Summary Of The Counter-Scare Rhetoric

The other three themes developed according to the framed statistics. The use of drug-scare rhetoric was similarly consistent throughout; focusing on the harm narratives of a particular substance (Goode & Ben-Yahuda, 2009; Jenkins, 1999). During the upsurge-use period, however, drug-scare rhetoric became more aggressive and widespread as the state attempts to control the increasing arrest rates. The state undertook a more hard-line tone in their drug-scare rhetoric to control public perception on drug use (Goode & Ben-Yahuda, 2009; Young, 1971). Consequently, such amplifications generate a culture of fear and panic amongst the public (Cohen, 2002; Cohen & Young, 1973; Simon, 2007).
In addition, the portrayal of zero-tolerance narratives has changed over the years. While the objective was to emphasize

The counter-measure discourse shifted its focus according to the framed issue – strict enforcement in nightclubs in the declining-use period, rehabilitation for Subutex abusers in the stable-use period, and preventive drug education for the young majority during the upsurge-use period. As the various state responses aligned with the media’s frames, the public would ultimately support the state’s solutions because of the belief that these responses would reduce the likelihood of victimization (Goode & Ben-Yahuda, 2009; Simon, 2007; Van Dijk, 1995). More significantly, counter-measure narratives allowed the state to mobilize other institutions to assist in the governing drug use. Counter-measure narratives amplify the drug situation by relentlessly problematizing drug use as a major risk to institutions – causing fear amongst the people (Jaehnig et al., 1981; Pollak & Kubrin, 2007; Simon, 2007). Thus, counter-measure narratives that focused on safety and security enable the state to “govern through crime” as they feed on the public’s fear of