design of drug services duff.pdf

7/26/2019 design of drug services duff.pdf

1/16

Health2015, Vol. 19(1) 5166

The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1363459314530740

hea.sagepub.com

Counterpublic health and the

design of drug services formethamphetamineconsumers in Melbourne

Cameron Duff and David MooreCurtin University, Australia

Abstract

This article is interested in how notions of the public are conceived, marshalled

and enacted in drug-treatment responses to methamphetamine use in Melbourne,Australia. After reviewing qualitative data collected among health-care providers and

methamphetamine consumers, we draw on the work of Michael Warner to arguethat services for methamphetamine consumers in Melbourne betray ongoing tensionsbetween public and counterpublic constituencies. Our analysis indicates that these

tensions manifest in two ways: in the management of street business in the deliveryof services and in negotiating the meaning of health and the terms of its restoration or

promotion. Reflecting these tensions, while the design of services for methamphetamineconsumers is largely modelled on public health principles, the everyday experienceof these services may be more accurately characterised in terms of what Kane Race

has called counterpublic health. Extending Races analysis, we conclude that moreexplicit focus on the idea of counterpublic health may help local services engage withmethamphetamine consumers in new ways, providing grounds for novel outreach,

harm-reduction and treatment strategies.

Keywords

counterpublic health, drug treatment, Melbourne, methamphetamine, public health,

qualitative research

Policy responses to illicit drug use typically emphasise law enforcement and public

health (Moore and Dietze, 2008). While the two are sometimes described in complemen-

tary ways, it is increasingly common for law enforcement and public health to be cast in

Corresponding author:

Cameron Duff, National Drug Research Institute (Melbourne Office), Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin

University, 6/19-35 Gertrude Street, Fitzroy, VIC 3065, Australia.

Email: [email protected]

HEA0010.1177/1363459314530740HealthDuffand Mooreresearch-article2014

Article

by Teresa Carlos on April 3, 2016hea.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://hea.sagepub.com/http://hea.sagepub.com/http://hea.sagepub.com/http://hea.sagepub.com/


2/16

52 Health 19(1)

more discordant terms in drug policy debates (Brownstein, 2013). Within these debates,

public health is often said to offer a progressive, humane response to contemporary drug

problems, in contrast to the punitive logic that is regarded as the basis for the enforce-

ment of legal prohibitions (Koppelman, 2006). Going further, advocates claim that pub-

lic health offers a framework for devising holistic responses to illicit drug use that aresensitive to the interaction of social, political, economic and structural forces in the inci-

dence of drug problems (Ball, 2007; Des Jarlais, 1995). This interest in addressing the

structural determinants of illicit drug use, and the health and social problems that often

accompany this use, characterises most public health initiatives for the reduction of drug

problems (Fraser and Moore, 2011). Yet in seeking to promote public health, such initia-

tives inevitably evoke a shared imaginary by which a particular understanding of the

public and its interests is enacted. Moreover, it is rare for this conception to be explic-

itly interrogated such that the public to which public health is oriented or the popula-

tion any drug policy may be said to represent can be properly characterised.This article is interested in how notions of the public are conceived, marshalled and

enacted in drug-treatment responses to methamphetamine consumption in Melbourne,

Australia. Drawing from Michael Warners (2002) critique of public discourse to analyse

qualitative data collected among methamphetamine consumers and service providers,

we argue that responses to methamphetamine use in Melbourne betray an ongoing ten-

sion between public and counterpublic constituencies. As a result, while the design of

local health and social services for methamphetamine consumers is largely modelled on

public health principles, the everyday experience of these services may be more accu-

rately characterised in terms of what Kane Race (2009) has called counterpublic health.Extending Races analysis, we conclude that more explicit focus on the idea of counter-

public health may help local services engage with methamphetamine consumers in new

ways, providing grounds for novel outreach, harm-reduction and treatment strategies.

Publics, counterpublics and counterpublic health

Prioritising prevention, supply reduction and harm minimisation (Ritter et al., 2013),

contemporary Australian drug policies, including the National Amphetamine-Type

Stimulants (ATS) strategy, address a national public understood to comprise a kind ofsocial totality (Warner, 2002: 49). This is apparent in the population health, education

and social marketing initiatives that comprise Australias ATS strategy, which typically

convey information, warnings and advice for a public conceived in universal terms (see

Allsop and Lee (2012) for a review). While the notion that drug policies, such as

Australias ATS strategy, address a pre-existing constituency accords with traditional

notions of democratic governance, Warner (2002) argues that this perspective ignores

public policys role in constituting a public that serves as the object of its address. Warner

(2002) thus draws a distinction between the public, conceived as people in general, anda publicor multiple publics(pp. 4950). Warner is interested in how these multiple pub-lics ought to be characterised and the varied mechanisms by which they are brought into

being. Throughout his analysis, Warner (2002) emphasises the constitutive role of texts

(or discourses), which he takes to include not only written communication of every hue

but also visual and audio texts and the practices, habits and associations they inspire (p.

http://hea.sagepub.com/http://hea.sagepub.com/http://hea.sagepub.com/


3/16

Duff and Moore 53

51). Texts galvanise or sustain publics by organising a collective body of address. Theyestablish a point of address (along with an imaginary public) comprising all users of

that text whoever they might be (Warner, 2002: 51). Warner goes on to identify seven

features of these imaginary publics, along with the counterpublics they exclude. We will

briefly describe these features before examining how they are articulated in drug ser-vices, and contested in counterpublic health, in Melbourne.

First, Warner (2002) argues that publics are self-organised; each must have

some way of organising itself as a body and of being addressed in discourse (pp. 5051).

It follows that publics are established in relations among strangers (Warner, 2002: 55).

Publics are self-organising insofar as their form and content are defined by the activity

of those who participate in them. Given that publics, by definition, exert no barrier to

participation other than interest or attention, publics are formed in a kind of stranger-

sociability (Warner, 2002: 57). Organising this sociability requires a form of address that

is both personal and impersonal. One must identify oneself among the addressees hailedby a given text without regarding oneself as the sole object of this address (Warner, 2002:

58). This is why a public may be said to be constituted inparticipationrather than mem-bership or identification. Indeed, as soon as one ceases to participate in a given dis-

course, one may be said to have left that public. Warner (2002) next suggests that all

publics enact a social spacecreated by the reflexive circulation of discourse (p. 62).Any public must be understood as an ongoing space of encounter for discourse inas-

much as every public slowly develops a reflexive awareness of itself in the repetition of

modes of address directed to it (Warner, 2002: 62). All publics have a punctual rhythm

in this sense, insofar as the texts which sustain them circulate in a predictable or at leastrelatively routine chronology (Warner, 2002: 63). This also gives each public a specific

historical profile to the extent that it manifests particular values, interests and modes of

address at particular times. A publics historicity is further expressed in the poetic world-

making all texts seek to effect (Warner, 2002: 82). All texts necessarily establish a public

by determining the object of their address, while further characterising that publics salu-

tary interests and preferences. As such, public texts serve to mediate, if not define, the

identities, values and worldviews of those assembled in their address.

Warner (2002) rounds out this discussion by developing Nancy Frasers idea of the

counterpublic to account for publics which mark themselves off unmistakably fromany general or dominant public (pp. 8489). Counterpublics differ from other publics to

the extent that they depart from the characteristic features, preferences and norms that

define mainstream publics and the social groups that comprise them. Counterpublics

vary from sub-publics, subcultures or communities of interest insofar as their mem-

bers maintain some awareness (conscious or not) of their subordinate status (Warner,

2002: 86). Citing, by way of example, women, workers, peoples of colour and gays and

lesbians, addressees in each group are identified by way of their participation in coun-

terpublic discourse (Warner, 2002: 8586). In each instance, a hierarchy or stigma is the

assumed background of practice (Warner, 2002: 87). Stigma, and the history of subordi-

nation in which it is inscribed, conditions the emergence of counterpublic discourse by

foreclosing participation in other more privileged modes of address. It follows that the

poetic world-making central to all public discourses assumes even greater importance in

counterpublics, such that the lifeworlds (practices, values, norms, identities, ethics)



4/16

54 Health 19(1)

expressible in counterpublic discourse may be nurtured and sustained in the face of dom-

inant social norms or values. All counterpublics are political in this way.

Consistent with Warners account of publics and counterpublics, a number of scholars

have recently applied his analysis to the study of public health and the discourses, norms,

values and practices that sustain it (see Fraser, 2006; Race, 2009). Scholars have beenespecially interested in the claim that public health discourses enact a publicrather thanrespond to the needs of an existing population. This suggests the value of questioning

how the public in public health ought to be characterised. Race (2009) argues that pub-

lic health is founded on a series of normative assumptions about the character, prefer-

ences, motivations and behaviour of subjects held to comprise a given social totality.

Public health serves to enact a public by conflating descriptions of healthy (or normal)

functioning with normative injunctions regarding the ways health ought to be performed,

observed or adhered to (Greco, 2009: 2124). An example may be the way drug policies

seek to distinguish healthy from harmful relationships to drugs by differentiating healthyand unhealthy practices, behaviours and attitudes. Such distinctions rely on the invoca-

tion of norms rationality, risk aversion, self-interest, moderation, restraint and respon-

sibility, for example that purportedly characterise healthy subjects and the public they

populate. These norms circulate via texts, practices, techniques and forms of address that

position drug policy as a particular mode of administering the health (and/or productiv-

ity) of a given population (see Rose, 2007: 35). As such, despite observing many of the

hallmarks of public address (such as stranger sociability; personal and impersonal

address; the requirement of public attention and the definition of a space of inter-textual

circulation), drug policies cannot be said to address aself-organisingpublic because theyare articulated in state-sponsored discourses which aim to govern the conduct of theiraddressees.

It is for these reasons that Race (2009: 161163) argues that public health discourses,

including drug policies, address a very specific public rather than all subjects in a given

population. Public health potentially excludes or ignores counterpublics, includinginjecting drug users, people living with HIV/AIDS, lesbians and gay men, by cleaving to

a set of normative injunctions regarding the values and preferences of healthy subjects.

Hence, the individual who injects methamphetamine, or the gay man who enjoys regular

casual sex, may never be fully accommodated in public health discourse because of afailure to fully identify with the public imagined in this discourse. This misidentification

suggests the need for what Race (2009) calls a counterpublic health more cognisant of

the care practices and corporeal pedagogies routinely invented in counterpublic settings

(p. 161). While these pedagogies may not always accord with the therapeutic logic

advanced in public health (or the drug policies informed by it), they entail a range of

experimental techniques by which well-being, pleasure, freedom, care, recognition and

resilience are nurtured in conditions of social, material and political disadvantage. Each

technique provides a sense of the practical ethics hinted at in Races (2009: 161163)

brief account of the properties of counterpublic health. More directly, each suggests that

the normative characterisation of health advanced in drug policy debates should not be

regarded as the only way in which health may be promoted in everyday experience. It is

with these insights in mind that we have explored the experience of methamphetamine

consumption in Melbourne and local service responses to methamphetamine-related



5/16

Duff and Moore 55

problems. We are particularly interested in developing Warners and Races accounts of

the organisation of public and counterpublic constituencies and the implications of their

analysis for the design of health services. Furthermore, by extending Races notion of

counterpublic health, we aim to indicate how health-care providers may more effectively

respond to social and material disadvantage in delivering health care for methampheta-mine consumers. We start with an outline of the study methods before turning to our data.

Methamphetamines and counterpublic health in Melbourne

We analyse accounts of methamphetamine use drawn from in-depth interviews con-

ducted during the ethnographic component of a mixed-methods study investigating

methamphetamine use and service provision in Melbourne.1The ethnographic research

had two aims: to explore the social contexts of methamphetamine use in Melbourne and

to assess the character, scale and effectiveness of service responses to methampheta-mine-related problems. Our goal in exploring local contexts of methamphetamine con-

sumption was to investigate the role of social and material conditions in mediating access

to health care for methamphetamine consumers. We were also interested in consumers

lived experience of this care. Following approval from the Curtin University Human

Research Ethics Committee, the data we focus on here were collected in semi-structured,

in-depth interviews with 31 methamphetamine consumers (17 men, 13 women and 1

transgender woman; average and median age 36 years, range 2256 years) and 15 ser-

vice providers. Consumers had used methamphetamine at least once a week in the 6

months preceding the interview or had been using methamphetamine on a regular basisprior to entering drug treatment. In total, 26 consumers reported being born in Australia,

most in Victoria, with all but 2 identifying with an Anglo/European ethnic background;

4 had attended a tertiary institution and 3 had completed secondary education; 4 consum-

ers were employed full-time, with 20 in receipt of either a disability or unemployment

pension; and 15 were enrolled in opioid-substitution therapy. All consumers were reim-

bursed AUD30 for their time and expenses.

Interviews were conducted with drug service providers to elicit data on problems

related to methamphetamine consumption in Melbourne and the effectiveness of local

responses to these problems. Service providers were recruited from needle and syringeprogrammes (NSPs), drug treatment and residential rehabilitation centres. Of the 15 ser-

vice providers who completed interviews, 5 reported working as nurses, 4 were employed

as NSP workers, 2 worked in outreach roles, 2 worked as drug counsellors, with 1 social

worker and 1 general practitioner (GP). Interviewees reported working in allied drug

services for a period of 326 years (average of 13.2 years). Of the providers, 10 were

currently employed in services in St Kilda, with the remainder working in Fitzroy; 3

reported being employed in management positions. Interviews with both consumers and

service providers were conducted in cafes, local services and private homes and lasted an

average of 1 hour (range 27128 minutes). Interviews were digitally recorded and tran-

scribed to facilitate data analysis and reporting.

All data sources were integrated using steps described by Woolley (2009). The result-

ing data set was then analysed using techniques drawn from Adele Clarkes (2005)

Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. Situational analysis



6/16

56 Health 19(1)

permitted more sensitive treatment of consumer accounts of their methamphetamine

careers and of the views of local service providers regarding the clients they serve, their

lives and circumstances. The approach also availed the possibility of fresh empirical

insights and novel theory development. Analysis of interview transcripts involved open,

axial and selective coding (Clarke, 2005: 120130) to identify and explore the variousdimensions of methamphetamine use described by consumers and service providers.

This included comparative analysis of regularities, variations and contrasts in the data to

test and confirm emerging insights regarding the design of services for methampheta-

mine consumers, along with consumer reports of these services. These strategies led to

more refined analyses as codes were slowly established and key findings elaborated.

Serving counterpublics in a public health context

What emerged very strongly in our interview data was the sense that regular metham-phetamine consumers in Melbourne constitute a local counterpublic given their depar-

ture from normal health and their awareness of their subordinate status (Warner,

2002: 86). The interviews also suggested that local drug services are largely modelled on

public health principles, with all their pragmatic assumptions regarding the character of

good health, and the qualities, values and aspirations that impel individuals to pursue it.

Following Warners analysis, it may be argued that these services are designed to respond

to the needs of apublicconstrued in normative terms. Despite keen appreciation of thedisadvantage clients experience, and the complexity of their needs, service providers

reported being bound by their agencys funding agreements, and its broader philosophiesof care, to regard clients as normal subjects with a normal capacity for self-interest,responsibility and moderation. Such commitments led to tensions in the delivery of drug

services that while modelled on public health principles cater nonetheless to a mainly

counterpublic clientele. Our analysis indicates that these tensions manifest in two ways:

in the management of what one provider called street business in the delivery of drug

services and in negotiating the meaning of health and the methods of its restoration or

promotion. We will describe each aspect before assessing some of the major implications

for the design of drug services in Melbourne and elsewhere.

Designing public health services for counterpublic clients

The interviews revealed much about the experience of drug treatment in Melbourne, and

the ways in which methamphetamine use is characterised in the design of drug services.

Most service providers were wary of the idea of tailoring treatment to individual sub-

stances, preferring a more holistic approach. Others thought that the methamphetamine

problem had been exaggerated in local media and policy responses. In light of these

sentiments, a number of service providers explicitly endorsed the need for holistic pub-

lic health philosophies in the design of drug treatment and allied services for metham-

phetamine consumers. Despite this agreement, providers and consumers offered varying

accounts of how public health principles inform the design and delivery of drug services

in Melbourne. Noting her agencys adoption of a public health approach to drug treat-

ment, Marie2spoke of the need for a social model of health that incorporated physical,



7/16

Duff and Moore 57

emotional, social, spiritual and preventative aspects in the design of drug services. She

added that it was more important to address these underlying issues than to focus too

much on clients day-to-day drug use. This distinction between drug use behaviours and

deeper underlying issues concerning the social and material disadvantage experienced

by consumers was a common feature of providers descriptions of the principles thatinformed the design of health services at their place of work.

For example, in describing his own service programme, Mark emphasised the need

for health services to be strengths-based, non-judgemental and destigmatising as a

way of breaking down the barriers to treatment and support among individuals who

have mostly just been pushed aside by society, like nobody wants them. Clarifying this

argument, Sarah spoke of the need for services to recognise that drug takers in Australian

communities are marginalised, prejudiced, discriminated against and because of that get-

ting work, getting housing, staying healthy can be really hard. She added that, for these

reasons, services need to remember that people often turn to drugs because of sociallyunjust outcomes in their lives. Consistent with this view, another service provider, Lisa,

argued for a public health approach to drugs, not a punitive one. When asked to elabo-

rate on this difference, she spoke of the need for health care that is really client focused,

non-paternalistic and respectful something that treats the whole person and doesnt

just focus on the drugs. Other service providers endorsed public health and/or harm-

reduction approaches to drug treatment because of the ways each approach works to

empower disadvantaged or marginalised people in the community, as Joseph put it.

Kim added that she thought it was important that the health care system respects peo-

ples choices and empowers them to improve their own health. Indeed, almost all ser-vice providers emphasised the need for respect and understanding in order to

empower individuals to take control of their own lives, with most explicitly referring

to various public health principles in making these arguments.

In keeping with these views, a number of service providers argued that consumers

should be treated no differently than any other member of the public, as Simon put it.

Providers defended the importance of non-discrimination as a way of reducing stigma

and the barriers to care associated with it. All the same, providers routinely acknowl-

edged how much service users differed from what Mark called the general public. Sue,

who had worked in local treatment services for many years, observed,

We dont get too many office workers popping in during their lunch break for a counselling

session. We see some from time to time in the NSP, and some tradies [those working in various

trades] in the morning some times. But mostly its just people who are that desperate for help, you

know, theyre fed up with the drugs and the struggles and the problems, all the dramas in life.

For this reason, most providers spoke of the need to differentiate specialist drug treat-

ment from mainstream health care, such as hospitals and GPs. Some providers noted

that their clients either felt unwelcome in mainstream health services or had been

actively excluded from them. Mick explained that

I think once theyve [consumers] had, especially at the hospitals, once theyve had one bad run

in they dont want to go back, which is fair enough. They get treated pretty badly. So I guess



8/16

58 Health 19(1)

going into a normal doctors room where everything is a bit more professional, they dont feel

comfortable in there.

Similarly, Jennifer, who described working in drug services around Melbourne for many

years, spoke of the need to differentiate drug services from mainstream care:

A lot of people theyve been burned so many times in their experience, they wont go to general

health services, theyre wary of Centrelink, they resent the system. Thats why I dont wear a

uniform and we try to be as informal as possible while at the same time providing facilities that

are nice and shows them that this place is for you and you deserve it. So people trust us and they

can talk to us about things that they probably dont tell a regular doctor.

The reports offered by Mark, Mick, Sue and Jennifer exemplify the tension noted

earlier between public and counterpublic health in the provision of drug services for

methamphetamine consumers in Melbourne. In particular, they suggest that the attempt

to treat consumers like any other member of the public is not always consistent with the

goal of distinguishing drug treatment from mainstream health care. The most revealing

example of tensions between public and counterpublic health was observed in the nego-

tiation of what one service provider called street business in the delivery of drug treat-

ment and related services in Melbourne.

Managing street business in the everyday delivery of drug treatment

Managing street business emerged as one of the main ways public health providersattempt to accommodate the needs of counterpublicclients. Describing her own service,June said,

Its often hard to manage things, to keep the place safe for the staff but also accessible for the

clients. And Ive got to be the one who goes out and interrupts them if theyre dealing or using

to tell them to move on. I guess they feel its a safer place to deal. But still, theyre usually smart

and hide around the corner where I cant see them.

Simon spoke of similar challenges at the NSP where he worked as staff tried to man-age illegal activities on-site and off-site while maintaining a safe space for clients:

What happens is that people have often scored, or they might even have a taxi running outside,

so theyre quite self-conscious coming in. We do have things put in place with the police where

one of our managers liaises with one of the police regarding them being within a certain area

around the NSP. But obviously were sort of a hot spot so there is a lot of police activity around

so its not really a space people hang around in. So we really have to make people feel as safe

as possible no matter what else they might be doing.

This attempt to maintain a safe site for consumers, no matter what else they may bedoing, highlights the tension between public and counterpublic health. More broadly,

the informal strategies described by Simon provide useful examples of what we under-

stand counterpublic health to mean. Offering further indications of the character of



9/16

Duff and Moore 59

counterpublic health, another provider, Caitlin, spoke of the importance of balancing the

demands of the mainstream health-care system with the needs of a disadvantaged client

group. She noted that

We target marginalised adults who have an illicit drug problem so the most important thing isto create a safe, stable place for care. We try to balance some of the street based chaos with all

the psychosocial stuff going on for clients with some level of stability really to try and create

space for change.

Providers attempts to manage street-based chaos emerged as one of the most telling

sites of conflict between public and counterpublic health in our data. No issue was more

prominent in this respect than the problem of managing client access to benzodiaz-

epines. Describing arrangements at his place of work, Malcolm spoke of the need to

follow formal prescription protocols while remaining sensitive to the needs of somereally disadvantaged people. He added that

Theres so much street business that flows into every organisation like this, mostly people are

stressed about their script. They stretch the chemist out for a few days and then they come in to

see us [and say] give me pills, give me benzos. We cant prescribe, thank God, but we do

sometimes tell people if you say this to the doctor and say you just want a limited quantity and

say you havent slept for three days, theyll probably help you out. Heres my card, you can

have them [doctor] call me and say that Ill supervise it or whatever. But that would be a rare

case. We dont pull out the stops to get people pills.

Malcolms description of the informal strategies he uses to manage conflict over access

to benzodiazepines provides a further example of the character of counterpublic health in

the delivery of health care for methamphetamine consumers. William, a GP with a long

list of drug patients, had a pragmatic view of this issue:

Weve become a sort of legal drug dealer in a way. I mean these people have a daily commitment

to intoxication and to be quite honest most of my patients are real pros at this, the big benzo

fight, trying to get their Xanax script or whatever. But my attitude is that if we can reduce the

harm a bit with regards to them making some progress, such as getting work, thats a big deal

for us.

Instances like these involving the management of street business in the provision of

drug services highlight an abiding tension between the tenets of public health that report-

edly inform service design in Melbourne and the exigencies of delivering care to a coun-

terpublic clientele. While, as providers noted, services in Melbourne are largely modelled

on public health principles, the normative assumptions that govern these principles

such as rationality, self-interest, responsibility, moderation and risk avoidance do not

always reflect the needs, interests, experiences or preferences of counterpublic clients.

This is not to argue that the methamphetamine consumers involved in our study do notvalue health, rationality or moderation, only that these terms or qualities are subject to

recurrent negotiation in the context of significant social, economic and personal disad-

vantage. Our analysis suggests more directly, therefore, that health does not always mean



10/16

60 Health 19(1)

the same thing in public and counterpublic settings. Indeed, the struggle to determine the

everyday meanings of health, and the method of its restoration or promotion, emerged as

the second key source of tension in our data between public and counterpublic health in

the delivery of health and social services for methamphetamine consumers in Melbourne.

Public health and counterpublic health in tension

One of the most significant instances of conflict over the meaning of health occurred in

discussions of the relationship between methamphetamine use, health and illness. While

almost all service providers and consumers made some reference to problems associated

with methamphetamine use, most described functional benefits as well. This was espe-

cially common in discussions of mental health, as one provider noted,

A lot of my clients are really trying to medicate their mental health symptoms. Theyreconstantly trying to balance all the drugs theyre taking, both prescribed and street drugs, with

the management of their mental health. So speed can give them that up that increases their

function for a period of time. It helps them achieve things they want to achieve or just pulls

them out of that low depressive rut. I think the drugs are mostly just a response to that [rut].

A number of consumers made similar observations regarding what they perceived to

be the functional and/or therapeutic effects of methamphetamine. Jennifer added,

My medication, I have to take that, but thats why I like taking speed on top of the medication

because I get really tired, lethargic and I just need something to pick me up. Otherwise, I wont

get out of bed. I can sleep for 15 hours a day.

Another consumer Sarah was even more direct: its a bonus if I get out of it. I really

just use it [methamphetamine] to function. The point here is that the frequent claim that

methamphetamine use is unhealthy or dangerous, a common claim in public health, drug

policy and service delivery debates, is routinely contested, if not rejected outright, among

regular consumers and some service providers. It follows that one of the major tasks

confronting service providers is to engage clients in conversations about their health-

related beliefs and goals such that appropriate care plans can be devised. Describing howthis task is managed at her own service, Sue argued that

The fact that clients are really involved in their health is critical. Like how do we make health

accessible to those who need it the most but have the least of it? So we have to start with a

conversation about what people want, do they want to stop using drugs, cut down a bit, how

does their drug use affect their health, that kind of thing. What I mainly find is that people just

need a break. So treatment is just about getting some help to manage for a while.

A number of consumers agreed with Sues last point, further confounding conventional

understandings of the relationship between methamphetamine use and health. For exam-

ple, Bill described his most recent experience of drug treatment this way:

I just wanted a holiday. I was off speed but I had started using again regularly and bingeing and

realised that I had to put the kybosh on that, and you know the first week is a bit hard so I put



11/16

Duff and Moore 61

my name down for the detox and they feed me and I dont have to do anything, wipe my bum

for me, whatever. So I went in there for a holiday. I just needed a break, have a rest and think

about things.

Bills point, as we understand it, is that consumers seek drug treatment for all sorts ofreasons, only some of which may pertain to their health status. It is equally true that

consumers often seek treatment for their methamphetamine use without endorsing the

view that methamphetamine is always unhealthy. While one consumer observed that

treatment only works if youre ready to change, he also acknowledged the conflicting

motivations that may lead one to seek help. By way of example, a number of consumers

reported accessing drug services for information about safer drug use or, as we have

noted, to acquire better drugs such as benzodiazepines. In a further indication of the

corporeal pedagogies central to the practice of counterpublic health (Race, 2009: 161),

Sarah highlighted the importance of sharing these kinds of information and referralsources with other consumers:

I think because Ive been using the services for so long, and they all know me and that, Im

expected to educate younger people if I see them and I think they need help. I think I put that

on myself actually. That I should make sure theyre educated because if theyre going to be, if

theyre going to do it and the only way Ive stayed alive all these years is because the needle

exchanges have taught me properly right from the start. Thats huge you know?

Endorsing the importance of peer education, many providers argued that services

need to find ways to facilitate peer education and peer support to better assist vulnerablecommunities. Mark noted that

Theres definitely a culture, people, places, when people are using drugs and getting into

trouble. And the longer theyve used drugs the more they identify with this culture if you like,

including the people in it, the dramas. The downside is the longer they stay identifying with that

culture, the harder it is for people to get out of it, to find a home, a job, to stop using drugs. So

I think part of our job is to change that culture, to get people thinking about their health in new

ways, to help them access services that match their needs.

We find in this quotation the rudiments of counterpublic health-care praxis. Counterpublic

health demands a pragmatic, flexible, responsive and non-judgemental approach to drug

use and the problems associated with it. It does not differ in this respect from conven-

tional understandings of harm reduction and its application in the design of health ser-

vices for drug consumers (Marlatt, 1996). Where it does differ, however, is in its

explicit recognition of how the preferences, values and needs of counterpublic subjects

may vary from the public imagined in public health discourses, including drug policy

debates (Race, 2009: 161163). Once this difference is understood, the diverse ways

health is characterised in counterpublic settings ought to become clearer, along with

the ways health is sustained, nurtured or protected in practice. Our analysis indicatesthat health in counterpublic settings is a labile, contingent concept, wrought in the

struggles, disadvantage and subordination that all counterpublics endure. Far from

according closely with normative ideals, counterpublic health is forever sensitive to

the ways health is lived or realised in the context of endemic social, economic and



12/16

62 Health 19(1)

personal disadvantage. This disadvantage may explain, for example, why methampheta-

mine consumption may be appealing to individuals living with mental illness. It may also

explain why pharmaceutical medications like Ritalin or Xanax are so popular or why a

stint in drug treatment may be regarded as a holiday. Once health is understood in a

counterpublic context, the means of its restoration or promotion in the provision of carefor drug consumers ought to be rethought too.

Discussion

Michael Warners distinction between publics and counterpublics, between normative

communities of interest and those defined by their subordination, offers a means of

drawing out some of the tensions inherent in all public health responses to illicit drug

use. It is often noted that by identifying the norms and procedures wherein health may

be maintained or promoted, public health discourses inevitably reify a normative publicand a normative conception of health (Greco, 2009). These norms often enjoy a consen-

sus among the subjects of public health discourse; a consensus that usually includes the

various interventions by which public health is promoted. Our analysis suggests that

such a consensus is not always present in public health responses to illicit drug use,

mainly because these responses necessarily address both public and counterpublic con-

stituencies. Caught between public health principles that emphasise the health literacy

of normative subjects, and the everyday needs of subordinate communities, agencies

responsible for the delivery of public health care to drug consumers must negotiate the

meaning of health, and the methods of its promotion, in both public and counterpublicregisters.According to the consumers and service providers who participated in ourstudy, these negotiations expose tensions in the provision (and receipt) of drug services

between the exigencies of counterpublic life and the norms of public health care and

support.

In the first instance, tensions manifest in the management of street business inside

the health and social services that treat methamphetamine consumers. Examples from

our research included staff efforts to establish health-care practices that differ in mean-

ingful ways from mainstream services; the lack of staff uniforms and other formalities;

the pragmatic management of illegal activity such as drug dealing or consumption onand around the site; consultations with local police regarding law enforcement; negotiat-

ing the big benzo fight by brokering relationships with GPs and pharmacists; and in

efforts to transform local drug-using cultures. In each instance, staff members are

required to interpret, transform and sometimes reject the public health principles that

ostensibly ground the delivery of care in favour of a more pragmatic and experimental

counterpublic ethos. In each instance, providers and consumers are required to invent theterms and practice of counterpublic health.

Race (2009) argues that counterpublic health involves select care practices and cor-

poreal pedagogies by which discrete understandings of health are negotiated or per-

formed (p. 161). All such practices depart in one way or another from the norms

described in public health discourses. The measure of this departure reflects the scale of

the social, economic and personal disadvantage individuals experience in counterpublic

life. What we find so attractive in Races analysis, however, is the contention that the



13/16

Duff and Moore 63

experience of disadvantage should not be taken to mean the absence (or rejection) of

health. Certainly, the disadvantages that define counterpublics have an immense impact

on health as it is conventionally understood in public health discourses. Yet, without

ignoring the range of public health services that make a real difference in disadvantaged

(or counterpublic) communities, these services typically ignore the lay, indigenous orfolk experiences of health that are the focus of Races analysis. Our study suggests that

folk accounts of health are central to the everyday negotiation of care in the delivery of

drug services in Melbourne, even though they are often ignored in public health models

of drug treatment and support in Australia (see Moore, 2009; Moore and Fraser, 2006).

We observed a range of folk approaches to health in our research, including lay accounts

of the therapeutic effect of methamphetamine use on various mental health symptoms,

along with its capacity to mitigate some of the unwanted effects of prescribed medica-

tions. Other participants described a folk pharmacology (Southgate and Hopwood,

2001) by way of the ideas and practices that circulate in counterpublics regarding saferdrug use, more pleasurable combinations of illicit and prescribed drugs or more effective

strategies for procuring prescription drugs from apparently sympathetic health-care pro-

viders. As such, the practices and pedagogies discernible in, for example, the preference

for dexamphetamine over methamphetamine, in the effort to procure benzodiazepines or

in the intermittent presentation at drug treatment for a break or a rest are themselves

indicative of the ways health is negotiated in the context of significant social and mate-

rial disadvantage. The extent to which these practices are openly acknowledged, and

occasionally accommodated, by the service providers who participated in our study con-

veys some sense of how counterpublic health may potentially inform the delivery ofhealth care among methamphetamine consumers in Melbourne and elsewhere.

Conclusion: harm reduction and counterpublic health

The account of counterpublic health advanced in this article has obvious and important

antecedents in harm-reduction debates stretching back over many years. Counterpublic

health and harm reduction each emphasise the need for pragmatic, non-judgemental

responses to the use of alcohol and other drugs (AOD), with a strong focus on effective

action to reduce drug-related problems, and a general indifference to arguments regard-ing the moral status of AOD consumption (Fraser and Moore, 2011). Yet for all this

concordance, harm reduction is still generally characterised in terms of select publichealthprinciples (Marlatt, 1996). It is typically regarded as part of a broad-based publichealth response to problems associated with AOD use, particularly the transmission of

HIV/AIDS, with advocates and clinicians commonly arguing that the efficacy of indi-

vidual harm-reduction strategies should be measured against public health outcomes

(Ball, 2007: 685687). The problem with the conflation of public health and harm reduc-

tion, as we have sought to indicate in our analysis, is that it inevitably mischaracterises

the social totality for which harm reduction is conceived and delivered. Characterising

harm reduction in terms of a discretepublic constituencynecessarily invokes a range ofnormative assumptions regarding the value of health and the means of its promotion. It

inevitably invokes, for example, a normative subject committed to the maintenance of

health and the virtues required to sustain it. It is for these reasons that Moore and Fraser



14/16

64 Health 19(1)

(2006) argue that harm-reduction discourses tend to inscribe a neo-liberal subject

autonomous, rational, independent, calculating and fail to acknowledge adequately

material constraints on individual human agency (p. 3036). Greater sensitivity to such

constraint is what the idea of counterpublic health primarily affords.

Consistent with Warners argument that counterpublics are defined, in part, by anawareness of their collective subordination, Races notion of counterpublic health cites

the terms of this subordination to explain how health is negotiated, contested and enacted

in counterpublic settings. We would add that such efforts shed further light on the alter-native rationalities by which health is practised in counterpublics. The material con-straints that define counterpublics also constrain their capacity to conform to the

normative account of health presented in public health discourses, including harm reduc-

tion. The valorisation of self-interest, control, moderation and responsibility common to

harm-reduction initiatives rarely acknowledges the social, material, affective, cognitive

and moral resources necessary to realise such qualities (Crawford, 2006; Race, 2009).Counterpublics are defined by the scarcity of these resources a scarcity that is largely

attributable to the broader structures of material disadvantage that distinguish counter-

public from public entities. Yet this does not mean that health, moderation or responsibil-

ity are absent from counterpublic settings like those described in our study. Instead,

health in these settings is the subject of alternative rationalities that provide a means of

practicing healthin a context of material constraint. This suggests, for example, that thepractice described above whereby street drugs and prescribed drugs are combined in

the management of mental illness ought to be understood in the context of material dis-

advantage that limits access to other forms of mental health care and support. We wouldmake a similar claim in relation to the demand for benzodiazepines described by

participants.

Our study revealed some accommodation of these rationalities in the delivery of

drug services to methamphetamine consumers in Melbourne. We would like to close by

exploring how this accommodation may be extended in the delivery of counterpublic

health for drug consumers in Melbourne and elsewhere. From the GPs, NSP workers,

nurses and support staff who described attempts to supervise clients off-script use of

benzodiazepines, to the eschewal of uniforms and other formalities and the pragmatism

with which service providers sought to manage street business, each of these initia-tives suggests something of the way counterpublics are supported in drug services. Yet,

of course, these efforts are rarely enshrined in formal procedures and so remain vulner-

able to sudden reversal in the face of hostile public attention. This, indeed, is Races

(2009: 137141) point regarding tensions between public and counterpublic health,

given the privileges of the former and the vulnerabilities of the latter. However, the

primacy of public health principles in the design of drug services internationally sug-

gests various strategic opportunities for the articulation of counterpublic principles to

guide drug services. For example, one of the hallmarks of public health is an apprecia-

tion of the social determinants of health, although effective means of combating the

inequalities these determinants express remain elusive (Moore and Dietze, 2008).

Counterpublic health addresses this issue directly by proposing to accommodate the

care practices common to counterpublic settings within the delivery of health services

including drug treatment.



15/16

Duff and Moore 65

Moves to accommodate folk practices in the delivery of drug services are rarely justi-

fied in terms of the effort to combat structural inequalities in access to care, suggesting a

novel basis for innovation in the design of (counterpublic) health care for vulnerable com-

munities, including injecting drug users. Another argument for the merits of counterpublic

health concerns the need for more effective outreach efforts to improve the accessibility ofdrug services. Counterpublics demand a mode of address that differs from public forms,

and while some of the service providers who participated in our study described attempts

to articulate such alternatives, they rarely enjoyed formal endorsement. The invention of

modes of address that bring counterpublics into drug services by accommodating their

needs, preferences and values has the potential to reshape the ways health care is provided

in the midst of profound social and material disadvantage. It may even recast how the pub-

lic construes the relationship between drugs, health, pleasure, embodiment and illness.

Funding

The research reported in this article was funded by Australias National Health and Medical

Research Council (Project Grant 479208). We are grateful to Robyn Dwyer for conducting the

interviews and participant observation. The National Drug Research Institute at Curtin University

is supported by funding from the Australian Government under the Substance Misuse Prevention

and Service Improvement Grants Fund.

Notes

1. For findings from the quantitative component of the study involving population survey data,

health-care utilisation data and treatment outcomes data, see Quinn et al. (2013a, 2013b).2. The names used in this article are pseudonyms in order to preserve anonymity.

References

Allsop S and Lee N (eds) (2012)Perspectives on Amphetamine Type Stimulants. Melbourne, VIC,Australia: IP Communications.

Ball AL (2007) HIV, injecting drug use and harm reduction: A public health response. Addiction102(5): 684690.

Brownstein H (2013) Contemporary Drug Policy. New York: Routledge.

Clarke A (2005) Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. ThousandOaks, CA: SAGE.Des Jarlais D (1995) Harm reduction: A framework for incorporating science into drug policy.

American Journal of Public Health85(1): 1012.Fraser S (2006) Poetic world-making: Queer as Folk, counterpublic speech and the Reader.

Sexualities9(2): 152170.Fraser S and Moore D (2011) The Drug Effect: Health, Crime and Society. Melbourne, VIC,

Australia: Cambridge University Press.

Greco M (2009) Thinking beyond polemics: Approaching the health society through Foucault.

sterreichische Zeitschrift fr Soziologie34(2): 1327.

Koppelman A (2006) Drug policy and the liberal self. Northwestern University Law Review100(1): 279293.Marlatt G (1996) Harm reduction: Come as you are.Addictive Behaviors21(6): 779788.Moore D (2009) Workers, clients and the struggle over needs. Social Science & Medicine68:

11611168.



16/16

66 Health 19(1)

Moore D and Dietze P (eds) (2008)Drugs and Public Health: Australian Perspectives on Policyand Practice. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Oxford University Press.

Moore D and Fraser S (2006) Putting at risk what we know: Reflecting on the drug-using subject in

harm reduction and its political implications. Social Science & Medicine62(12): 30353047.

Quinn B, Stoov M, Papanastasiou C, et al. (2013a) An exploration of self-perceived non-problematic use as a barrier to professional support for methamphetamine users.InternationalJournal of Drug Policy24(6): 619623.

Quinn B, Stoov M, Papanastasiou C, et al. (2013b) Methamphetamine use in Melbourne,

Australia: Baseline characteristics of a prospective methamphetamine-using cohort and cor-

relates of methamphetamine dependence.Journal of Substance Use18(5): 349362.Race K (2009)Pleasure Consuming Medicine: The Queer Politics of Drugs. Durham, NC: Duke

University Press.

Ritter A, King T and Hamilton M (eds) (2013)Drug Use in Australian Society. Melbourne, VIC,Australia: Oxford University Press.

Rose N (2007) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-FirstCentury. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Southgate E and Hopwood M (2001) The role of folk pharmacology and lay experts in harm reduc-

tion: Sydney gay drug using networks.International Journal of Drug Policy12(4): 321335.Warner M (2002) Publics and counterpublics.Public Culture14(1): 4990.Woolley C (2009) Meeting the mixed methods challenge of integration in a sociological study of

structure and agency.Journal of Mixed Methods Research3(1): 725.

Author biographies

Cameron Duffis a Research Fellow in the Ethnographic Program at the National Drug Research

Institute in Melbourne, Australia. He is also an Associate Editor (Qualitative and Social Research)

at theInternational Journal of Drug Policy. Duffs primary research interests concern the rela-tionship between health, place and social inclusion with a focus on the lived experience of mental

illness and substance use. Duffs first bookAssemblages of Healthwill be published by Springerin 2014.

David Moore leads the Ethnographic Program at the National Drug Research Institute in

Melbourne, Australia. He is Editor of Contemporary Drug Problems and is a member of theEditorial Board for theInternational Journal of Drug Policy. He is the author of numerous bookchapters and peer-reviewed articles on the social and cultural contexts of alcohol and other drug

use and has co-edited various key works on drug research and policy. His most recent book entitledHabits: Remaking Addiction(co-written with Suzanne Fraser and Helen Keane) will be publishedby Palgrave in 2014.

design of drug services duff.pdf

Documents