Despite its relatively long history in the international drug policy field, the meaning of the term harm reduction is still disputed. From a description of the different actor-based footings of the international harm-reduction school of thought, the analysis concludes that the diverse conceptualizations of harm reduction are to be understood as interpretive frameworks that are functionally different according to the different types of actors and their social and professional positions. Three epistemic fractions of harm reduction are recognized: a professional new public health fraction; a mutual-help and identity movement fraction of the drug users; and a globally oriented fraction. It is argued that, rather than one, the international harm-reduction school of thought is a policy community of the three epistemic fractions that are in dialogue with each other and thus are constantly redefining the meaning of harm reduction.
AsmussenV. (2003): User participation: Possibilities and limitations in Danish social services directed towards drug users. In PedersenE. & TigerstedtC. (eds.). Regulating drugs—between users, the police and social workers. NAD publication 43. Helsinki: Nordic Council for Alcohol and Drug Research (NAD), pp. 11–32.
2.
BerridgeV. (1993): Harm minimisation and public health: An historical perspective. In HeatherN., WodakA., NadelmannE. A. & O'HareP. (eds.). Psychoactive drugs and harm reduction. From faith to science.London: Whurr Publishers Ltd, pp. 55–64.
3.
BerridgeV. (1999): Histories of harm reduction: Illicit drugs, tobacco, and nicotine.Substance Use and Misuse,34, pp. 35–48.
4.
BoliJ. & ThomasG. M. (1999): Constructing world culture. International nongovernmental organizations since 1875.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
5.
DeaconB., HulseM. & StubbsP. (1997): Global social policy. International organisations and the future of welfare.London: Sage Publications.
6.
EricksonP. G., RileyD. M., CheungY. W. & O'HareP. A. (1997): Harm reduction: A new direction for drug policies and programs.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
7.
EyermanR. & JamisonA. (1991): Social movements. A cognitive approach.Cambridge: Polity Press.
8.
FriedmanS. R., SouthwellM., CroftsN., PaoneD., ByrneJ. & BuenoR. (2001): Harm reduction—a historical view from the left: A response to commentaries.International Journal of Drug Policy,12, pp. 259–263.
9.
GramsciA. (1971): Selections from the prison notebooks.New York: International Publishers.
10.
HämmigR. (2003): Harm reduction: How new is it? Poster presentation at the 14th international conference on the reduction of drug-related harm. Chiang Mai, Thailand, 6–10 April, 2003.
11.
HeatherN., WodakA., NadelmannE. A. & O'HareP. (1993): Psychoactive drugs and harm reduction: From faith to science.London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.
12.
HoffmanL. M. (1989): The politics of knowledge. Activist movements in medicine and planning.Albany: State University of New York Press.
13.
HuntN. (2002): Public health or human rights: What comes first? Presentation at the 13th international conference on the reduction of drug-related harm. Ljubljana, Slovenia, 3–7 March, 2002.
14.
IncinardiJ. A. & HarrisonL. D. (2000): Introduction: The concept of harm reduction. In IncinardiJ. A. & HarrisonL. D. (eds.), Harm reduction: National and international perspectives.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. vii–xix.
15.
KlingemannH. (1999): Addiction careers and careers in addiction. Substance Use & Misuse,34 (11), pp. 1505–1526.
16.
MäkeläK. (1998): AA keskinäisen avun ja identiteettityön liikkeenä (AA as a mutual-help and identity-work movement). In IlmonenK. & SiisiäinenM. (eds.): Uudet ja vanhat liikkeet(New and old movements). Tampere: Vastapaino, pp. 307–332.
17.
MillerP. (2001): A critical review of the harm minimization ideology in Australia.Critical Public Health,11, pp. 167–178.
18.
MolR., OtterE. & van der MeerA. (1992): Drugs and AIDS in the Netherlands—the interests of drug users.Amsterdam: MDGH.
19.
NewcombeR. (1992): The reduction of drug-related harm: A conceptual framework from theory, practice and research. In O'HareP. A., NewcombeR., MatthewsA., BuningE. C. & DruckerE. (eds.) The reduction of drug-related harm.London: Routledge, pp. 1–14.
20.
O'BrienR., GoetzA. M., ScholteJ. A. & WilliamsM. (2000): Contesting global governance. Multilateral economic institutions and global social movements.London: Cambridge University Press.
21.
O'HareP. A., NewcombeR., MatthewsA., BuningE. C. & DruckerE. (1992): The reduction of drug-related harm.London: Routledge.
22.
PetersenA. & LuptonD. (1996) The new public health. Health and self in the age of risk.London: Sage Publications.
23.
RhodesT. (2002) The “risk environment”: A framework for understanding and reducing drug-related harm.International Journal of Drug Policy,13, pp. 85–94.
24.
RileyD. & O'HareP. (2000) Harm reduction: History, definition and practice. In IncinardiJ. A. & HarrisonL. D. (eds.). Harm reduction: National and international perspectives.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
25.
RileyD., SawkaE., ConleyP., HewittD., MiticW., PuolinC., RoomR., SingleE. & ToppJ. (1999): Harm reduction: Concepts and practice. A policy discussion paper.Substance Use and Misuse,34, pp. 9–24.
26.
RoomR. (2003): Reflections on UN drug policy—Vienna 2003.Paper presented at a Nordic Council for Alcohol and Drug Research (NAD) meeting: Tensions in drug policy in Western Europe, 12–13 May, Helsingborg, Sweden.
27.
RoomR. (2004): Alcohol and harm reduction, then and now. Forthcoming in Critical Public Health.
28.
StrangJ. (1993): Drug use and harm reduction: Responding to the challenge. In HeatherN., WodakA., NadelmannE. A. & O'HareP. (eds.). Psychoactive drugs and harm reduction: From faith to science.London: Whurr Publishers Ltd, pp. 3–20.
29.
SulkunenP. & WarpeniusK. (2000): Reforming the self and the other: The temperance movement and the duality of modern subjectivity.Critical Public Health,10, pp. 423–438.
30.
TaylorV. & WhittierN. (1992): Collective identity in social movement communities. In MorrisA. D. & McClurg MuellerC. (eds.). Frontiers in Social Movement Theory.New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 104–129.
31.
WaalH. (2000): Risk reduction as a component of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to drug problems. Discussion paper P-PG/MIN/CONF (2000) 3. 29 September, 2000. Strasbourg: Pompidou Group.
32.
WatsonM. (1990): Harm reduction—why do it?International Journal of Drug Policy,2, pp. 13–15.
33.
WielochN. (2002): Collective mobilization and identity from the underground: The deployment of “oppositional capital” in the harm-reduction movement.The Sociological Quarterly,43(1), pp. 45–72.
34.
WodakA. (1999): What is this thing called harm reduction?International Journal of Drug Policy,10, pp. 169–171.
35.
ZibbellsJ. E. (2004): Can the lunatics actually take over the asylum? Reconfiguring subjectivity and neo-liberal governance in contemporary British drug treatment policy.International Journal of Drug Policy,15, pp. 56–65.
