On drugs policy and harm reduction in Night Life By TechnoAntonioNegri

Drug policy is a multifaceted issue that extends beyond simple legal prohibitions. It intersects with public health, human rights, and economic interests, often leading to contradictory approaches. While some governments prioritize punitive measures, others, like those in Portugal and parts of Canada, have adopted harm reduction strategies, focusing on reducing the negative consequences associated with drug use rather than solely aiming to eliminate it. The success of these strategies in improving public health outcomes underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to drug policy, one that balances legal control with compassion and evidence-based practices.

The portrayal of drug problems in journalism and filmmaking often serves as a convenient venture into the 'wild side' without real risk. Many of these storytellers, typically from middle-class backgrounds, are intellectually curious but lack personal experience with behaviors considered morally questionable or risky, such as heroin use.

However, the reality of most drug use even heroin use rarely involves addiction. Yet, media narratives overwhelmingly focus on addiction because it is more sensational. A story about someone who uses heroin occasionally but maintains their responsibilities is considered uninteresting. The dramatic allure of addiction ensures that these narratives captivate audiences and allow journalists and filmmakers to appear edgy. This focus on addiction, while profitable and engaging for the audience, perpetuates a skewed perspective on drug use and overlooks the more mundane realities that many users experience.

We cannot also ignore the crisis in modern journalism^{^[1]}: it puts further pressure on journalists who are mostly freelancers to aim for a sensationalist angle.

Lifesaver Harm reduction groups like DanceSafe, Techno+, and Antidote Denmark are making a difference in the lives of people who use drugs. They provide essential services like drug testing, education, and clean supplies to reduce the risks associated with substance use. Despite their efforts, these organizations face challenges due to restrictive drug laws and negative public attitudes. Many governments prioritize punishment over public health, hindering harm reduction efforts. It's crucial to shift focus from criminalizing drug users to supporting harm reduction initiatives. By providing access to life-saving tools like naloxone and education, we can save lives and create healthier communities.

On another hand there are organizations which clinicalize drug use, using an outdated paradigm of hierarchizing between the good and bad drugs. We could expect a more evidence-based approach from such organizations, like the Berlin Club Commission ^{^[2]} which are supposed to be in direct contact with partygoers and advocate for them.

The aim of this piece is to be a resource for people curious about the ecosystem of harm-reduction in the West and who wonder who are the different actors and what are their short-comings when it comes to harm reduction

The article highlights the dangers of misinformation, stigmatization, and a profit-driven approach to nightlife, which often hinders effective harm reduction strategies.

Ultimately, the article calls for a more humane and evidence-based approach to drug policy, emphasizing the need for collaboration between governments, harm reduction organizations, and the public to create safer environments for all.

We cannot ignore the conservative political leaning driving government actions on drug policy. However, a leftist government wouldn’t necessarily solve this issue either, as there isn’t a widespread evidence-based conversation about drug policy on the left. The shortcomings in drug policy are, therefore, a cross-partisan issue.

Europe's Drug Policy Paradox: A Hypocritical Approach

European countries have currently a hypocritical drug policy as the continent became the biggest market for most of the drugs out there,so there is consumption and demands, government attack initiative like drug-testing, harm reduction stand in night-club..etc

rewrote version : European countries have adopted a hypocritical stance on drug policy, condemning harm reduction initiatives like drug-testing and safe consumption spaces, despite being the largest market for drugs. This approach assumes that a drug-free society is achievable, but such a society, devoid of alcohol, caffeine, antidepressants, or pain medications, is neither realistic nor desirable. Europe appears to be following the failed U.S. War on Drugs model, which spends billions^{^[3]} annually with little success in reducing drug availability, while overdose deaths continue to rise. The American experience shows that focusing on eradication rather than harm reduction leads to wasted resources and countless lives lost. Europe's current path risks repeating these mistakes, wasting resources, and failing to address the real issues at hand.

For instance in 2021 panic around GHB/GBL demonstrate that in terms of public health policy we not only went backward with the management of COVID but also with drugs all thanks to decades of austerity politics and stigma built around certain substances, as there is a hierarchy between the “good drugs” and the “bad drugs” that no one should ever talk about.

A 25 years old Irish partygoer died in hospital after being found unresponsive in a club in Berlin, from using GHB/GBL. In response to this tragedy, some music venues started discussions about drug use, produced podcast episodes with Resident Advisor^{^[4]} as a form of social washing^{^[5]} and launched a campaign called “There is no G in Club Culture”, as if the substance hadn't been around since the 60’s.

GBL, GHB, and BDO are often misused in combination with alcohol, exacerbating their risks. Unfortunately, there is a critical lack of harm reduction information about these substances.

We would think that an institution that advocates for night-life would focus on providing information instead of stigmatizing users.

Despite the image of Berlin's underground clubs as countercultural spaces born from the city's post-Wall era, many of these venues are now driven by profit. Owners, like any other business operators, aim to maximize revenue. The allure of underground culture is often used as a marketing tool to attract customers and increase alcohol sales, transforming these once alternative spaces into commercial enterprises within the broader context of late capitalism.

The dance music scene is facing multiple challenges. Ageism, coupled with societal pressures to prioritize work and productivity, is driving older individuals away from nightlife.^{^[6]}

It influence the discourse available around night-life and we can also expand further by saying that the current approach regarding COVID–19 which either consisted in reducing partygoers into guinea pig or totally ignoring the existence of the virus grew that generational gap.

This, combined with a short-term focus and a lack of industry cohesion, hinders our ability to address critical issues like misinformation and substance use.

To contrast, organizations like DanceSafe offer a comprehensive approach to drug education, consent, and harm reduction. Additionally, the packed, profit-driven nature of many European clubs, particularly those with a post-Berlin Wall Techno aesthetic, often prioritizes revenue over patron well-being, creating an environment less conducive to older and or disabled partygoers, the disappearance of spaces dedicated to rest is one of many examples.^{^[7]}

While stimulant use might seem necessary to maintain high energy levels on the dancefloor, long-term consumption can lead to serious health issues. This could partially explain the constant turnover of partygoers, as older generations stop going out as they don’t want to be facing the consequences of prolonged stimulant use, and they get replaced by younger individuals.

It is not ideal that nonprofits aimed at harm reduction are the only ones helping the dance community regarding risk encountered by taking substances, but Neoliberal governance strategies fundamentally shift the balance of responsibility away from the state and onto individuals. By framing societal challenges such as substance abuse, unemployment, or illness as personal problems, governments can reduce their direct involvement in providing solutions. This approach, often referred to as "individualization," transforms collective issues into matters of personal responsibility and self-care.

Essentially, neoliberal policies encourage individuals to manage risks and insecurities independently, rather than relying on state support. This combined with the criminalization of harm reduction creates a paradoxical situation where the state refuses to let non-governmental actors offer a temporary solution to a public health problem by criminalizing harm reduction while dodging its responsibility.

It's imperative that the European dance community and nightlife industry establish a united front to prioritize health, safety, and a non-stigmatizing approach. A collaborative, international organization dedicated to these goals is urgently needed.

Harm reduction around the world

Founded in 1998 by Emanuel Sferios, DanceSafe emerged from the underground rave scene to address the pressing issue of drug-related harm. Recognizing the need for accurate information and accessible services, the organization began offering on-site drug testing and education at music festivals and events across North America. By providing essential resources such as condoms, water, earplugs, and peer counseling, DanceSafe has played a pivotal role in creating safer spaces for electronic music enthusiasts.

Beyond its core services, DanceSafe has become a leading advocate for evidence-based drug policies. Sferios outside of DanceSafe offers a critical examination of the drug war and its devastating consequences. By challenging prohibitionist rhetoric and promoting harm reduction strategies, he has contributed significantly to shifting public discourse on drug-related issues.

In France, Techno+, a French non-profit founded in 1995, promotes harm reduction in party environments and supports techno culture. Since its inception, nearly 600 volunteers have strived to create safe spaces for partygoers.

Through chill-out areas at events and informative leaflets on drugs, Techno+ fosters informed decision-making and a culture of safety within the vibrant world of techno parties. Their work prioritizes individual choice and respects personal experiences, aiming to make every party a safer and more informed space.

Denmark faces a tragic reality: overdose deaths outnumber traffic fatalities each year. Antidote Denmark, an NGO founded by doctors, nurses, and volunteers in 2013, is dedicated to combating this issue.

Through free training sessions, they equip people with the knowledge and tools to recognize and reverse overdoses. Their focus lies on widespread distribution of naloxone (Antidote) nasal spray, a simple yet effective way to counteract opioid overdoses. By increasing availability of this spray, they believe a 50% reduction in overdose deaths is achievable.

With a decade of experience and extensive connections within various drug environments, Antidote Denmark is well-positioned to achieve their mission. They advocate for knowledge and accessibility of naloxone as a powerful combination to prevent these devastating deaths.

Pharma-state and hypocrisy

Novo Nordisk, the Danish company behind Ozempic, saw its net profit more than double between 2019 and 2023, and its stock has reached record levels. By the end of 2023, Novo had become Europe’s largest company, significantly impacting Denmark’s economy.

Novo's dominance is so pronounced that it now accounts for nearly one-fifth of all new jobs in Denmark last year, and when indirect job creation is considered, nearly half of private-sector nonfarm jobs. Without Novo's contributions, Denmark's GDP would have contracted last year, highlighting its critical role in preventing a recession.^{^[8]}

Denmark's transformation into a "pharma-state," largely driven by Novo Nordisk's success, appears to be of little concern to the government. However, the nation faces a stark contrast in its approach to pharmaceuticals: while embracing the economic benefits of prescription drugs, it maintains a strict stance on substances deemed mind-altering.

The origins of this discrepancy are open to speculation. The parallel with Germany, where Christian Democrats^{^[9]} blocked cannabis decriminalization despite overwhelming rational arguments, suggests a potential religious or moral undercurrent influencing drug policy. This raises questions about the basis for Denmark's drug laws when factual evidence consistently supports legalization.

How Bias Influences Scientific Studies: the Case of Marijuana Research

STUDY FINDS BRAIN CHANGES IN YOUNG MARIJUANA USERS. This headline, featured in The Boston Globe on April 15, 2014, was based on an MRI study by Massachusetts General Hospital and Northwestern University. The study scanned the brains of twenty cannabis users and twenty controls once, finding a slightly larger nucleus accumbens in cannabis users. However, the differences were so small that individual scans could not reliably distinguish users from non-users.

Dr. Carl L. Hart highlights the critical flaws in this study, noting that brain scans were only taken at one point in time, making it impossible to determine if differences were pre-existing. Moreover, the study failed to account for the confounding effects of tobacco and alcohol use, more prevalent among cannabis users. Hart emphasizes that the minimal brain differences observed are within the normal range of human variability and do not indicate brain damage.

These biases highlight the problem of drawing conclusions from incomplete data and confounded variables, emphasizing the need for rigorous, unbiased scientific inquiry. Preexisting differences in brain structures cannot be ruled out, highlighting a common error in drug research.^{^[10]}

Hart's observations extend to a broader critique of bias in scientific research. For instance, while teaching a graduate seminar on prenatal drug exposure, he noted that research often exaggerates the negative effects of drugs. One study, which found no differences in working memory between drug-exposed and control groups, still pathologized the drug-exposed group's brain activity. Hart’s student, Delon McAllister, critiqued this in a published letter, highlighting that equivalent behavioral performance negates claims of dysfunction.

Hart argues that these biases lead to unwarranted conclusions about drug use and brain damage, often ignoring the actual data for example ” All participants performed equally well on the working-memory test. This observation supports the view that brain activation for both groups was normal. Yet the researchers discussed the working-memory findings in surprisingly pathological terms: “The behavioral findings may reflect subtle indications of altered [emphasis is mine] attentional and response preparatory skills in the PDE group. I don’t understand how equivalent working-memory performance was interpreted as a negative”^{^[11]} . He stresses the importance of replicating MRI and fMRI findings to ensure scientific validity, as many sensational claims about brain changes are not replicated.

Hart's critique of scientific research on drug use exposes a fundamental flaw: the illusion of objectivity in science. The field, particularly in the realm of drug policy, is deeply intertwined with broader societal and political agendas. The U.S., the epicenter of the global War on Drug^{^[12]}s, has created a scientific landscape heavily influenced by this punitive approach. Consequently, research often reinforces rather than challenges dominant narratives

Why Sociology Matters in an Era of Conservative Backlash

Emile Durkheim's groundbreaking work, Suicide: A Study in Sociology, marked a pivotal moment in sociological research. Published in 1897, it was one of the first attempts to examine a social phenomenon through a sociological lens. By exploring the seemingly individual act of suicide, Durkheim demonstrated how societal factors can influence individual behavior. His work challenged the prevailing view of suicide as purely an individualistic act, laying the groundwork for future sociological studies.

However the decline of social democratic parties in the West and the subsequent rise of conservative ideologies have coincided with a concerted attack on humanities disciplines. This trend, exemplified by budget cuts and moral panics over topics like critical race theory, has created a hostile environment for fields like sociology.

By examining the broader societal shifts of the past few decades, we can better understand the challenges facing the humanities and the importance of sociological perspective in navigating these complex times.

The traditional sociological focus on the interplay between society and individuals has been overshadowed by a corporate-driven, Darwinian view of the world. With a small number of billionaires controlling the majority of Western media, the public discourse has become increasingly dominated by simplified, often misleading narratives.^{^[13]}

American psychologist and neuroscientist Carl L. Hart reflects on his cousins Michael and Anthony, who he remembered as sweet, decent boys before they started smoking crack cocaine. Once they became addicted, they turned into homeless criminals, even stealing from their own mother. “Them drugs ain’t nothing to play with,” his mom would say. “Just look at how they ruined ya cousins.” The family was convinced that the drugs had fundamentally altered their brains.

However, no one considered the difficult social landscape Michael and Anthony were navigating before they ever tried crack. Neither had excelled in middle school or high school. Anthony eventually dropped out and faced chronic unemployment in a job market that routinely discriminated against black people. Their experiences were deeply rooted in racism and economic inequality. Growing up in a disadvantaged neighborhood with limited opportunities, they faced the same challenges that many others in similar circumstances encounter, As David Harvey put it in “A Companion to Marx’s Capital : “(Marx) identifies something important about how these mobilizations of latent workforces so often utilize differences of ethnicity and religion (in this case), which by extension can encompass all manner of racial, gender, cultural, religious and other differences in the divide-and-rule politics deployed by the capitalist class.”

Restrictive Drug Laws Fuel Demand and Create New Public Health Risks

Overly restrictive drug laws actually contribute to the proliferation of novel psychoactive substances, which can pose significant health risks to users. Many people believe that banning a drug will eliminate its demand and effects, but this is far from true. There will always be a demand for substances that enhance joy and alleviate suffering. Numerous novel psychoactive substances, including 6-APB, have emerged to meet this demand and continue to proliferate.

To bypass stringent legal restrictions on traditional drugs, illicit manufacturers synthesize and sell novel psychoactive substances as alternatives. For instance, mephedrone is sometimes sold as an alternative to MDMA because they produce similar effects, though mephedrone’s effects are shorter in duration. However, the risks associated with these new drugs are often not as well understood as those of classic substances.

Deceptively selling a novel drug as an established one can lead to harmful effects, especially if their pharmacological profiles differ significantly. For example, if an unsuspecting person consumes a large amount of carfentanil, a novel psychoactive substance sometimes substituted for heroin, the consequences can be fatal.

The Complexities of Drug Policy and Harm Reduction

The prevailing approach to drug policy is marked by inconsistency and often counterproductive measures. While organizations like DanceSafe, Techno+, and Antidote Denmark strive to mitigate the harms associated with drug use, they face significant hurdles imposed by punitive laws and the criminalization of their activities^{^[14]}.

A central issue is the persistent stigma surrounding drug users, fueled by sensationalized media coverage and outdated stereotypes. This stigma hinders effective harm reduction efforts by discouraging people from seeking help and by limiting the resources allocated to address drug-related problems.

Furthermore, the global drug market is characterized by a complex interplay of supply and demand, with governments often adopting prohibitionist policies that inadvertently create opportunities for illicit markets to thrive. The emergence of novel psychoactive substances highlights the limitations of these approaches and the urgent need for evidence-based alternatives.

For instance in Denmark even though there is a cross partisan push to write legislation for cannabis, successive governments refuse any progress on this question.^{^[15]} The Global Commission on Drugs argues in a report that by making drugs illegal, governments have inadvertently created a lucrative business for criminal gangs. These groups control the entire drug trade, from production to sale, reaping enormous profits while the countries they operate in suffer the negative consequences.

In the report, Ruth Dreifuss, the group's chair and former president of Switzerland, stated. “Every region in the world suffers: from violence induced by turf wars over production areas and transit routes, from corruption and connivance of state institutions, and from laundering of drug money, which damages the legal economy,”

Ironically after a turf war^{^[16]} in Christiania (an autonomous enclave in Copenhagen) the Danish government decided to close pusher street instead of moving forward with regulation. We can easily predict that the drug market and the violence will be extended to other city districts as the turf wars become decentralized, leading to continuous and unproductive discussions on the regulation of cannabis.

Ultimately, a comprehensive approach to drug policy requires a balance between public health and safety. This necessitates decriminalization, investment in harm reduction services, and education to challenge the stigma surrounding drug use. By prioritizing evidence-based strategies and human-centered policies, societies can move towards a more effective and compassionate response to this complex issue.

https://thequietus.com/news/cond-nast-restructures-pitchfork-and-lays-off-staff/ ↑
https://www.clubcommission.de/statement-there-is-no-g-in-club-culture/ ↑
National Drug Control Budget (March 2019), FY2020 Funding Highlights, accessed November 13, 2019: www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/FY-20-Budget-Highlights.pdf.↑
https://fr.ra.co/news/76037 ↑
Social washing refers to the practice of organizations or companies portraying themselves as more socially responsible and ethical than they actually are. They often promote initiatives, partnerships, or policies that create a misleading image of their commitment to social issues like diversity, equity, inclusion, human rights, or community engagement, without making real changes to their practices or addressing underlying problems. Essentially, social washing is a public relations tactic aimed at enhancing a company’s image or deflecting criticism, similar to greenwashing but focused on social issues rather than environmental ones. This calls into question the sincerity of venues and institutions that only address alcohol and drug-related incidents when under media scrutiny. What are they doing to educate clubgoers on substance safety year-round? The answer seems to be nothing. ↑
In Health Communism Beatrice Adler-Bolton and Artie Vierkant lay down this argument :“The Worker/surplus binary solidifies the idea that our lives under capitalism revolve around our work. Our selves our worthiness, our entire being and right to live revolve around making our labor power available to the ruling class.”Health Communism - Beatrice Adler-Bolton and Artie Vierkant ↑
As illness, disability, and madness are categorically social constructions for " ill-fitting" bodies these labels are used to restrict as burdens. Disabled bodies are seen as a burden by Capital therefore bodies fitting these categories are dismissed by venues. We have to understand that we are dealing with people in power only interested in petty cash accounting and key performance indicators to increase the profit margins. ↑
https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2024/07/26/g-s1-13534/ozempic-biggest-side-effect-denmark-pharmastate#:~:text=What%20if%20your%20entire%20economy,be%20a%20powerful%20growth%20engine. ↑
https://businessofcannabis.com/germanys-cannabis-bill-passes-with-large-majority/ ↑
Drug Use for Grown-Ups - Carl L. Hart ↑
Drug Use for Grown-Ups - Carl L. Hart ↑
The negative effects of misinterpreting neuroscience data extend beyond the U.S. For instance, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's extreme actions—killing thousands accused of drug use or sale—are justified by the false claim that methamphetamine permanently damages users' brains, rendering them irredeemable. Such misconceptions often originate from scientific literature, like a 2016 study by Nora Volkow published in The New England Journal of Medicine. This study warned that unchecked drug use could cause irreversible brain changes, undermining self-control, a claim unsupported by substantial evidence. ↑
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2011/07/world/interactive.rupert.murdoch/index.htmlhttps://www.npr.org/2024/04/16/1245037718/book-bans-2023-pen-america
https://www.humanite.fr/medias/bernard-arnault/qui-sont-les-six-milliardaires-qui-possedent-les-principaux-medias-francais ↑
https://technoplus.org/fete-libre/repression-teuf/8642-nouvel-an-techno-se-fait-voler-un-groupe-electrogene-par-la-police/ ↑
https://www.berlingske.dk/www.berlingske.dk/alternativet-vil-lave-politiker-vagtvaern-paa-christiania ↑
Only nine days before the violent incident in Christiania, Minister of the Interior and Health Sophie Løhde dismissed a Copenhagen proposal for a pilot scheme to legalize cannabis. The program was designed in part to decrease gang-related cannabis crime.https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2023-08-31-koebenhavn-vil-tage-helt-nye-midler-i-brug-mod-pusher-street-men-loehde-siger-nej ↑

Introduction

Drug policy is a multifaceted issue that extends beyond simple legal prohibitions. It intersects with public health, human rights, and economic interests, often leading to contradictory approaches. While some governments prioritize punitive measures, others, like those in Portugal and parts of Canada, have adopted harm reduction strategies, focusing on reducing the negative consequences associated with drug use rather than solely aiming to eliminate it. The success of these strategies in improving public health outcomes underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to drug policy—one that balances legal control with compassion and evidence-based practices.

The portrayal of drug problems in journalism and filmmaking often serves as a convenient venture into the 'wild side' without real risk. Many of these storytellers, typically from middle-class backgrounds, are intellectually curious but lack personal experience with behaviors considered morally questionable or risky, such as heroin use.

However, the reality of most drug use—even heroin use—rarely involves addiction. Yet, media narratives overwhelmingly focus on addiction because it is more sensational. A story about someone who uses heroin occasionally but maintains their responsibilities is considered uninteresting. The dramatic allure of addiction ensures that these narratives captivate audiences and allow journalists and filmmakers to appear edgy. This focus on addiction, while profitable and engaging for the audience, perpetuates a skewed perspective on drug use and overlooks the more mundane realities that many users experience.

We cannot also ignore the crisis in modern journalism^{^[1]}: it puts further pressure on journalists who are mostly freelancers to aim for a sensationalist angle.

Lifesaver Harm reduction groups like DanceSafe, Techno+, and Antidote Denmark are making a difference in the lives of people who use drugs. They provide essential services like drug testing, education, and clean supplies to reduce the risks associated with substance use. Despite their efforts, these organizations face challenges due to restrictive drug laws and negative public attitudes. Many governments prioritize punishment over public health, hindering harm reduction efforts. It's crucial to shift focus from criminalizing drug users to supporting harm reduction initiatives. By providing access to life-saving tools like naloxone and education, we can save lives and create healthier communities.

On another hand there are organizations which clinicalize drug use, using an outdated paradigm of hierarchizing between the good and bad drugs. We could expect a more evidence-based approach from such organizations, like the Berlin Club Commission ^{^[2]} which are supposed to be in direct contact with partygoers and advocate for them.

The aim of this piece is to be a resource for people curious about the ecosystem of harm-reduction in the West and who wonder who are the different actors and what are their short-comings when it comes to harm reduction

The article highlights the dangers of misinformation, stigmatization, and a profit-driven approach to nightlife, which often hinders effective harm reduction strategies.

Ultimately, the article calls for a more humane and evidence-based approach to drug policy, emphasizing the need for collaboration between governments, harm reduction organizations, and the public to create safer environments for all.

We cannot ignore the conservative political leaning driving government actions on drug policy. However, a leftist government wouldn’t necessarily solve this issue either, as there isn’t a widespread evidence-based conversation about drug policy on the left. The shortcomings in drug policy are, therefore, a cross-partisan issue.

Europe's Drug Policy Paradox: A Hypocritical Approach

European countries have adopted a hypocritical stance on drug policy, condemning harm reduction initiatives like drug-testing and safe consumption spaces, despite being the largest market for drugs. This approach assumes that a drug-free society is achievable, but such a society, devoid of alcohol, caffeine, antidepressants, or pain medications, is neither realistic nor desirable. Europe appears to be following the failed U.S. War on Drugs model, which spends billions^{^[3]} annually with little success in reducing drug availability, while overdose deaths continue to rise. The American experience shows that focusing on eradication rather than harm reduction leads to wasted resources and countless lives lost. Europe's current path risks repeating these mistakes, wasting resources, and failing to address the real issues at hand.