The paper analyses how the Covid-19 pandemic affected young people’s alcohol-related assemblages, trajectories of becoming and identity claims in Sweden. The data is based on longitudinal qualitative interviews among heavy and moderate drinking young people (n = 23; age range 15–24 years). The participants were interviewed two to three times before the Covid-19 pandemic and once at the end of it, between 2017 and 2021. The analysis draws on actor-network theory and narrative positioning approach. The analysis demonstrates how the lockdown produced trajectories of becoming boring, normal, stress-free, self-caring, self-confident and shielded. In these trajectories, drinking was positioned into relations that either increased young people’s capacities for well-being or decreased them. Due to the lockdown, some participants learnt to be moved by relations that contributed to replace drinking with competing activities, while others experienced that the lockdown made drinking a more attractive activity, turning it into a collective force that helped them to overcome isolation. The results show how drinking is a heterogeneous activity which may increase or decrease young people’s capacities for well-being, depending on what kinds of assemblages and trajectories of becoming it is embedded in.

In this article, we analyze the care work employed by people who inject drugs to counter risks in their life situations and make their drug use safer. Injecting drugs is associated with numerous health and social risks, such as overdose, the use of used and shared equipment, and getting caught by the police. We approach descriptions of injection events as narratives of care. Participants (N=32) were recruited for semi-structured interviews primarily from the Stockholm Needle and Syringe Exchange Program between August 2022 and March 2023. The sample is heterogeneous in terms of age, gender, drug use, and social situation. The interviews were analyzed using actor-network theory, asking what kind of care work and ‘action programs’ strengthen or weaken participants' capacities for safer injection events and what kinds allow risks – or antiprograms – to enter the event. We identified four different action programs based on home or public settings. They all aimed to increase capacities for safe drug use, but two of them were more vulnerable to risks. Their success depended on the type of actors they could recruit for care work, the risks they were targeting, and how well they coordinated actors to work together to minimize risks. The analysis highlights the scope, strengths, and limitations of care work in relation to material, social, political, and institutional actors, as well as the importance of access to proper resources such as a home, stable income, and a healthy body.

Intrigued by the overwhelmingly positive response to the needle and syringe exchange program (NSP) by people who inject drugs in Stockholm, this article sought to untangle harm reduction in a prohibitionist drug policy context. The article drew on assemblage thinking and used semistructured individual interviews with 32 people who inject drugs, and three focus groups with staff at the Stockholm NSP. The aim was to dissect harm reduction in the form of NSP and how it worked to move people who inject drugs towards or away from drug-related harm. The analysis identified how bodies such as the NSP regulations, the setting, and stigma gathered in ways that reduced the capacity to move forward and enroll, as the inclusion of the NSP in the assemblage would decrease the capacity to uphold other connections considered to be more important. Regular NSP visitors however described how free injecting equipment, staff care, continuity, and trust were important objects that gathered in ways opening up for movement towards less harm. Fiercely, these profoundly caring experiences at the NSP could also block new becomings and moves forward as people who inject drugs, discouraged from previous negative experiences of other service providers and structural stigma, refrained from other connections that could improve their wellbeing. They risked becoming locked in at the NSP and similar services. A significant consequence of the agential cuts of us researchers, the staff, and policymakers alike, targeting primarily those that do access and benefit from harm-reducing interventions, is that alternative solutions embracing also those locked out and locked in become unimaginable.

Background. Drug policy is prone to build on rationales based on different moralities rather than evidence. Less is known about how moralities influence drug policy implementation in practice. The aim was to analyze expressions of moralities among local policy-makers, professionals, and drug users in the context of the Stockholm needle and syringe exchange program (NSP).Methods. Using political documentation from Stockholm (2003–2016), focus group (12 NSP staff), and 32 drug user interviews, moralities concerning drug policy and harm reduction were analyzed based on moral foundations theory and boundary work.Results. Three main moral dilemmas were identified concerning the subjects, aims, and orientation of drug policy: whether drug users are worthy of inclusion to society; if the general public should be prioritized or the health of drug users, and the orientation of practices as based on control or autonomy. Policy debate was driven by virtues such as purity and authority, whereas staff and drug users valued care, fairness and liberty.Conclusions. The prohibitionist and abstinence-oriented Swedish drug policy has created social boundaries on the practice-level. Hence, users’ perspectives, and those who care about them, should be extensively involved in political discussions to foster a more moral and humane drug policy.

Background: By contrasting the approaches of neutralization theory (NT) and actor-network theory (ANT), we argue that research using NT can contribute to stigmatizing people with substance use problems as ‘liars,’ ‘irresponsible,’ and ’incapable.’ In contrast, ANT can help us become more sensitive to the participants’ realities and produce non-stigmatizing results. Methods: The data consists of 22 life stories in which participants describe the concerns their substance use caused for their parenting and how they addressed them. With ANT, we analyze what kinds of mediators in our participants’ parenting assemblages increased or decreased their capacities to mitigate the negative effects of substance use on their children. Results: In our analysis, we identified four parenting assemblages. The assemblages of ‘displacing substance use’ and ‘keeping up ordinary family life’ increased the participants’ capacities to move substance use away from encounters with children or to use it to strengthen their engagement with everyday life parenting practices. The assemblages of ‘losing oneself to the dominance of substances’ and ‘being moved by a traumatic past’ decreased the participants’ parenting capacities by weakening their connections to good enough parenting, or by allowing the connections from the past to dominate and mediate their present action, leading to relapse in drug use and the loss of a child. Conclusion: Our study suggests that by shifting the perspective from doubt and criticism (NT) to empathy and care (ANT), research can transcend mere critique and serve as a tool for empowerment, advocacy, and meaningful change.