Aristotle on Drugs

Bibliography

• Anscombe, G. E. M., 1958. Modern Moral Philosophy. Philosophy 33(125): 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Bayer, R. and A. L., Fairchild, 2004. The Genesis of Public Health Ethics. Bioethics 18(6): 473–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beardshaw, V., D. J. Hunter and R. C. R. Taylor, 1990. Local AIDS Policies: Planningand Policy Development for Health Promotion. London: Health Education Authority.
   Google Scholar
• Boskovic, G. and V., S. Jengic, 2008. Mental Health as EudaimonicWell-being? Psychiatria Danubina 20(4): 452–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callahan, D. and B. Jennings, 2002. Ethics and Public Health: Forging a Strong Relationship. American Journal of Public Health 92(2): 169–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Childress, J. F., R. R. Faden, R. D. Gaare, L. O. Gostin, J. Kahn, R. J. Bonnie, N. E. Kass, A. C. Mastroianni, J. D. Moreno and P. Nieburg, 2002. Public Health Ethics: Mapping the Terrain. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30: 169–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christie, T., L. Groarke and W. Sweet, 2008. Virtue Ethics as an Alternative to Deontological and Consequential Reasoning in the Harm Reduction Debate. International Journal of Drug Policy 19(1): 52–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clouser, K. D., 1995. Common Morality as an Alternative to Principlism. Kentucky Institute of Ethics Journal 5(3): 219–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drugscope, 2009. Drugs Treatment at the Crossroads. London: Lavenham Press.
   Google Scholar
• Engelhardt, H. T., 2002. Bioethics as a Plural Noun: Competing Understandings of Morality in Health Care. In H. T. Engelhardt, The Foundations of Bioethics, 2nd rev. edn, 3–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fiesta, A., 2007. The Principalist Paradigm and the Problem of the False Negative: Why the Clinical Ethics We Teach Fails Patients. Academic Medicine 82(7): 684–89.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Galizio, M. and S. A. Maisto, 1985. Determinants of Substance Abuse: Biological, Psychological, and Environmental Factors. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, M., 2005. A ‘Components’ Model of Addiction within a Biopsychosocial Framework. Journal of Substance Use 10(4): 191–97.
   Google Scholar
• Home Office, 2002. Updated Drug Strategy 2002. London: Home Office.
   Google Scholar
• Home Office, 2008. Drugs: Protecting Families and Communities. London: Home Office.
   Google Scholar
• Home Office, 2010. Reducing Demand, Restricting Supply, Building Recovery: Supporting People to Live a Drug-free Life. London: Home Office.
   Google Scholar
• Home Office, 2013. Drug Paraphernalia. Ministerial statement published on 4 July 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/drug-paraphernalia.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, K. S. and C. L. Fry, 2007. Strengthening Drug Policy and Practice through Ethics Engagement: An Old Challenge for a New Harm Reduction. International Journal of Drug Policy 18: 75–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinig, J., 2008. Harm Reduction: The Ethics of Harm Reduction. Substance Use & Misuse 43: 1–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacIntyre, A., 2013. After Virtue. London: Bloomsbury, 4th rev. edn.
   Google Scholar
• McCloskey, H. J., 1957. An Examination of Restricted Utilitarianism. The Philosophical Review 66(4): 466–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mill, J. S., 1859. On liberty. In S. Collini, ed. 1989, On Liberty and Other Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morrell, K., 2012. Organization, Society and Politics: An Aristotelian Perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), 2009. Needle and Syringe Programmes: Providing People who Inject Drugs with Injecting Equipment. NICE Public Health Guidance 18. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
   Google Scholar
• NTA (National Treatment Agency), 2009. The Story of Drug Treatment. London: Department of Health.
   Google Scholar
• NTA (National Treatment Agency), 2012. Medications in Recovery: Re-orientating Drug Dependence Treatment. London: Department of Health.
   Google Scholar
• Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2007. Public Health: Ethical Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Malley, P., 2008. Experiments in Risk and Criminal Justice. Theoretical Criminology 12(4): 451–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, M. J. and M. R. Reich, 2002. Ethical Analysis in Public Health. Lancet 359(9311): 1055–1059.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M. and E. L. Deci, 2001. On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 141–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryff, C. D., 1989. Happiness is Everything, or is it? Explorations on the Meaning of Psychological Wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57: 1069–1081.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, S. D., 2004. The Hollowness of the Harm Principle. Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Paper 17, University of San Diego School of Law.
   Google Scholar
• TDPF (Transform Drug Policy Foundation), 2009. A Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of Prohibition and Regulation of Drugs. Bristol: TDPF.
   Google Scholar
• UKDPC (United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission), 2008. A Vision of Recovery. London: UKDPC.
   Google Scholar
• UKDPC (United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission), 2009. Moving towards Real Impact Drug Enforcement: Strategy and Policy Implications. London: UKDPC.
   Google Scholar
• Upshur, R. E. G., 2002. Principles for the Justification of Public Health Intervention. Canadian Journal of Public Health 93(2): 101–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waterman, A. S., 1993. Two Conceptions of Happiness: Contrasts of Personal Expressiveness (Eudaemonia) and Hedonic Enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64: 678–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wodak, A., 2007. Ethics and Drug Policy. Psychiatry 6(2): 59–62.
   Google Scholar