Imaginary drug control and the failures of contemporary Australian drug policy

Contemporary Australian drug policy is characterized by a tension between punitive law and order responses that invoke the myth of sovereign power and responsibilizing strategies that “(re)moralize” individuals, holding them responsible for their safety, security, and well-being. This article argues that this blending of neoliberal techniques of governance, such as harm minimization, with neoconservative methods of rule typified in prohibitionist policies, presents a paradoxical policy response to illicit drug use. We explore the development and contemporary practice of a dualistic Australian drug policy that, on the one hand, promotes pragmatic interventions based on harm reduction while, on the other, relies on law and order strategies and traditional penal powers to deter illicit drug use. Drawing on Pat Carlen’s concept of imaginary penalities, we argue that this imaginary form of drug control is underpinned largely by symbolic measures that, in attempting to address public demands for safety and security, reproduce a punitive form of governance that fails to achieve its desired outcomes. Using qualitative interview data from a sample of 29 people who used drugs, and 15 professionals working in the drugs field, this article investigates responses to the contemporary governance of illicit drugs in Queensland. Based on the research findings, we argue that the conjoined nature of Australian drugs governance can be understood as imaginary drug control because it constantly recreates the conditions that perpetuate drug-related harm