“I held on to the police’s leg for mercy”: Experiences of adversity, risk and harm among people who inject drugs during an anti-drug drive in Dhaka, Bangladesh

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

BackgroundA number of countries across Asia have instituted “drug wars”, aimed at eradicating drug supply and consumption. These wars often employ strategies like arbitrary arrest and detention, increased surveillance, harassment and sometimes extrajudicial killings. However, these measures have not been shown to effectively eliminate drug supply and consumption; rather they often predispose people who use drugs to increased risk and harm. Such a drug war was declared in the form of an anti-drug drive (ADD) in Bangladesh in 2018. This article examined the impact of the ADD on drug injecting activities and harm reduction service uptake among people who inject drugs (PWID). MethodsAn ethnographic study was conducted in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Study participants included PWID, harm reduction service providers and other drug and alcohol experts. Data collection consisted of 2500 hours of observations, 25 in-depth interviews, five focus group discussions and 15 key informant interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. ResultsADD operations and activities subjected PWID to multifaceted forms of violence and harassment including extrajudicial killings, which significantly affected drug procurement and drug using practices and led to increased needle and syringe sharing and a likely increase in HIV transmission. The gradual disappearance of established drug markets, alongside the emergence of new ones at alternate locations, resulted in the dislocation of PWID from outreach services and further increased risky injecting practices such as needle and syringe sharing between new and unfamiliar injecting partners. These harms were compounded by unpredictable drug supply and price increases stemming from the ADD, which in turn also increased needle and syringe sharing. Harm reduction outreach services were not able to adequately adapt to the volatile, dynamic and risky nature of the ADD. ConclusionThe ADD not only precipitated risky injecting practices but also hindered the effective implementation of harm reduction outreach services and thus undermined public health. This warrants concerted efforts to nurture local evidence-based harm reduction approaches as opposed to punitive measures.