Pragmatism eller narkotikaliberalism : En kvalitativ innehållsanalys av debatten om sprututbyte och skadelindring i svenska dagstidningar 2016–2018
(2020) SOPA63 20192School of Social Work
- Abstract
- The Swedish needle exchange debate was revived when regulations for opening new needle exchange facilities were lightened 2017. Needle exchange has been debated over ever since it was introduced in the mid 80’s. With the contemporary debate as a premise the aim of this study was to see if the arguments for and against needle exchange has changed. The chosen method for the study was a qualitative content analysis of articles in Swedish daily newspapers which debated the needle exchange program and harm reduction published during the years 2016-2018. The study found that the debate’s participants represents one of two discourses, the ones for harm-reduction and zero tolerance respectively. The debaters argued about the same things, needle... (More)
- The Swedish needle exchange debate was revived when regulations for opening new needle exchange facilities were lightened 2017. Needle exchange has been debated over ever since it was introduced in the mid 80’s. With the contemporary debate as a premise the aim of this study was to see if the arguments for and against needle exchange has changed. The chosen method for the study was a qualitative content analysis of articles in Swedish daily newspapers which debated the needle exchange program and harm reduction published during the years 2016-2018. The study found that the debate’s participants represents one of two discourses, the ones for harm-reduction and zero tolerance respectively. The debaters argued about the same things, needle exchange, harm-reduction and zero tolerance but seemed to assign different meaning to these concepts. Within either discourse is the opposite concept (harm-reduction or zero tolerance) referred to as doing more harm than help. The view of what is a humane, responsible care of the addicts and what is the right addiction care differ between the two discourses. Both the differences and the similarities between the two standpoints can be explained by the social constructionist idea that meaning of social concepts comes from the social and cultural context. The study concludes that a potentially antagonistic conflict in the debate impedes consensus. However, a shift, a hegemonic intervention, is seemingly imminent, the aforementioned legislative change in 2017 is such an example. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9006537
- author
- Johansson, Jespher LU
- supervisor
-
- Carina Gallo LU
- organization
- course
- SOPA63 20192
- year
- 2020
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Debate, drug policy, harm reduction, needle exchange, zero tolerance
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9006537
- date added to LUP
- 2020-03-13 13:57:35
- date last changed
- 2020-03-13 13:57:35
@misc{9006537,
abstract = {{The Swedish needle exchange debate was revived when regulations for opening new needle exchange facilities were lightened 2017. Needle exchange has been debated over ever since it was introduced in the mid 80’s. With the contemporary debate as a premise the aim of this study was to see if the arguments for and against needle exchange has changed. The chosen method for the study was a qualitative content analysis of articles in Swedish daily newspapers which debated the needle exchange program and harm reduction published during the years 2016-2018. The study found that the debate’s participants represents one of two discourses, the ones for harm-reduction and zero tolerance respectively. The debaters argued about the same things, needle exchange, harm-reduction and zero tolerance but seemed to assign different meaning to these concepts. Within either discourse is the opposite concept (harm-reduction or zero tolerance) referred to as doing more harm than help. The view of what is a humane, responsible care of the addicts and what is the right addiction care differ between the two discourses. Both the differences and the similarities between the two standpoints can be explained by the social constructionist idea that meaning of social concepts comes from the social and cultural context. The study concludes that a potentially antagonistic conflict in the debate impedes consensus. However, a shift, a hegemonic intervention, is seemingly imminent, the aforementioned legislative change in 2017 is such an example.}},
author = {{Johansson, Jespher}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Pragmatism eller narkotikaliberalism : En kvalitativ innehållsanalys av debatten om sprututbyte och skadelindring i svenska dagstidningar 2016–2018}},
year = {{2020}},
}