“The reason some drugs are legal and others not has
almost nothing to do with science or health or the relative risks of the drugs.
It has almost everything to do with who uses and who’s perceived to use
particular drugs”
What are
the underlying values and ideologies in drug related texts such as ‘Channel 4’s
Run: Richard’ and how does this compare to American texts on the same subject?
The war on drugs is a revolutionary aspect that has
travelled throughout history into today’s society and has become a prominent theme
within the mass media. It is clear that the media is the prime driving force
for the ever-changing representation of drugs, through the constant shift in how
they are conveyed across both print and film platforms. This is evident through
the alternative depiction of drugs depending on one’s social class or ethnicity.
Thus, one could infer that the media act as the moral entrepreneur’s in using
the theme of ‘drugs’ to be labelled with specific social groups, to reinforce dominant
ideologies associated with them. The reoccurring reading of drugs in modern
culture is proportionately negative, through the constant reminders “that it
can kill you” Also,
it is noteworthy to recognise the drastic alteration of the representation of
drugs depending on where the text is produced, for instance the United Kingdom
in conjunction with the United States. This can be examined through the social
realistic text produced by Channel 4 in 2013, “Run: Richard”, which conveys the
struggles of a black recovering heroin addict and captures Britain’s
informative approach to the theme. This juxtaposes with several films from the
US, which in more recent years demonstrates their more liberal and freedom of
the individual approach. However, this ‘liberal’ approach hasn’t always been at
the forefront and this essay will establish how this representation has changed
over time. As well as this, we will uncover the reasoning behind the correlating
approaches to the theme of drugs depending on where and who produces the text.
‘Run’ is a
British mini-series that was created by Jonathan Pearson, Marlon Smith and
Daniel Fajemisin-Duncan, which follows the lives of ‘four gritty no holds’
and presents their daily battles of survival in London. The film was produced
by Acme films who are renowned for their innovative and contentious product
style, derived from their core objective of ‘seek[ing] to represent the
reality, drama and diversity of contemporary urban life’.
The ‘hardly-sugar coated’
narrative was the first to be written by Fajemisin-Duncan and Smith, who both
grew up together in Brixton and ‘want[ed] to tell [their] version of south London’
Hence Acme films and newcomers Fajemisin-Duncan and Smith, paired perfectly
together in creating an honest interpretation of the social realistic genre,
through sharing the same intentions.
The episode ‘Richard’, conveyed by Lennie James, was
the third of the four interlinking stories and was aired on the 17th
July 2013, watched by 1.39 million UK viewers.
The narrative itself outlines the ‘struggles [a heroin addict faces] to stay
clean’,
whilst having to readjust back into society and res-establish a relationship
with his teenage daughter. The sensitive sub-narrative of Richard’s strive to
regain contact with his daughter adds vulnerability to the character often
depicted as a social outcast. James demonstrated a keen interest in partaking
in the gritty narrative: “Before I’d even read the script I’d said yes.”–
having too, grown up in Brixton. This
therefore indicates the accurate and fair representation that the directors,
Acme films and James, wanted to elicit through the character ‘Richard’, which
rewardingly resulted in “characters which we got to know instantly”
Prior to the ‘Richard’ episode being aired, Channel
4 released two additional clips, via the website, allowing audiences to mildly
connect with the characters. The text is primarily aimed at a B-D demographic
of 18-55 year olds. Due to the explicit narrative, it is fair to say that a
niche audience from the ‘Struggler’, ‘Reformer’ and ‘Explorer’ psychographic
groups would be the main consumers, as they would be most enticed by the social
issues moulding the narrative, such as urban life, drug abuse and dysfunctional
families.
The first of the two clips that will be discussed is
‘Hope’,
which is a dialogue between Richard and his mother. The clip is set with tungsten
blue lighting creating a natural aesthetic in the working class café. An
audience are introduced to the stereotypical Caribbean lone parent family type
(social realistic convention) and the lack of maternal instincts that the
mother has towards her son. The handheld camera alongside the diegetic
background noise of the market, reiterates the lifestyle that follows the D and
E demographic social class. The conversation is exchanged through medium close
ups of the mother, in comparison with the more extreme close ups of Richard’s
lifeless and penurious face. One could connote this to be the director’s
deliberate choice of forcing an audience to engage and build a personal
relationship (Uses and Gratification, Blumler and Katz 1974) with the
protagonist (Spheres of Action, Propp) to then embody his emotions: “You don’t
believe I’m off it, do you mum?” The non-diegetic sound of the slow
instrumental arises, heightening this emotion and is thus parallel to the
unfortunate uncertainty of the mother’s response, symbolising a lack of hope that is on Richard’s (and
most recovering addict’s) side.
In terms of Medhurst’s ‘shorthand for
identification’ theory, the stereotypical Caribbean lone parent family type and
relationship that an audience are presented with, provides them with a greater understanding
as to why Richard started using as “illegal drug use is usually associated with
dysfunctions manifested in [the] family” Thereby reinforcing the prevailing
social ideologies in regards to different family types and how this may lead to
drug abuse. By Channel 4 using this scene as one of the ‘teaser’ clips, one
could imply that they envisioned for the audience to build a sense of empathy
towards the recovering ‘heroin addict’ that is often scrutinised within society
and across news mediums, whilst understanding the social affects which lead to
drug addiction.
In particular, one must recognise that not all
British institutions are willing to display the moral issues associated with
drugs and users, as they instead depict it as deviant behaviour. This is clear
through The Sun, a tabloid newspaper known for their controversial celebrity
scandals, news story: “Tulisa’s Cocaine Deal Shame”
The title was plastered on the front page in block capitals and featured a
small photograph of drug paraphernalia, amplifying the criminality of the story.
The use of the noun ‘shame’, in terms of the Hypodermic needle model, passively
reinforces the deviancy and embarrassment associated with drug scandals. Alongside
this, another example of the Sun savouring off of a celeb-scandal is through the
story about late Amy Winehouse in 2008: “Amy on Coke”, where the main image consisted
of covert footage of the socially able act, taking place – “Winehouse smoking
on a crack pipe” Through
the news institutions incorporating celebrity news that is ‘unexpected’
(Galtung and Ruge 1973) and breaks out of the status quo, shows their
underpinning interest in increasing their readership, whilst stemming audiences
away from condoning drug use.
Interestingly, in both the UK and US the news
mediums present drugs in a similar way, often depicting the unfortunate deaths
of young people through taking drugs such as MDMA. The Daily Mail
is at the forefront in ensuring that this moral panic is executed upon their primary
audience, including parents (25-55 year olds) creating the imagery that reverts
back to 1936 ‘Reefer Madness’ – “Tell your children [to stay away from drugs or
they will end up dead]” It seems as though “newspapers… [are carrying] lurid
stories about the new epidemic and plague”,
when writing about different drugs through the constant reiteration of death
and misfortune. Lydia Lee comments on this drug hysteria within the news
describing it as “an effort to make society conform [by presenting] biased
messages to the public telling them drugs are harmful and immoral”.
Therefore, one could argue that “the war on drugs is doing more harm than the
drugs themselves”,
as it is weapon used by leading bodies to maintain hegemonic control through
evoking fear upon audiences.
Furthermore, Channel 4 relays the harsh and constant
confrontation that addicts have with their past, as shown in ‘Old Haunts’,
containing the binary opposition
(Levi-Strauss 1958) between Richard and his ex-drug dealer. The scene begins
with a medium long shot of a black tinted Audi, reversing back, beside Richard,
who appears nervous for their upcoming encounter. The dealer then states: “Old
man Rich” – the use of the nickname ‘Rich’, implies close relations, however
the adjective ‘old’ almost acts as a sign to reassure an audience that he has
been clean for a long time. The dealer’s,
[Michael], direct approach in instigating conversation, as shown through the
medium close ups of him looking directly at Richard and questioning him “Have
you seen Jon Jon?” (fellow heroin addict), is portrayed through the stillness
of the shot, in contrast with the slight wobbles that compliment with the
uneasiness felt by Richard, as the camera reverts to his response. This
discomfort is emphasized as the dealer asks: “Do you have a line, just in case
you make a turn?” in which Richard responds shaking his head “I’m alright, but
thank you” – satisfying an audience that he is attempting to make a change.
The diegetic dialogue finalises with the dealer stating,
“You’ll get hungry soon, you lot always do” and then drives of. His use of ‘hungry’
resonates animalistic imagery personifying the recovering addict and detracting
all of his humanity. Similarly this imagery is transparent across print
platforms where drug users are described as “snorters and tokers”,
diminishing their entire persona and objectifying their character.
Interestingly, by Channel 4 using this as the other
short clip, it is hard to refute that they want an audience to embark upon the
recovering addict’s emotional journey and to refrain from the norm of labelling
him as a “junkie” or the scourge of society.
Channel 4 is grounded with the core brand values of
creativity, innovation and diversity
and in previous years have been scrutinised for being “responsible for
introducing generations of youngsters to drugs”.
However, it is fair to say that their representation has detracted from
glamorisation which can be supported through researching showing that: “No
respondent said TV presented a positive image of drug taking”
And instead, it can be argued that Channel 4 in particular have presented the
harsh brutality that follows drug addiction, as presented through the social
issues in ‘Richard’, 2013 and even earlier in ‘The Big Drug Debate’
in 2006.
Hosted by opinion leader and ex heroin addict,
Russell Brand, the debate is comprised with 16-55 year olds, featuring some
recovering addicts and drug users. The final part of the programme revolves
around Heroin (“TV coverage seems to be especially effective in projecting and
sustaining a negative image of heroin”)
and is the part that will be discussed to prove the informative approach that
the institution has when displaying drugs.
The scene preludes with an extreme close up of a
thermal effect, capturing heroin being burnt, then reverting to a series of
empty, desolate locations set on a working class estate. Parallel to the non-diegetic
voice over of the heroin dependent [Samantha] arises, the medium long shot
captures the wind blowing two empty swings, symbolically suggesting the lack of
existence associated with the addict due to her consumption of the drug. The
underclass proletariat mise-en-scene is complimentary to the narrative and
lifestyle of a heroin addict – bare, through the lack of colour. Similarly, the
urban aesthetic reflects imagery found in the photographs capturing drug
culture amongst British youth in Wheatley’s
2010 series, echoing the social demographic of those associated drugs such as
heroin and cannabis.
In regards to Richard’s costume, each shot finds him
wearing the same clothes from a fixed palette of khaki’s to grey, which blend
in with the urban landscape around him, titling his identity as non-existent
and almost background noise. He too often embodies a strong sense of isolation
and disparity, through his lethargic body language and posture. This sombre
illustration, in both fictional and non-fictional texts, proves Channel 4’s de-glamorisation
approach in representing drug culture through showing the damaging social
effects.
Pre 9/11 texts such as Danny Boyle’s 1996
‘Trainspotting’ arguably has a more ‘glamorous’ appeal to the drug experience.
The black comedy was “shown at least twice by Channel 4… [And] had influenced
[viewers]” Andrew
Lowe describes Boyle’s ‘Trainspotting’ as “neither a pro nor an anti-drug film.
It’s an honest and unsentimental attempt to document the highs and lows of a
dependent lifestyle”
This is apparent through metaphorical journey of a ‘comedown’, which Boyle
clearly translates, through the equilibrium state (Todorov) of the user’s
beginning their consumption, towards the disequilibrium state presenting the calamity
of addiction. Therefore, through showing both the ‘highs’ and the ‘lows’, it’
arguably deserved to be “the second most successful British film”
that year.
An audience are able to identify this sequence, (equilibrium
state), through the immediate scene set in “Mother Superior”, the dealer’s,
house which is painted with vibrant fuchsias, yellows and greens, which would
encompass their regular act of taking a ‘hit’. The over-the-shoulder shot of
the women receiving a hit from the male is overshadowed by the diegetic description
of Renton, the protagonist, describing heroin as ones: “best orgasm times by a
thousand and it’s no way near”. The vivacious colour effectively mirrors the
euphoria of the sexually presented drug intake and detracts from the explicit
effects of drug abuse.
This compares significantly with the monotonous
grey-scaled path of temptation that is unravelled in ‘Richard’, such as
counselling sessions, being evicted from hostels and bumping into fellow
addicts. It is fair to say, that ‘Richard’ addresses the more social problems
revolved around drug abuse, as oppose to the detailed effects that arise from
the drug. In addition, the directorial approach differs between the two texts
as shown in ‘Richard’ through the scene of addicts in dirty room encrusted with
mould and ‘junkie’ paraphernalia. The shot is low lit with minute natural
lighting peeking through the curtains reiterating the isolation that drug
addicts live in. This portrayal encompasses the social defects of living as an
outcast and being a drug addict; there is a strong absence of leisure and joy
that was intensively depicted in Trainspotting, showing the underpinning
interest that the directors of ‘Richard’ wanted to elicit – social problems of
drug abuse.
However, the previously more animated representation
in Trainspotting of the drug experience compares impressively with the scene of
the “grotesquely soiled toilet”
that Renton submerges his face into, contrapuntal to the classical music,
canvasing his eagerness for his next hit. Another example of Boyle accentuating
the lows of a dependent is through the scene set in Renton’s bedroom where the wide-angle
shot exposes the psychological panics that follow withdrawal symptoms. The
bedroom acts as a metaphor of his erratic mind state, shown through the
constant rapid zooms and unorthodox imagery, e.g. medium long shot of a dead
baby crawling on the ceiling. Thus, despite the equilibrium sexualisation of
the drug, the dis-equilibrium state heightens the brutal effects that follow it.
Similarly, in the US text directed by
Darren Aronofsky’s 2000 (pre 9/11), ‘Requiem for a Dream’, this surrealistic
imagery is conveyed, through the character of Sara – an elderly women addicted
to diet pills and dependent for “ersatz company”,
as she reaches her comedown state. This is shown through the canned laughter
that accompanies the terrifying trip of her delusional wellbeing e.g. the
medium close up of the TV shouting at her.
Furthermore, ‘Reefer Madness’ which is a 1937
American propaganda film about drugs is a credible example of the drug moral
panic that existed in the US prior to 9/11. It is described as an “overcooked
stew of heavy moralizing and dope-ravaged depravity”,
which is clear through the exploitation of the drug cannabis. The film was
directed by Louis Gasnier and was originally titled “Tell Your Children” and
financed by a church group, intending to be shown to parents as a morality tale.
Interestingly, despite the 21st century containing less propaganda
films, one could argue that these messages still remain subliminally through
the news mediums discussed above.
The film itself begins with a news style bulletin
with a note to the audience apologising for the “upcoming menace [which is]
destroying American youth”, followed by several close ups of drug related news
articles. The shot reverts to a white male of an A demographic, with the
profession of a teacher/professor, exclaiming the dangers of cannabis onto the
passive (Hypodermic Needle Model, Adorno) and naive early 20th
century audience. The scene resembles imagery of the dictatorship within the
government associated with the drug laws. Initially the ‘dictator’ has his back
turned to an audience, shown through the medium long shot, and was addressing
the parents, which suddenly reverted to a medium close up of the male facing
the viewer directly, placing an audience into the seats of the parents. The
aesthetic of the shot resembles a news style documentary, which is enhanced
through the scene changing, to high angle shots of marijuana fields and revealing
the ‘menacing’ content.
Through the style of editing it is clear that the
text intended to educate a 1930’s audience, however, a 21st century
audience would consume this text differently. This contrasts immensely with the
approach in representing drugs in ‘Richard’ where they present mild exposures
of the brutality of drug consumption as well as the intense social effects that
it can have one’s self and being, without marginalising social groups (shown
through the ethnic diverse group of recovering addicts). Ultimately, in Reefer
Madness the dominant reading (Stuart Hall) of drugs is a largely negative one
involving the youth, enforcing a moral panic around the two correlating
oppositions – cannabis and the youth.
Nevertheless, Post 9/11 has witnessed an incredible
evolution of the representation of drug culture, especially in the US. From the
1980’s fixating upon films where specific ethnic groups were labelled with
different drugs, such as ‘Scarface’ and the Columbian protagonist ‘Tony
Montanna’ who used the drug cocaine, (“mobile and a symbol of status”),
to climb up the social ladder. This consequently painted the representation of
cocaine drug distributors as Columbians. Alongside this, the American
television series, ‘Miami Vice’, reinforced the relationships between “The
Columbians with cocaine, the Jamaicans with cannabis and the Haitians with
voodoo and hallucinogens”
It seems as though the American film industry have now detracted from labelling
specific races with drugs and instead are interest in creating more comical and
supernatural narratives that revolve around drugs, such as the 2013 ‘Wolf of
Wall Street’, which reinforces existing patriarchal ideologies and celebrates
drug use tying it hand in hand with success (with women and business). All of
which drastically compare to Britain’s refrainment of labelling social groups
with drugs and instead portraying the harsh realities and consequences that
subside them, which is due to their more social realistic genre as oppose to
Hollywood budget entertainment products.
To conclude, it is clear that there is difference between
the representation of drugs, depending on the where the text is produced and
how this has significantly, mainly in the US, changed over time. Both human
activist Russell Brand from the UK and Ethan Nadellman from the US have
highlighted the issue revolved around drugs and the fact that “the war on drugs
must end”.
In regards to the US, Nadellman makes extensive reference towards the
marginalisation of ethnic minorities due to their representation with drugs, in
both fictional and non-fictional texts. And how this has lead “the social
mobility of black American’s [to have] suffered collateral damage.
[Consequently] imprisoning one in three black men”.
Similarly in the UK reports have shown that “Black and Asian people are
disproportionally targeted”
and “almost face double the chance of being charged”
Thereby, it seems as though, despite modern texts from the US containing a
decreased moral panic in relation to drugs, it hasn’t detracted from the
dominant negative associations of ethnic minorities with drugs, which in
consequence is affecting their social status.
Russell Brand’s documentary portrays Britain’s more
conservative attitude towards drugs, as shown through ‘Richard’. In some ways
it is as though ‘Richard’ is very similar to ‘Reefer Madness’ serving as
reverse psychology propaganda text, presenting audiences with the negative
effects without scrutinising the drug itself, in hope that audiences will feel despondent
as the new ‘fear’ to refrain from partaking in drug culture. Interestingly, “even
though the specific drugs that [are] the focus of the media stories, public
fear and legislative attention changes, the structure of fear and panic remains
the same”,
which is a common denominator in both British and American texts, that solely serve
to highlight the damaging effects of drugs to sway audiences away from them,
inevitably allowing the bourgeois to maintain hegemonic power. Therefore, as
the media are described as the “agents of control charged with upholding the
social and moral order”,
their distortedly negative illustration of drugs, has successfully resonated
through both historical (US) and modern (UK) audiences in hope to maintain the
condemning of drugs in today’s social landscape.
Word Count: 3708 (including quotes and title)
Bibliography
Works Cited
Books
Cragg, A. (2000). Knowing the score - Broadcasting Standards
Commission.
Goode,
E., & Ben-Yehuda, N. (1994). Moral panics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Lee, L. (2015). Drugs in the Media: The production of Hegemony.
Sociological Imagination: Western's Undergraduate Sociology Student Journal.
Manning, P. (2007). Drugs and popular culture. Cullompton, Devon,
England: Willan Pub.
Murphy, R. (1997). British Cinema - Critical Concepts in Media and
Cultural Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Reinarman, C., & Levine, H. (1997). Crack in America.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Stevenson, J. (2000). Addicted: The Myth & Menace of Drugs in
Film.
Wang, O. (2006). "Miami Vice" by ONC Wang. Ejumpcut.org.
Retrieved 11 January 2016, from http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC33folder/miamivice.html
Wheatley, S. (2010). Don't
call me urban. Newcastle upon Tyne: Northumbria University Press.
Journals
Beyer, J. (2000).
TV shrinks drugs responsibility. Broadcast, 5.
Dams, T. (2000).
An Injection of Realism. Broadcast, 14.
James, N. (1997).
Sight and Sound A-z of cinema: intoxication. Sight And Sound, v7 n2.
Lawerson, E.,
& Leigh, D. (2000). Feeling Needled. Sight And Sound, v10 n12.
Macqueen, A.
(2010). Drug madness and the war we can't win. Broadcast, 23.
R Coope, M. (1989). Rehab!. Empire, N2.
Moving Texts
Reefer Madness. (1936). USA.
Requiem for a
Dream. (2000). USA.
Run - Richard. (2013). UK.
Russell Brand: End the Drugs
War. (2012). UK.
Scarface. (1983). USA.
The Big Drugs
Debate. (2006). UK.
Trainspotting. (1996). UK.
Wolf of Wall Street. (2013). USA.
Online
Acmetv.co.uk,. Acme
Films. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from http://acmetv.co.uk
Awford, J.
(2015). A 17-year-old collapsed and died after 'taking MDMA' on playing
fields. Mail Online. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3096363/Brilliant-teenager-17-collapsed-died-taking-MDMA-playing-fields.html
BBC,. (2012). Russell
Brand: End the Drugs War - BBC Three. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04v2zrg
C4 - 4 Careers. Retrieved 11
January 2016, from from http://www.channel4.com/4careers/about_values.html
Channel 4,.
(2006). The Big Drugs Debate. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-big-drugs-debate/on-demand
Channel 4,. Run.
Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/run/on-demand/53615-003
Channel 4,. Run
- S1-Ep3: Hope. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/run/videos/all/s1-ep3-hope
Channel 4,. Run
- S1-Ep3: Old Haunts. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/run/videos/all/s1-ep3-old-haunts
Eastwood, N.,
& Michael Shiner, M. (2013). Ethnic minorities targeted in 'stop and
search' drug policing - 08 - 2013 - News archive - News - News and media - Home.
Lse.ac.uk. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2013/08/DrugPolicing.aspx
Journal Of Labor
Economics, 20(3), 538-537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/339610
Nadelmann, E.
(2014). Why we need to end the War on Drugs. Ted.com. Retrieved
11 January 2016, from
http://www.ted.com/talks/ethan_nadelmann_why_we_need_to_end_the_war_on_drugs
Rahim, S. (2013).
Run, Channel 4, review. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 11 January
2016, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10180944/Run-Channel-4-review.html
Schilesinger, F.
(2008). Drug dealers to the stars 'plotted to catch Amy Winehouse smoking
crack pipe on film'. Mail Online. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1094215/Drug-dealers-stars-plotted-catch-Amy-Winehouse-smoking-crack-pipe-film.html
Sidhu, N.,
Schüttler, K., & James, L. Run (TV Mini-Series 2013). IMDb.
Retrieved 11 January 2016, from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2297604/
Uktvreviewer.wordpress.com,.
(2013). ‘Run’ | uktvreviewer. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
https://uktvreviewer.wordpress.com/category/run/
Vine, R. (2013). Lennie
James: 'I said yes before I'd even read the script'. Telegraph.co.uk.
Retrieved 11 January 2016, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10174666/Lennie-James-I-said-yes-before-Id-even-read-the-script.html
Walker, P.
(2013). Black people twice as likely to be charged with drugs possession –
report. the Guardian. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/ethnic-minorities-likely-charged-drug-possession
Walker, P., &
Collier, H. (2014). Tulisa Contostavlos trial collapses as judge criticises
Sun's Mazher Mahmood. the Guardian. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/jul/21/tulisa-contostavlos-trial-collapses-sun-mazher-mahmood
Wikipedia,. Run
(TV series). Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_(TV_series)#cite_note-BARB-6
Works Consulted
Books
Alder, P., &
Alder, P. (2012). Drugs and the American Dream: An Anthology.
Altman, J., &
J Everitt, B. (1996). Psychopharmacology -The biological, social and
clinical bases of drug addiction: commentary and debate.
Axelrod-Contrada,
J. (2008). The facts about drugs and society. New York: Marshall
Cavendish Benchmark.
Coomber, R.
(1998). The Control of drugs and drug users. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Harwood Academic Publishers.
Farrell Brodie,
J., & Redfield, M. (2002). High Anxieties - Cultural Studies in
Addiction. University of California Press.
Journals
Aston, S. (2001).
Westbrook doc at Granada. Broadcast, 8.
Cherry, M.
(1999). Drugs in film: popping a vein. Inside Film, n15.
Gibley, R.
(1996). Under the influence. Premiere, v4 n2.
Rose, J. (2000).
Recreation to TV portrayal of drugs unreal. Broadcast, 21.
Six Degrees of
degradation. (1997). Neon, 28-29.
Under the
Influence. (2008). Fade In, v10 n4.
Wootton, D. (2006). C4 drugs special tackle addiction. Broadcast,
27.
Moving Texts
Giving up the
Weed. (2006). UK.
How Safe are My
Drugs?. (2014). UK.
Limitless. (2012). USA.
Miami Vice. (1984). USA.
Goode & Ben-Yehuda, E. A. (1994) p.198
Coomber, McElrath, Measham & Moore. (2013)
