, aiming to have a society free from drugs, Denmark has embraced harm reduction principles. The aim of this study was to explore PWUDs' experiences of interpersonal interactions, policing, and service formats in the two countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The data consists of 17 qualitative semi-structured interviews with Swedish PWUD who have been in both Sweden and Denmark. Recruitment took place at harm reduction sites in both countries, and through snowball sampling.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants reflected on how they were perceived by those in public spaces, and received by care systems and personnel. In public settings in Sweden, participants felt they were ignored, rendered invisible, and lost their humanity. In Denmark, they were perceived and acknowledged, valued as people. This was simultaneously linked to being embodied by the availability of differing service offerings and policing practices, which solidified their \\\"right to be out\\\" in public. Reflecting on their reception in the treatment system, strict formatting in Sweden caused participants to feel that an identity was projected upon them, limiting their opportunities or growth of new facets of identity. Care relations in Denmark fostered more opportunity for autonomy and trust.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A zero-tolerance policy and associated public discourses could solidify and universalize stigmatizing categorizations as a central feature of PWUD identity and reception from those around them, exacerbating social exclusion. Conversely, harm reduction-centered policies fostered positive interactions between individuals with care providers, public, and police, which may promote inclusion, empowerment, and wellbeing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12922,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Harm Reduction Journal\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"117\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11181536/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Harm Reduction Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-024-01035-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harm Reduction Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-024-01035-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:不同环境下解决药物使用问题的政策大相径庭,其目标可能从零容忍到减少伤害不等。不同的方法会影响护理、治安甚至人际交往的形式,并可能导致对吸毒者(PWUD)的标签化和污名化。瑞典的政策更具限制性,旨在建立一个没有毒品的社会,而丹麦则奉行减少伤害的原则。本研究旨在探讨这两个国家的吸毒者在人际交往、治安管理和服务形式方面的经验:数据由 17 个半结构式定性访谈组成,访谈对象是瑞典和丹麦的吸毒者和残疾人。访谈在两国的减低伤害场所进行,并通过滚雪球的方式进行:结果:参与者反映了公共场所的人是如何看待他们的,以及护理系统和人员是如何接待他们的。在瑞典的公共场所,参与者认为自己被忽视了,变得无影无踪,失去了人性。而在丹麦,他们被感知、被认可,作为人受到重视。这同时也与不同的服务项目和治安措施有关,它们巩固了他们在公共场合的 "出柜权"。在反思他们在治疗系统中的接受情况时,瑞典严格的格式化使参与者感到一种身份被投射到他们身上,限制了他们的机会或新身份的发展。丹麦的护理关系则为自主和信任提供了更多机会:零容忍政策和相关的公共话语可能会巩固和普及污名化分类,使其成为残疾人身份的核心特征,并被周围的人接受,从而加剧社会排斥。相反,以减少伤害为中心的政策则促进了个人与护理提供者、公众和警察之间的积极互动,这可能会促进包容、赋权和福祉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
"In Sweden you are worthless. In Denmark you get an identity again" - on being perceived and received as a person who uses drugs in different drug policy settings.

Background: Policies to address substance use differ greatly between settings, where goals may range from zero-tolerance to harm reduction. Different approaches impact formats of care, policing, and even interpersonal interactions, and may play a role in the labelling and stigmatization of people who use drugs (PWUD). Where Sweden has a more restrictive policy, aiming to have a society free from drugs, Denmark has embraced harm reduction principles. The aim of this study was to explore PWUDs' experiences of interpersonal interactions, policing, and service formats in the two countries.

Methods: The data consists of 17 qualitative semi-structured interviews with Swedish PWUD who have been in both Sweden and Denmark. Recruitment took place at harm reduction sites in both countries, and through snowball sampling.

Results: Participants reflected on how they were perceived by those in public spaces, and received by care systems and personnel. In public settings in Sweden, participants felt they were ignored, rendered invisible, and lost their humanity. In Denmark, they were perceived and acknowledged, valued as people. This was simultaneously linked to being embodied by the availability of differing service offerings and policing practices, which solidified their "right to be out" in public. Reflecting on their reception in the treatment system, strict formatting in Sweden caused participants to feel that an identity was projected upon them, limiting their opportunities or growth of new facets of identity. Care relations in Denmark fostered more opportunity for autonomy and trust.

Conclusion: A zero-tolerance policy and associated public discourses could solidify and universalize stigmatizing categorizations as a central feature of PWUD identity and reception from those around them, exacerbating social exclusion. Conversely, harm reduction-centered policies fostered positive interactions between individuals with care providers, public, and police, which may promote inclusion, empowerment, and wellbeing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Harm Reduction Journal
Harm Reduction Journal Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
126
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: Harm Reduction Journal is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal whose focus is on the prevalent patterns of psychoactive drug use, the public policies meant to control them, and the search for effective methods of reducing the adverse medical, public health, and social consequences associated with both drugs and drug policies. We define "harm reduction" as "policies and programs which aim to reduce the health, social, and economic costs of legal and illegal psychoactive drug use without necessarily reducing drug consumption". We are especially interested in studies of the evolving patterns of drug use around the world, their implications for the spread of HIV/AIDS and other blood-borne pathogens.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信