![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper considers the structural production and amplification of tensions surrounding the issue of street-based injecting drug use and drug-related litter (injecting paraphernalia) discarded in public settings. These tensions, it is argued, is a consequence of colliding intervention (policy and practice) brought about by conflicting connections between national/local drug strategy and micro-level forms of governance regarding the spatial management of public space. These colliding interventions have negative consequences upon harm reduction and the formation of enabling environments. The paper draws upon data obtained from a five-year (multi-site) ethnographic study of street-based injecting conducted throughout the south of England during 2006–2011.
Acknowledgements
The views, opinions and academic content in this paper are those of the author. These views, opinions and interpretations should not necessarily be associated with any previous/current body/people associated with the research described throughout this text. In addition, these views and opinions are not necessarily shared or held by any institution to which the author has been previously or currently attached (especially those associated with the author's current position at the University of Manchester). The author acknowledges the support of Mr G. Halksworth for this paper. The author thanks the relevant authority for its permission to reproduce visual data obtained from the relevant study described in this work (which must remain anonymous to be consistent with the text). Selected paragraphs in this paper have been reproduced with permission (in an amended and edited form) from Parkin, S. (2014). An applied visual sociology: Picturing harm reduction. Farnham: Ashgate/Gower, Copyright © 2014.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. http://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/10129034.Shopper_finds_needles_in_Taunton_public_toilets/?ref=rss (accessed 1 July 2014).
2. http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridge/Drug-users-arrested-in-Cambridges-health-hazard-loos-20130405151852.htm#ixzz2nqMgEoRz (accessed 1 July 2014).
3. http://www.ely-news.co.uk/News/Elys-public-toilets-rife-with-drug-activity-20130419095033.htm#ixzz2nqV9xVmY (accessed 1 July 2014).
4. http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/crime/council-cleaner-s-hiv-test-wait-after-drug-needle-stab-in-sunderland-toilets-1-5901925 (accessed 1 July 2014).
5. http://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/local/call-for-drug-haven-conveniences-to-be-closed-1-5745846 (accessed 1 July 2014).
6. The wider ethnographic research attached to this work has noted that attempts to manage street-based injecting in this manner do not necessarily remove the activity from the built environment. Instead such coercive practice typically tends to displace and disperse people who use drugs to more marginalised, more concealed settings of harm production (Parkin, Citation2008, Citation2011a, Citation2013).
7. Needle and syringe programmes (NSPs) and opioid substitution therapy.
8. According to the NICE website, this is a Non-departmental Public Body independent of government, but sponsored by the Department of Health. It is an organisation that provides advice and guidance to improve health and social care (see www.nice.org.uk).
9. Researchers in England and Canada (Crabtree et al., Citation2013; Parkin, Citation2009, Citation2013, Citation2014; Parkin & Coomber, Citation2010) have each concluded that the installation of fluorescent blue lights designed to prevent injecting drug use can contribute to participation in more harmful injecting practice by those involved in more regular street-based injecting episodes.
10. and are not of the public toilets in Cambridge described in the Defra (Citation2005) report. Instead, they are photographs taken during the author's fieldwork of public toilets that may be regarded as ‘almost identical’ to the ‘Cambridge model’ advocated by Defra (i.e. same toilet, different location).
11. Such facilities are not purposely designed to house-injecting episodes.
12. The actual design is that of a Swedish public toilet manufacturer who produce bespoke, stand-alone conveniences in a variety of European countries (see www.danfo.com), whereas the ‘Cambridge Model’ is a term coined by the author for purposes of convenience [sic] only.
13. The initial study (2006–2009) was conducted as the author's doctoral research and was funded by a Collaborative Award in Science and Engineering Studentship provided by the Economic and Social Research Council of Great Britain as well as by a relevant body within local government of the setting concerned (a body formerly known as a Drug and Alcohol Action Team that was responsible for the implementation of the national Drug Strategy at a local level). Research conducted during the period 2010–2011 may be regarded as ‘postdoctoral’ and furthered studies of the same topic.
14. Purposely not identified for reasons relating to ‘anonymity’ of setting.
15. http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Almost-6000-drugs-needles-disposed-of-in-Cambridge-public-toilets-02122011.htm#ixzz2nqOYLrHp. Postscript: Events in Cambridge surrounding drug-related litter continue to make local news. In April 2015, the Cambridge News provided a map of ‘16 top hotspots where dirty needles are found’ in various public settings during the first quarter of 2015. See http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/16-hotspots-dirty-needles-Cambridge-map/story-26410740-detail/story.html#ixzz3g8m2h84t (accessed 17 July 2015).
16. also known as Drug Consumption Rooms.
17. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29566218 (accessed 17 July 2015) and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24730381 (accessed 17 July 2015).