SMACK IN THE EYE PEANUT PETE AND THE NEW PURITANS

'Smack in the Eye' is an adult comic created to deal with safer drug use. Mark Gilman views its inception and the reactions of the 'new' puritans.

In 1984 the United Kingdom Government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of drugs (ACMD) produced a report onTrevention'. This report stated that prevention can attempt to either reduce the chance of someone using drugs at all - primary prevention - or reduce the harm that can arise from drug use - secondary prevention or 'harm reduction'. By the time of the ACMD's 1988 report on Drug Misuse and AIDS the subject of harm reduction was fast assuming a much higher profile in drugs work in the UK. Much of this harm-reduction work was centred around the issues of HIV/AIDS. It was on the back of HIV/AIDS that harm reduction came of age. Today, however, harm reduction has a life of its own independent of HIV/AIDS.

In this paper 1 would like to describe some of the drugs education materials that we have developed based on ideas central to the harmreduction movement. One of the key lessons that we have learned in producing harm-reduction materials relates to the key importance of 'source credibility'. Like many innovative developments, it is not until you have time to sit down and have a retrospective look that you fully appreciate what itwas that made the project a successor a failure.

'Smack in the Eye'is a safer drug use 'package' in the form of an adult comic. The aim is to 'promote' safer drug use and safer sex among drug injectors. This approach is an alternative to health education warnings that tell people what not to do, without suggesting alternatives, When we started the 'Smack in the Eye' project we took a decision that, in hindsight, was crucial. We knew that by the very nature of the subject we were covering - injecting drug users and their sexual behaviours - we would have our critics. This was inevitable. However, we decided to prioritise the views of our target audiences over and above those of everyone else (with the exception of the police of course).

In the case of 'Smack in the Eye', these views were those of current practising injecting drug users. The chequered history of'drugs ed ucat ion' and 'drugs information'meant that we had to win back the confidence of drug users who have been socialised into a subculture used to discounting official warnings of danger. just like the boy who cried wolf theanti-d rugs propagandists had shot their bolt. They had overstated the case against drugs to such an extent that their efforts were derided and dismissed by those who just said yes or maybe. One recent anti-drugs campaign in the UK had pictures of dead and dying children and the message:

'Drugs - the effects can last forever!'

These posters were mercilessly ridiculed as graffiti artists added their own rider to this message:

'If only they did!'

Our first aim therefore is to produce materials that drugusers themselves actually want tosee andpasson to their friends. We must entertain while simultaneously educating. The best way of achieving this aim is to involve the target group in the production of such materials.

The production of our comic book 'Smack in the Eye' (now on issue 8) began, and has developed, a methodology that we have found extremely sucessful in getting information across to groups of illegal drug users. There is nothing revolutionary in this methodology. It simply requires a commitment to engaging with and involving'current'drug users (not'ex-users') in the development of information materials containing the information they want in a style that they find attractive. Once again the key issue in this process is in giving precedence to the views of the target audience over and above the moral sensibilities of middle-class professionals.

In 1990 the Lifeline Project in Manchester, England began to consider how a drugs agency might go about targeting those young people engaged in the recreational use of 'party drugs'. These young people are using large amounts of stimulant and hallucinogenic drugs and some are getting into problems. This is taking place at a time when drug services are consolidating much of their work within a HIV prevention framework. Building on the success of 'Smack in the Eye', Lifeline Manchester decided to produce information materials for young, recreational drug users.

This task fell into four clear stages. First, we had to getaclear ideaof who these people are, what their interests are, where they go and what they do. In other words, we needed an'identikit'profile of one section of that very large target group of recreational drug users. This would give us an idea of the key differences between this new group and our traditional opiateinjecting client~le who so appreciate 'Smack in the Eye'. Secondly, we had to establish what kinds of inforination this target group required. Thirdly, we had to develop our service reponse to the requirements of this c lient group as and when they arose. Fourthly, we had to arrange for on-going monitoring of our contact with this 'new' group.

We built up the identikit profile by fieldwork which involved making contact with some young people who were already members of the target group. This first stage produced an initial identikit profile of our target group. They were young people aged between 15 and 2 5 - predominantly white and male from working class backgrounds; followers of local football teams and local MancFester bands; and regular clubgoers. House music 'raves'were particularly popular. These young people have grown up with drugs throughout their formative years to such an extent that they view their non-opiate, non-injecting drug use as perfectly normal, nondeviant behaviour.

Having constructed the indentikit of a target audiei ice we had then to decide how we would access this target group. Here our experience of producing'Smack in the Eye'proved invaluable. The success of'Smack in the Eye' methodology was emulated in the development ofa whole range of harm-reduction information materials targeted atrecreational users of stimulant and psychedelic 'dance drugs'. These materials also rely heavily on a particular brand of humour and feature a cartoon character called 'Peanut Pete'.

The issues we have addressed in this campaign include drug-induced paranoia, the dangers of using depressant drugs to deal with stimu I ant- induced anxiety states and the very real danger of death by heatstroke associated with using stimulant drugs in rave settings. In essence, we claim a high degree of success in entertaining and simultaneously educating a group of young recreational drug users about the dangers of their particular forms of drug use.

From 'Smack in the Eye' to 'Peanut Pete' we have entertained and informed our target audiences while simultaneously angering and confusing our critics. Creating and maintaining 'source cred ibil ity' with the target groups of drug users is often achieved at the expense of making enemies among old and new puritans alike.

The sources of criticism to both the 'Smack in the Eye' and the 'Peanut Pete' range have been very i nteresting indeed. At first glance one would expect it to be the forces of law and order and other traditionally conservative elements who would take most exception to 'Smack in the Eye'. Although the police did make an earlyvisit todiscuss the initiative informally, ithas been elements of the supposedly liberal caring profe~sions who have been most consistently disapproving.

Herein probably lies one of the most interesting chapters in the history of 'Smack in the Eye' and our other 'risqu6' drugs information materials. Our most vocal critics come from the ranks of the'new puritans'. These are the people who, usually under the banner of concerns about'stereotyping', take moral offence at the very style of'Smack in the Eye'and our other products.

The new puritans are a very interesting phenomenon in the caring services in the 1990s. The spring/summer 1992 edition of a UK men's magazine called 'Arena'carried a piece on'The image police The New Puritanism stripped bare'by Steve Beard. To say that this article rang some bells inrelation to'Smack in the Eye' and its critics is an understatement. The bells that began to ring became an almost unbearable crescendo with each paragraph. In stripping bare the new puritanism, Beard had produced a p~botofit image of the critics of 'Smack in the Eye' and our other products.

You knew where you stood, or, stand, with the old puritans. The old puritans just want to punish. The new puritans want to protect. They want to protect you from yourself. They want you to stop eating fatty foods, stop smoking, stop drinking and stop taking drugs. They want you to do this so that'you can be all you can be'whatever that is supposed to mean. On the surface this sounds like a harmless enough quest. However, when you begin to dig a little deeper it all becomes a little more insidious.

New puritans are united with old puritans in the things that offend them. This usually involves acts that other people -'those people'- find pleasurable. Sex, drugs and rock and roll find their way into the targets of new and old puritans alike. The difference is that the new puritans are meticulously'right on'. They are antisexist, antiracist, anti-homophobic and pro-environment. Where old-style puritanism is religious, right wing and pessimistic, new style puritanism is humanistic, liberal and progressive.

The other key thing that unites old and new puritanism is that neither of them is at all funny. Having dotted all the 'i's and crossed all the 't's of political correctness, the new puritans have no room for fun. At least not for the kinds of fun enjoyed by the people they seek to counsel. This is why they take such offence at our products. We dare to reflect that particular brand of dark humour that is to be found among those engaged in potentially risky behaviours. The new puritans are baffled by this. How can people laugh about such serious things as the use of dangerous drugs. The new puritans could learn a crucial lesson from our target audiences learn to laugh at yourself - stop taking yourselves too seriously. After all no one else is.

Right from the start, our criterion of success was that 'Smack in the Eye' should be accepted and valued by injecting drug users. In short, we would be more than happy if the comic book was sought out and read by its target audience - it was and is. The fact that we have succeeded in offending the new puritans must be taken as a measure of success. If they liked our materials you can bet your life that the target audience would not.

In short, we have learnt one critical lesson from the responses of the new puritans to our products. Overconcern about 'political correctness' issues such as stereotyping lead to one thing- inertia. Anyonewhois thinking about developing innovative information materials that will actually be read by drug users should realise this. If the materials are to be 'user friendly' to the drug user they will almost certainly antagonise sec. tions of the new puritanism. The new puritans should be understood for what they are - good old-fashioned killjoys in different clothing.

In the final analysis it is the drug user who matters, not the political sensibilities of the new puritan. Fin, ally, do not expect the new puritans to do anything positive. They will criticise and snipe at anything that does not pass their rigorous political correctness test. What they will not do is produce anything themselves. Deep down they probably know that they have not got a clue about the real attitudes and belief systems of the people they seek to protect from themselves.

The new puritans almost invariably come from adifferent class background to their target groups. They read different papers, watch different television programmes, spend their leisure time differently. In short, they are completely outside the world of their targe groups. All they know about their target groups is that they must be protected from themselves.

This is where'Smack in the Eye'and our other products are unique. They are borne out of the cultural reality of the lives of their potential target audiences. They have 'source credibility' precisely because they reflect the world as it is and not as the new puritans would like it to be. It is here where the new puritans occupy the same utopian territory as the new missionaries. They should recognise how much they have in common with the religious fanatics who invade your privacy, uninvited, to bring the word of some lord or other. Just like the new missionaries the new puritans have a vision that they want to proselytise about.

In the new puritan's brave new world everywhere will resemble some super-sanitised Scandinavian enclave. No one will smoke - anything. No one will drink anything stronger than mineral water. All prospective sexual liaisons will be scrupulously negotiated, planned and checked for safety. There will be no need for'drugs'as everyone will spend their spare time backpacking through the wilderness in search of alternative, natural and healthy highs. If we recognised the similarities between the new puritans and the new missionaries we would then be in a position to understand properly their objections to anything that dares to reflect and acknowledge that we live in a situation whereby hedonism is surviving and thriving on hard times. Remember, hedonism Cfun') is just as much an anathema to the new puritans as it is to the new missionaries.

The new puritans are not in the business of production, innovation and risk. Critical policing is the new puritan's business. It would be a great shame if innovation in the field of harm reduction was sacrificed on the alter of the new puritan's 'toy town' political agendas. We have shown that drugs agencies can establish a relationship with various drug-using cultures. We can and do have an ongoing dialogue with current drug users that is of mutual benefit. They get entertained and informed and we get regular reports of current drugusing trends that keep us up to date with the reality of the worlds of our various target groups. This symbiotic relationship provides a model for the future direction of drug services in the UK and, one hopes, eventually, internationally.

Mark Gilman is involved in ethnographic drugs research in the north-west of England.