Search

'St. Oswald's Day' is celebrated each year in Canberra, Australia, in a day devoted to drug using and excess. 'St. Oswald' is an invention of a group of illicit drug users, who parody orthodox religion and satirise straight society in the celebration. The group are drug enthusiasts -- that is, while not dependent users of any illicit drug their drug use, in both its variety and intensity, is much more than recreational Drawing on both interview data with twenty-seven 'Oswaldians' and participant observation with the group, the article outlines the nature of St. Oswold's Day, followed by a discussion of the methods used and of the group itself. It is shown that the group, while very unconventional, exhibits social solidarity and organisation, in strong contrast to the images of anomie, disorganisation and pathology emphasised in conventional accounts of drug use. The article closes by discussing how St. Oswald's Day confronts the 'sobriety' of modern society (an epitomisation of the Protestant Ethic) with an image of 'carnival' (epitomising the Hedonist Ethic) and suggests that much conventional treatment of drug use is blind to questions of historical context and social structure.

Abstract Background Given the high prevalence of mental disorders and the comparatively low rate of professional help-seeking, it is useful for members of the public to have some skills in how to assist people developing mental disorders. A Mental Health First Aid course has been developed to provide these skills. Two randomized controlled trials of this course have shown positive effects on participants' knowledge, attitudes and behavior. However, these trials have provided limited data on participants' subsequent experiences in providing first aid. To remedy this, a study was carried out gathering stories from participants in one of the trials, 19–21 months post-training. Methods Former course participants were contacted and sent a questionnaire either by post or via the internet. Responses were received from 94 out of the 131 trainees who were contacted. The questionnaire asked about whether the participant had experienced a post-training situation where someone appeared to have a mental health problem and, if so, asked questions about that experience. Results Post-training experiences were reported by 78% of respondents. Five key points emerged from the qualitative data: (1) the majority of respondents had had some direct experience of a situation where mental health issues were salient and the course enabled them to take steps that led to better effects than otherwise might have been the case; (2) positive effects were experienced in terms of increased empathy and confidence, as well as being better able to handle crises; (3) the positive effects were experienced by a wide range of people with varied expectations and needs; (4) there was no evidence of people over-reaching themselves because of over-confidence and (5) those who attended were able to identify quite specific benefits and many thought the course not only very useful, but were keen to see it repeated and extended. Conclusion The qualitative data confirm that most members of the public who receive Mental Health First Aid training subsequently provide support to people with mental health problems and that this support generally has positive effects.

Goffman, Philip Manning tells us '...has become an over-familiar landmark on the intellectual map of modern social science, a person who is cited everywhere but rarely discussed in detail' (p.6). [...]

Examines material concerning public opinion in Australia about drugs and drug problems. Why public views in Australia may or may not coincide with public views elsewhere; Costs associated with illicit and licit drugs; Comparisons to Western countries; Additional aspects of data analysis.

Following the publication of Taylor, Walton and Young's New Criminology (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972 and New York: Harper Torch Books, 1974), the Quarterly asked Anthony Platt, Richard Quinney and Paul Rock to write reviewessays which were subsequently published in the Quarterly in the Autumn 1973 issue. These reviews elicited the following response by Stephen Mugford. It was circulated to the authors of the New Criminology. who declined to comment, choosing to formulate a general response to the many review comments the book has generated. Mugford's comment was also sent to the original reviewers, and Paul Rock's reply follows. The editor would like to encourage such free interchange, and will attempt to facilitate comment by circulating manuscripts and soliciting commentary. (Perhaps a format similar to that employed by Current Anthropology will emerge). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]