“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” [1]
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 revolutionary issue that has travelled throughout modern history into today’s society and become a prominent theme within the mass media. It is clear that the media is the 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 and the origin of the text. Thus, one could infer that the media act as the moral entrepreneur’s[2] in using the theme of drugs to be labelled with specific social groups, such as ethnic minorities, to then reinforce negative ideologies associated with them. Additionally, the dominant reading and panic associated with drug use is “that [they] can kill you”[3] 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 comparison with the United States. This can be examined through the social realist 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 approach to the genre, such as ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ 2013, ’22 Jump Street’ 2014 and ‘Limitless’ 2011, all in which display different male protagonist’s engagement with drugs with mild inferences towards the damaging effects, but mostly presenting audiences with a comical and enjoyable cinematic narrative. However, this ‘liberal’ approach hasn’t always been at the forefront and this essay will establish how this representation has changed over time, through looking at the 1936 propaganda text ‘Reefer Madness’. As well as this, we will uncover the reasoning behind why and how Britain present audiences with the harsh brutalities associated with drug consumption. In addition establishing how the US’s approach has changed and is similar to the UK’s.
‘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’[4] 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. This is derived from their core objective of ‘seek[ing] to represent the reality, drama and diversity of contemporary urban life’[5]. The ‘hardly-sugar coated’[6] 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’[7] Thus Acme films and newcomers Fajemisin-Duncan and Smith, paired perfectly together in creating an honest depiction of the social realism 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[8]. The narrative itself outlines the ‘struggles [a heroin addict faces] to stay clean’[9], whilst having to readjust back into society establish a new 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 who is 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”[10]– 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 rewarding resulted in “characters which we got to know instantly”[11]
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 which will be discussed is ‘Hope’[12], 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 realism 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?”, making an audience pity (Alvarado) the fourty-something year old recovering addict. 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 side.
In terms of Medhurst’s ‘shorthand for identification’ theory, the stereotypical Caribbean lone parent family type that an audience are presented with, provides them with a greater understanding as to why Richard may have 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 the functionality that exists in nuclear families. 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.
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”[13] 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 intolerable” act, taking place – “Winehouse smoking on a crack pipe”[14] 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[15] 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 is as though the “newspapers… [carry] lurid stories about the new epidemic and plague”[16], to inject fear upon audience to maintain power. 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”[17]. Therefore, one could argue that “the war on drugs is doing more harm than the drugs themselves”[18], as it is weapon used by leading bodies to maintain hegemonic control.
Furthermore, Channel 4 relays the harsh and constant confrontation that addicts have with their past, as shown in ‘Old Haunts’[19], containing the binary opposition[20] (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 is shown through the stillness of the medium close ups as he directly looks at Richard asking questioning him “Have you seen Jon Jon?” (fellow heroin addict). This contrasts significantly with the slight wobbles that compliment with the uneasiness felt by Richard, as the camera returns to his response. His 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”[21], 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[22] and in previous years have been scrutinised for being “responsible for introducing generations of youngsters to drugs”[23]. However, it is fair to say that their representation has detracted from glamorisation, as research proves that “no respondent said TV presented a positive image of drug taking”[24] 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’[25] 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 and is the part which will be discussed to prove the informative approach that the institution has when displaying drugs. And it has been said, “TV coverage seems to be especially effective in projecting and sustaining a negative image of heroin”[26]
The scene preludes with an extreme close up of a thermal effect, capturing heroin being burnt which then reverts 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 capture 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 the imagery found Simon Wheatley’s[27] 2010 photographic series capturing drug culture amongst British youth and Grime artists, echoing the social demographic of those associated with the drug consumption.
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]”[28] 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”[29] 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 ‘lows’, it arguably deserved to be “the second most successful British film”[30], that year.
An audience are able to identify this sequence of ‘coming up', (equilibrium state), through the immediate scene set in “Mother Superior”, the dealer’s, house which is painted with vibrant fuchsias, yellows and greens and 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. This also reflects the changes within British film post-9/11.
However, the previously more animated drug representation in Trainspotting compares with significantly the scene of the “grotesquely soiled toilet”[31] 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 and ‘come down’ experienced by 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. This is through the character Sara – an elderly woman addicted to diet pills and dependent for “ersatz company”[32] Her comedown state 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 1936 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”[33], which is clear through its 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, intended to be shown to parents as a morality tale. Interestingly, despite 2015 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. A Marxist reading would suggest that the scene resembles imagery of the dictatorship within the government associated with the drug laws, ultimately reinforcing hegemonic control. Initially the ‘dictator’ has his back turned to an audience, shown through the medium long shot, as he was addressing the parents, which suddenly changed 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 exposing the ‘menacing’ content. This mirroring of non-fictional text conventions creates a hyper-reality (Baudrillard) setting that would consequently create a false-sense of validity associated with drugs, to its audience.
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 drug representation in ‘Richard’ where they present it to an audience with 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”[34]), 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”[35] It seems as though the American film industry have now detracted from labelling specific races with drugs and instead, with the growing technological developments are creating texts that will ultimately create box office sales. This is evident through the extreme graphics in Limitless, 2011 presenting ‘Eddie’, American film star Bradley Cooper, in wide angle long shots walking through the city with a vivacious yellow glow reflecting the euphoria and power he received from the drug and presenting audiences with the supernatural reality of how drug consumption helped empower him to become the top of the financial world.
Similarly, in Wolf of Wall Street, 2013, which reinforced dominant patriarchal ideologies, it too tied drug use hand in hand with success (with women and business). An example of this was the opening scene featuring protagonist ‘Jordan’, conveyed by Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio, snorting cocaine from a prostitutes behind. The illustrations of the characters presented by idealised male actors, whom initially face a form of struggle, but then find success through enduring drug consumption, with very minor moments of ‘coming down’, shows the US’s growing interest in portraying drugs in a captivating way that will attract audiences interests and pleasures (Blumbler and Katz), as this will ultimately bring in sales.
All of which drastically compare to Britain’s refrainment of purely glamorising drugs as they instead portray the harsh realities and consequences that subside them, which is due to their more social realist 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. It is also clear that the US have reverted from moral panic filled propaganda texts such as Reefer Madness as they are now interested in engaging with the pleasures and interests of contemporary audiences. Both human activist Russell Brand from the UK and Ethan Nadellman from the US have highlighted the issues revolved around drugs and the fact that “the war on drugs must end”[36]. In regards to the US, Nadellman makes extensive reference towards the marginalisation of ethnic minorities due to the representation of them and drugs, in both fictional and non-fictional texts. Arguably, films such as Straight Outta Compton, 2015, where black males are surrounded by the narrative of drugs and violence (danger – Alvarado), reiterate this further. These negative portrayals have led to “the social mobility of black American’s [to have] suffered collateral damage. [Consequently] imprisoning one in three black men”[37] Referring back to both Limitless and Wolf of Wall Street, it is interesting that both of the males were depicted by white actors and not black, which is arguably due to the largely negative representation of them that exists in the US, possibly due to films such as Straight Outta Compton.
Similarly in the UK reports have shown that “Black and Asian people are disproportionally targeted”[38] and “almost face double the chance of being charged”[39] And through British texts such as the Ill Manors, 2012, in terms of Alvarado, there is a strong sense of danger that is associated with the characters. For instance, drug dealer ‘Kirby’, who is presented in countless scenes with iconography such as guns associated with criminality and danger.
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 negative associations of ethnic minorities and drugs. And similarly, in the UK even though they have refrained from glamorisation, ethnic minorities’ social status is too affected. Nevertheless, through the character ‘Richard’, the intense pity surrounding his life and eagerness for stability, has possibly influenced a UK audience from marginalising black drug users.
Russell Brand’s documentary portrays Britain’s more conservative attitude towards drugs, thus explaining the representation of ‘Richard’. In some ways it is as though ‘Richard’ is very similar to ‘Reefer Madness’ serving as reverse psychology text, presenting audiences with the negative effects without scrutinising the drug itself, in hope that we 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”[40] Therefore, as the media are described as “agents of control charged with upholding the social and moral order”[41], their distorted depiction of drugs has led to audiences evoking pity and joy around the culture that subsides it. However, despite the US executing a more positive presentation of drugs within film through a-list actors, it seems as though their main interest in creating productions that will be enjoyable for their target audience to increase sales. Whereas, in the UK through texts such as ‘Run: Richard’, alongside the other British texts discussed, it is clear that the UK are more concerned about addressing the social issues revolved around drugs in hope that it will help condemn the use of drugs in today’s social landscape.
Bibliography
Works Cited
Books
Cragg, A. (2000). Knowing the score - Broadcasting Standards Commission.
Herman, N. J. (1995). Deviance: A symbolic interactionist approach. Dix Hills, NY: General Hall.
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.
[1] Nadelmann, E. (2014)
[4] IMDb (n.d), Run (TV Mini-Series)
[5] Acmetv.co.uk (n.d.)
[6] Rahim, S. (2013)
[7] Vine, R. (2013)
[8] Wikipedia (2013), Run (TV Series)
[9] Channel 4 (2013), Run - Episode 3
[10] Vine, R. (2013)
[12] Channel 4 (2013), S1-Ep3: Hope
[13] Walker & Collier, (2014)
[14] Schlesinger, F. (2008)
[15] Awford, J. (2015)
[17] Lee, L. (2015)
[19] Channel 4 (2013), S1-Ep3: Old Haunts
[22] Channel4.com, (n.d.)
[23] Dams, T. (2000)
[25] Channel 4,(2006) The Big Drugs Debate
[28] Beyer, J. (2000)
[29] Stevenson, J. (2000)
[31] Murphy, R. (1997), p.410
[35] Wang, O. 2006
[36] BBC (2012)
