It is time for us all to embrace person-centred language for people in prison and people who were formerly in prison

Towards a social harm approach in drug policy

In this paper, we explore how the social harm approach can be adapted within drug policy scholarship. Since the mid-2000s, a group of critical criminologists have moved beyond the concept of crime and criminology, towards the study of social harm. This turn proceeds decades of research that highlights the inequities within the criminal legal system, the formation of laws that protect the privileged and punish the disadvantaged, and the systemic challenge of the effectiveness of retribution and punishment at addressing harm in the community. The purpose of this paper is to first identify parallels between the social harm approach and critical drug scholarship, and second to advocate for the adoption of a social harm lens in drug policy scholarship. In the paper, we draw out the similarities between social harm and drug policy literatures, as well as outline what the study of social harm can bring to an analysis of drug policy. This includes a discussion on the ontology of drug crime, the myth of drug crime and the ineffective use of the crime control system in response to drug use. The paper then discusses how these conversations in critical criminology and critical drugs scholarship can be brought together to inform future drug policy research. This reflection details the link between social harm and the impingement of human flourishing, explores the role of decolonizing drug policy, advocates for the centralization of lived experience within the research process and outlines how this might align with harm reduction approaches. We conclude by arguing that the social harm approach challenges the idea that neutrality is the goal in drug policy and explicitly seeks to expand new avenues in activist research and social justice approaches to policymaking.

Does attitude importance moderate the effects of person-first language? A registered report

Previous research has demonstrated that exposure to outgroup descriptions that use person-first, as compared to identity-first, language can attenuate negative stereotypes or prejudice and enhance support for policies that seek to advance outgroup rights. However, those benefits of person-first language may not apply to all social groups equally. The present study examines a boundary condition of the effects of person-first language. Specifically, we postulate that person-first language reduces the stigmatization of outgroups to a lesser degree if individuals hold more important negative attitudes towards the respective communities. We will test this hypothesis in a two-factorial 2 (target group) x 2 (descriptor) online experiment that includes a control group and for which we will recruit a general-population sample (N = 681). Stereotyping, dehumanization, as well as negative affect and behavioral intentions towards two outgroups will be compared: people with a physical disability/the physically disabled (i.e., negative attitudes are expected to be less important) and people who have committed a violent crime/violent criminals (i.e., negative attitudes are expected to be more important). Our findings will bear implications for understanding when language use could influence public opinion of different social groups. Additionally, the research can inform the development of more effective communication policies to promote inclusion and reduce stigma.

Effect of incarceration and opioid agonist treatment transitions on risk of hospitalisation with injection drug use-associated bacterial infections: A self-controlled case series in New South Wales, Australia

BACKGROUND

Transitional times in opioid use, such as release from prison and discontinuation of opioid agonist treatment (OAT), are associated with health harms due to changing drug consumption practices and limited access to health and social supports. Using a self-controlled (within-person) study design, we aimed to understand if these transitions increase risks of injection drug use-associated bacterial infections.

METHODS

We performed a self-controlled case series among a cohort of people with opioid use disorder (who had all previously accessed OAT) in New South Wales, Australia, 2001-2018. The outcome was hospitalisation with injecting-related bacterial infections. We divided participants' observed days into time windows related to incarceration and OAT receipt. We compared hospitalization rates during focal (exposure) windows and referent (control) windows (i.e., 5-52 weeks continuously not incarcerated or continuously receiving OAT). We estimated adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) using conditional logistic regression, adjusted for time-varying confounders.

RESULTS

There were 7590 participants who experienced hospitalisation with injecting-related bacterial infections (35% female; median age 38 years; 78% hospitalised with skin and soft-tissue infections). Risk for injecting-related bacterial infections was elevated for two weeks following release from prison (aIRR 1.45; 95%CI 1.22-1.72). Risk was increased during two weeks before (aIRR 1.89; 95%CI 1.59-2.25) and after (aIRR 1.91; 95%CI 1.54-2.36) discontinuation of OAT, and during two weeks before (aIRR 3.63; 95%CI 3.13-4.22) and after (aIRR 2.52; 95%CI 2.09-3.04) OAT initiation.

CONCLUSION

Risk of injecting-related bacterial infections varies greatly within-individuals over time. Risk is raised immediately after prison release, and around initiation and discontinuation of OAT. Social contextual factors likely contribute to excess risks at transitions in incarceration and OAT exposure.

Release, Reentry, and Reintegration During COVID-19: Perspectives of Individuals Recently Released from the Federal Bureau of Prisons

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic had a large negative impact on people in U.S. prisons. Expedited releases from prison were one strategy used to decrease morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. However, little is known about the reentry experiences of those being rapidly released from custody early in the pandemic.

Methods

We aimed to examine the perspectives of former residents in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) regarding release, reentry, and reintegration into their respective communities. We conducted semistructured interviews with 21 recently released individuals primarily recruited through legal aid organizations between September and October 2021. Subjects were incarcerated before and during the early surge in the COVID-19 pandemic. We coded transcripts thematically with domains developed a priori in which we revised iteratively and inductively based on the data.

Results

Several major themes emerged. Participants reported that they needed to advocate for themselves to take advantage of the early release process. Compared with normal circumstances, they reported a lack of reentry planning and preparation before participants were released. Finally, experiences with reintegration varied but were often more challenging due to COVID-19.

Discussion

Residents released during COVID-19 reported many challenges with reentry that could have been mitigated by support and guidance from the BOP. Reentry is a process that should begin prelease and continues postrelease to ensure individuals have adequate structural and social supports.

Health Equity Implications

Inadequate reentry support has significant impacts on the health and well-being of recently released individuals and contributes to the broader context of achieving health equity for minitorized groups who are disproportionately overrepresented in prisons. Policy and practice reform is needed to address the time-sensitive, life-threatening challenges individuals face when transitioning from prison to community.

Constructing a 'target population': A critical analysis of public health discourse on substance use among gay and bisexual men, 2000-2020

BACKGROUND

Gay and bisexual men (GBM) have higher substance use prevalences than general population samples - often attributed to stigmatisation of sexual minority identities. We examined how influential public health research on substance use among GBM interprets this behaviour and what GBM-specific identities emerge through the discourses employed.

METHODS

We searched Web of Science for publications on substance use among GBM, selecting 60 of the most cited papers published during 2000-2020. We studied the language used to describe and interpret drug-using behaviour using critical discourse analysis, focusing on interpretive repertoires and subject positions.

RESULTS

Three distinct discursive tendencies were identified. First, in constructing a target population, GBM who use illicit drugs are positioned as deficient, socially irresponsible, and maladapted to dealing with stigmatisation and HIV risks. Second, in shifting the focus beyond the individual, the gay community is conceptualised as offering a safe space for socialisation. Nonetheless, gay community spaces are problematised as promoting substance use among vulnerable GBM through aggravating loneliness and normalising drug use as a form of maladaptive (avoidance) coping. Third, counterdiscursive movements add nuance, context, and comparisons that relativise rather than generalise substance use and focus on pleasure and self-determination. Such discourses centre the need for interventions that disrupt homophobic socio-structures instead of individualising approaches to limit non-conformity.

CONCLUSION

'Expert' assessments of substance use among GBM perpetuate pathologising understandings of this behaviour and promote abject subject positions, contributing to perpetuations of intergroup stigma and social exclusion based on drug and sexual practices. Our findings highlight the need for deliberate and critical engagement with prior research and a conscious effort to disrupt dominant discourses on GBM's substance use.