Imitations and Transformations: On Side Effects of the ADHD Epidemic

ABSTRACT

The attention deficit hyperactivity disorder epidemic has been the subject of much scrutiny, especially in relation to the medicalization of children, and, to a lesser degree, to the use of Ritalin as a performance enhancer or party drug (e.g., Keane 2008; Whitaker 2010; Bowden 2013). In this article, my focus is on non-investigated side effects of this epidemic, namely the use of (prescription) Ritalin among heavy drug users. Based on fieldwork conducted in one of the largest cities in Denmark, in this article I trace the spread of intravenous use of Ritalin, and examine how different ways of ingesting Ritalin transform the drug itself, and, with this, transform treatment practices, parts of the drug scene, and the bodies of users. In my analysis, I draw on insights from anthropological theories on imitation and from material semiotics.

KEYWORDS:

• Addiction
• ADHD
• drug users
• imitation
• Ritalin

Acknowledgments

Thanks to informants willing to spend time and share stories with me. Thanks to thoughtful comments at a paper session at the Third Contemporary Drug Problems Conference in Lisbon, September 2015. And thanks to colleagues at the EpiCentre, Anthropology, Aarhus University, and especially to Christian Suhr, who carefully read and critically engaged with a previous version of this paper. Thanks to three anonymous reviewers for providing stimulating critique. Finally, thanks to the editor Lenore Manderson for her meticulous editing. The responsibility is, of course, solely mine.

Funding

This research was conducted as part of a larger project of the Epicenter (Center for Cultural Epidemics), funded by a grant from AUFF (Aarhus University Research Foundation) 2012–2017.

Notes

1. Informants, treatment professionals and users alike generally use the name Ritalin, but this often includes tablets containing methylphenidate. I follow my informants and use the name Ritalin in a generic sense, as this can also refer to brand names such as Concerta or Motiron®.

2. Following Lempert, I will use the terms ‘mimesis’ and ‘imitation’ loosely. My concern is not on tight definitions, but on how imitations become effective in different practices (2014:380).

3. All informants are anonymized, and all have provided informed consent.

4. It is outside the scope of this article to pursue many interesting issues linked to opiate maintenance treatment. Interested readers could for example look at some of these analyses: (Gomart 2002a, 2004; Moore and Fraser 2006; Roberts, Valentine, and Frazer 2009; Garcia 2013; Meyers 2013; Järvinen and Miller 2010; Bjerge, Nielsen, and Frank 2014).

5. A great deal of literature on doctor-patient relations in drug treatment interventions has argued how difficult it can be for users to get their voices heard (e.g., see, Bourgois 2000; Keane 2009).

6. The DDD is the assumed average maintenance dose per day for a drug used for its main indication in adults.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Bjarke Nielsen

Bjarke Nielsen, PhD, is an independent researcher. While doing this research, he was assistant professor, Centre for Alcohol and Drug Research (Business and Social Science) and Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Center for Cultural Epidemics, Department of Anthropology, Aarhus University. He works on methadone, heroin, heroin assisted treatment, drug users, and entanglements of drugs, medicines, bodies and social spaces.