Moderation and coexistence with psychoactive substances use: Approaching a Drug Consumption Room in France
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4000/aa.10691Keywords:
drug consumption room, harm reduction, psychoactive user, moderationAbstract
This article aims to understand how it is for psychoactive users to experience the use of substances in a Drug Consumption Room (DCR) for harm reduction and how it impacts their lives and subjectivities. The work starts from the premise that the DCRs’ polemical implementation is an attempt to answer to the social process that turned the use of psychoactive substances into a crime/health issue and created the pathological, excluded, and punishable category of drug user/addict. A qualitative methodology was used blending interviews and a direct observation of the Strasbourg’s DCR (ARGOS). The results show that psychoactive users attending that structure are persistently concerned about hygiene, responsibility, and guilt, which signalizes a searching for adhering to social order intercalated with substance use, however, still transversed by controversial feelings related to their consumption. Also expressing their autonomy, they reformulate the meanings they give to their substance consumption and to themselves. In addition, Strasbourg’s DCR’s sensibility to its audience’s precariousness gives clues for reflecting on this facility as an agent who acts by conviction in the face of the tragedy this population lives in.
Downloads
References
Aristote. 1992. Éthique à Nicomaque. Paris: Flammarion.
Boltanski, Luc, and Laurent Thévenot. 1991. De la justification. Les économies de la grandeur. Paris: Gallimard.
Dos Santos, Marie. 2016. “Usages de traitements de substitution aux opiacés: étude comparative: France, Suisse et Québec”. PhD diss., Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg.
Douglas, Mary. 2003. Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge.
Ehrenberg, Alain. 1999. Le culte de la performance. Paris: Hachette littératures.
Fassin, Didier. 2000. “Entre politiques du vivant et politiques de la vie: pour une anthropologie de la santé”. Anthropologie et sociétés 24, nº 1: 95–116.
Foucault, Michel. 1975. Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, Michel. 1982. “Le sujet et le pouvoir”. Dits et Écrits, nº 4: 222–43.
Garrau, Marie. 2018. Politiques de la vulnérabilité. Paris: CNRS éditions.
Jauffret-Roustide, Marie. 2016. “Les salles de consommation à moindre risque”. Esprit, nº 11: 115–23.
Joas, Hans. 2001. “La créativité de l’agir”. In Théories de l’action et éducation, ed. by Jean-Michel Baudouin and Janette Friedrich, 27–43. Bruxelas: De Boeck Supérieur.
Kaufmann, Jean-Claude. 2011. L’entretien compréhensif. Paris: Armand Colin.
Kokoreff, Michel, Anne Coppel, and Michel PeraldI. 2018. La catastrophe invisible: Histoire sociale de l’héroïne. Paris: Amsterdam Editions.
Laplantine, François. 2015. La description ethnographique. Paris: Armand Colin.
Le Breton, David. 2012. “Le contrecorps de la toxicomanie: sémiotique d’addicts”. Sociographe, nº 39, 55–64.
Mendonça, Natália Heringer. 2019. “Salle de Consommation à Moindre Risque (SCMR): envisager l’usager de drogues comme sujet”. Master’s thesis, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg.
Ramos, Elsa. 2015. L’entretien compréhensif en sociologie: Usages, pratiques, analyses. Paris: Armand Colin.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1990. Soi-même comme un autre. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Anuário Antropológico
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.en
Creative Commons - Atribución- 4.0 Internacional - CC BY 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.en