Drugs at the festivals: Perceptions of prevention, harm reduction, care, and law enforcement strategies [FINAL REPORT]

Abstract

The aim of this study was to obtain insights into the perceptions of prevention, harm reduction, health care and law enforcement strategies and perceptions of substance use (norms) at music festivals in Belgium, through the eyes of festival attendees and festival stakeholders. A mixed-method study was conducted between 2019 and 2021, combining a quantitative online survey and qualitative interviews.

Full text

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 1
POPHARS
Drugs at the festivals: Perceptions of
prevention, harm reduction, care, and law
enforcement strategies
BERT HAUSPIE (GHENT UNIVERSITY/HOGENT) – EDITH VAN DYCK (GHENT
UNIVERSITY) – JEREMIE PIOLAT (MODUS VIVENDI) – NICOLAS VAN DER LINDEN
(MODUS VIVENDI) – CAROL SACRE (MODUS VIVENDI) – TINA VAN HAVERE
(HOGENT) – CHARLOTTE LONFILS (MODUS VIVENDI) – CATHERINE VAN HUYCK
(MODUS VIVENDI) – KOEN PONNET (GHENT UNIVERSITY)
FEDERAL RESEARCH PROGRAMME
ON DRUGS

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 2
POPHARS
Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention, harm reduction,
care, and law enforcement strategies
Contract - DR/00/85
FINAL REPORT
PROMOTERS: KOEN PONNET (GHENT UNIVERSITY)
EDITH VAN DYCK (GHENT UNIVERSITY)
TINA VAN HAVERE (HOGENT)
CATHERINE VAN HUYCK (MODUS VIVENDI)
AUTHORS: BERT HAUSPIE (GHENT UNIVERSITY/HOGENT)
EDITH VAN DYCK (GHENT UNIVERSITY)
JEREMIE PIOLAT (MODUS VIVENDI)
NICOLAS VAN DER LINDEN (MODUS VIVENDI)
CAROL SACRE (MODUS VIVENDI)
TINA VAN HAVERE (HOGENT)
CHARLOTTE LONFILS (MODUS VIVENDI)
CATHERINE VAN HUYCK (MODUS VIVENDI)
KOEN PONNET (GHENT UNIVERSITY)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 3
Published in 2021 by the Belgian Science Policy Office (BELSPO)
WTCIII
Simon Bolivarlaan 30
Boulevard Simon Bolivar 30
B-1000 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: +32 (0)2 238 34 11 - Fax: +32 (0)2 230 59 12
http://www.belspo.be
http://www.belspo.be/drugs
Contact person: Aziz Naji
Tel: +32 (0)2 238 36 46
Neither the Belgian Science Policy Office nor any person acting on behalf of the Belgian Science Policy Office is responsible
for the use which might be made of the following information. The authors are responsible for the content.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without indicating the reference :
Hauspie, B., Van Dyck, E., Piolat, J., Van der Linden, N., Sacré, C., Van Havere, T., Lonfils, C., Van Huyck, C., & Ponnet,
K. Drugs at the festivals: Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies. Final
report. Brussels, Belgian Science Policy Office 2021 – 130 p. (Federal Research Programme on Drugs)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments and list of members of the follow up committee ........................................................................... 6
1. Situational context ................................................................................................................................................ 7
1.1 Music festivals & drug related strategies ..................................................................................................... 7
1.2 The four pillars of the Belgian drug policy ................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Drug-related interventions under study ...................................................................................................... 9
1.4 General objective & research questions .................................................................................................... 10
2. Quantitative study .............................................................................................................................................. 12
2.1 Methods: .................................................................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1 Experience sampling method ................................................................................................................ 12
2.1.2 Recruitment of participants ................................................................................................................... 12
2.1.3 The objective & Research questions ...................................................................................................... 14
2.1.4 Measures ............................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2 Prevalence of substance use & Perceptions of drug-related interventions ............................................... 19
2.2.1 The sample (N=305) ............................................................................................................................... 19
2.2.2 Prevalence of substance use (lifetime & last year use) ......................................................................... 19
2.2.3 Perceptions of drug-related interventions at music festivals ................................................................ 20
2.2.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................. 23
2.3 Substance use (norms), Perceptions & Impact of drug-related interventions at the festival .................... 24
2.3.1 The sample (N=187) ............................................................................................................................... 24
2.3.2 Substance use at the festival ................................................................................................................. 25
2.3.3 Substance-use norms ............................................................................................................................. 26
2.3.4 Drug-related interventions at the festival ............................................................................................. 27
2.3.5 Perceived impact of drug-related interventions on personal substance use and related behavior ..... 29
2.3.6 Perceptions concerning the impact of drug-related interventions: before and after the festival visit . 35
2.3.7 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................. 38
2.4 On-the-spot observations .......................................................................................................................... 38
3. Qualitative study: Interviews with festival attendees ........................................................................................ 40
3.1 The objective & Research questions .......................................................................................................... 40
3.2 Semi-structured interviews & recruitment of the participants ................................................................. 40
3.2.1 Recruitment of the festival attendees ................................................................................................... 40
3.2.2 Semi-structured interviews.................................................................................................................... 41
3.3 Results of the Dutch speaking festival attendees ...................................................................................... 42
3.3.1 Perceptions about substance use (norms) ............................................................................................ 42
3.3.2 Perception, experience and impact of (health)care services at music festivals .................................... 44

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 5
3.3.3 Perception, experience, and impact of prevention and harm reduction actions at music festivals ..... 46
3.3.4 Perception, experience and impact of repressive interventions at music festivals .............................. 52
3.3.5 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................. 54
3.4 Results of the French speaking festival attendees ..................................................................................... 55
3.4.1 Use of legal and illegal psychotropic drugs and how festival attendees perceive the use of these
drugs. A normalization of the use of illicit drugs despite some critical awareness. ........................................... 55
3.4.2 Festival attendees' perception of the drug related initiatives at music festivals .................................. 59
3.4.3 Conclusion: harm reduction paradigm and reinforcement ................................................................... 67
4. Qualitative study: Interviews with festival stakeholders .................................................................................... 69
4.1 The objective & Research questions .......................................................................................................... 69
4.2 Semi-structured interviews & recruitment of the participants ................................................................. 69
4.2.1 Recruitment of the festival stakeholders ............................................................................................... 69
4.2.2 Semi-structured interviews.................................................................................................................... 70
4.3 Results of the Dutch speaking festival stakeholders .................................................................................. 71
4.3.1 Perceptions about substance use (norms) ............................................................................................ 71
4.3.2 Perception & experience of (health)care services at music festivals .................................................... 73
4.3.3 Perception & experience of prevention and harm reduction actions at music festivals ....................... 75
4.3.4 Perception & experience of repressive actions at music festivals ......................................................... 78
4.3.5 Towards a better implementation of drug related strategies at festivals: barriers & facilitators ......... 82
4.4 Results of the French speaking festival stakeholders ................................................................................ 84
4.4.1 Perception of drug use at festivals by different festival stakeholders .................................................. 84
4.4.2 Festival stakeholders' perception of the different drug-related interventions at music festivals ......... 86
4.4.3 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................. 95
5. Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................... 97
6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 98
7. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 100
8. References ........................................................................................................................................................ 102
9. Attachments...................................................................................................................................................... 107
9.1 Attachment A: Interview guideline for festival attendees ....................................................................... 107
9.2 Attachment B: Interview guideline for festival stakeholders ................................................................... 111
9.3 Attachment C: Original citations of the Dutch speaking participants ...................................................... 115
9.4 Attachment D: Original citations of the French speaking participants .................................................... 122

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 6
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE FOLLOW UP COMMITTEE
The POPHARS-project was commissioned and funded by the Belgian Science Policy (BELSPO). The study started on
the 1st of March 2019 and ended on the 15th of September 2021. The POPHARS-project is a collaboration between
three different research institutes: Ghent University (UGent), Ghent University of Applied Sciences and Arts
(HoGent), and Modus Vivendi.
The research team wishes to thank all the members of the follow-up committee and network meetings for their
feedback and advice in the context of the POPHARS-project. Following individuals participated in these meetings:
• Jochen Schrooten (VAD)
• Nicky Dirkx (HoGent)
• Katia Huard (FOD VGZ)
• Frederic Gustin (RéLia – Risquer Moins Liège)
• Liesbeth Spaas (Openbaar ministerie Antwerpen)
• Caroline Volders (Openbaar ministerie Antwerpen)
• Yves Debouvry (Nasty Mondays)
• Ingrid Glusmann (CAL Luxembourg)
• Johan Tackx (Reggae Geel)
• Peter Blanckaert (Sciensano – BEWSD)
• Jessica De Maeyer (HoGent – E-QUAL)
• Stéphane Leclercq (Fédito Bruxelles)
• Sébastien Alexandre (Fédito Bruxelles)
• Peter Muyshondt (Local police Rupel)
• Matthieu Méan (Modus Vivendi – Modus Fiesta)
• Charlotte Colman (UGent)
• Shawny Vanhoutteghem (VAD – Safe ‘n Sound)
• Erik Helderweert (VAD – Safe ‘n Sound)
• Lotte Voorham (Trimbos Instituut)
• Ferry Goossens (Trimbos Instituut)
• Carlo Smits (Local police Bruges)
• Lies Gremeaux (Sciensano)
• Nina Delbecke (Openbaar ministerie Antwerpen)
• Aziz Naji (BELSPO)
Moreover, the research team wishes to thank everyone who collaborated in this study, with a special thanks to all
respondents – both festival attendees and festival stakeholders – who voluntarily participated as part of the data
collection.
Finally, a sincere gratitude to all researchers and master students who were (partially) involved during this research
project, in particular, Thomas Piérard (researcher at Modus Vivendi), Olivia Himpe (master student at UGent), Louise
Gousseau (master student at UGent), and Anna Bianchi (master student at ULB).

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 7
1. SITUATIONAL CONTEXT
1.1 MUSIC FESTIVALS & DRUG RELATED STRATEGIES
Around the globe, music festivals are attracting a wide range of people – especially adolescents and young adults –
considering such events as places for leisure, entertainment, and socializing (Dilkes-Frayne, 2016; McCarthy, 2013;
Martinus et al., 2010). Since these highly anticipated events are generally regarded as an interruption from daily
activities, they have been proven archetypal settings for the use of alcohol and other drugs (Bullock et al., 2018;
Dilkes-Frayne, 2016; Borlagdan et al., 2010; Luckman, 2003). Research indeed demonstrated festival audiences to
use illicit drugs, tobacco, and alcohol more commonly than their age-matched cohort in the general community
(Dilkes-Frayne, 2016; Hesse et al., 2012; Lim et al., 2010; Martinus et al., 2010; Lim, et al., 2008; Duff, 2005; Measham
et al., 1998). So far, drug policy strategies at festivals, designed to reduce drug use and related harms, have not
always demonstrated to be effective or yet remain uninvestigated in terms of effectiveness. Not uncommonly, drug
related fatalities sparked a powerful debate concerning the effectiveness of current drug policies (Groves, 2018).
Accordingly, on-site health care services are required to tackle a wide range of drug-related harms, such as illnesses,
injuries, intoxications, and mental health presentations. Moreover, music festivals frequently have a higher
incidence of patient presentations and drug-related harms when compared to similar kinds of mass gatherings
(Bullock et al., 2018; Dilkes-Frayne, 2016; Hutton et al., 2014). Taking these observations into account, it is rather
self-evident that music festivals are common targets for policing (Hesse et al., 2012; Lim et al., 2010; Martinus et al.,
2010; Wilson et al., 2010).
Prevention and harm reduction efforts are frequently recommended as suitable ways to approach the reality of
recreational drug use in the context of music festivals. Often, related strategies apply a pragmatic scope in terms of
drug policy and can be set up in various ways. For instance, Palamar et al. (2016) focused on festival and nightclub
attendees in the electronic dance music scene and suggested that prevention and harm reduction services need to
be geared toward this population, especially targeting the frequent attendees. However, others have concluded that
a more extended recreational environment – hence, one beyond mere electronic dance music – is associated with
frequent drug use, and accordingly, stress the importance of targeted prevention in various recreational venues,
tailored to the specific needs of the setting and its attendees (Van Havere et al., 2011). Hence, music festivals were
indeed proven to be key sites for targeted prevention and harm reduction activities (Dilkes-Frayne, 2014; Hesse et
al., 2012; Lim et al., 2010; Martinus et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2010).
Wilson et al. (2010) suggested opportunities for drug education and harm reduction. In particular, targeting festival
attendees could serve as a useful way to concentrate resources and provide drug education. Moreover, peer led
approaches towards education could be particularly suitable when engaging with young people who socialize with
other people who use drugs (PWUD) and for whom certain types of illicit drug use are normalized. In this context,
Ruane (2018) suggested to implement peer support methods at music festivals, more specifically making use of
psychonauts (i.e., peer supporters with substance experience), who’s general grasp of drug experience proved to
be advantageous over other festival support workers overall. As a result of such investigations, peer-to-peer
strategies are being employed more and more frequently, mainly targeting prevention and reduction of excessive
and harmful consumption in nightlife settings. However, it still remains to be investigated how such approaches are
perceived by PWUD (as well as other stakeholders) and whether they obtain the intended effects.
Others proposed to implement a drug testing service as harm reduction strategy, integrated as an on- or off-site
service in party settings (De Brennan, 2020; Valente et al., 2019; Measham, 2019; Barratt et al., 2018; Day et al.,
2018; Mema et al., 2018; Groves, 2018; Martins et al., 2017, Munn et al., 2016). However, the specifics of possible
benefits and/or harms corresponding with drug testing services still remain vague and would benefit from further
investigation (Munn et al., 2016). On the one hand, the impact of drug testing has been questioned due to limitations
of certain on-site tests to accurately detect harmful substances (e.g., Marquis tests only obtain limited information

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 8
regarding drug purity) and its artificial ‘shine of safety’ regarding a range of illicit and potentially harmful drugs
(EMCDDA, 2006; Winstock et al., 2001). As such, drug testing remains rather controversial in a range of countries or
regions worldwide (Munn et al., 2016). On the other hand, several studies indicated that on-site drug testing can be
successfully implemented to identify adulterants and other unexpected substances of which PWUD are generally
unaware (McCrae et al., 2019; Measham, 2019; Valente et al., 2019; Mema et al., 2018; Martins et al., 2017).
Moreover, in case of an unexpected result regarding the tested substance’s composition, clients often reported to
be less willing or even unwilling to actually consume the substance (Valente, et al., 2019; Martins et al., 2017) and
were often inclined to discard it (Measham, 2019; Mema et al., 2018). In order to further test and improve their
utility and effectiveness, Martins et al. (2017) urged to incorporate more robust outcome measures in future
research on drug testing services.
Law enforcement strategies – sometimes better known as zero tolerance policy – denote another important pillar in
terms of drug policy at music festivals. Some have asserted that such strategies have minimal or no deterrent effects
and that police presence – especially accompanied by detection dogs – at festivals could even contribute to health-
related harms, including overdose (Malins, 2019; Grigg et al., 2018; Hickey et al., 2012;). Nevertheless, police
declared such strategies to have “a strong deterrence factor” (NSW Government, 2011) and stressed their value for
discouraging drug use and reducing harm at festivals (Begley, 2015). This divergent notion has been further explored
by Hughes et al. (2017), showing that, compared to ‘no police presence’, any police presence induced, on average,
a 4,60% reduction in overall illicit drug offending; particularly reducing the willingness to possess or carry drugs at
the festival. However, it also encouraged some perverse impacts, such as drug consumers opting to buy drugs within
festival grounds (main site and/or camp site) rather than bringing it themselves, as such expanding dealing
opportunities. Similar research findings suggested that only very high rates of policing accompanied by detection
dogs are capable of reducing drug use intensity, however, this was associated with a fourfold increase in negative
health consequences (Dray et al., 2012).
1.2 THE FOUR PILLARS OF THE BELGIAN DRUG POLICY
The drug policy in Belgium is based on the ‘four pillar approach in drug policy’ (Vander Laenen et al., 2011); i.e.,
prevention, harm reduction, treatment (care), and enforcement (repression).
Prevention of legal and illegal drugs is based on the model of Mrazek and Haggerty (1994), which makes a distinction
between universal prevention, selective prevention, and indicated prevention. While universal preventive
interventions are targeted to the general population, selective and indicated preventive interventions are targeted
to high-risk individuals or specific subgroups. Applied to the nightlife setting, this means that prevention targeting
this selection of the population can be categorized under selective and indicated prevention (Van Havere, 2012).
The primary focus of harm reduction is relying in the first place on the reduction of drug-related harm rather than
drug us per se (Lenton & Single, 1998). It is based on the pragmatic recognition that people use drugs even despite
strong efforts to prevent the initiation or continuation of drug consumption (Van Havere, 2012).
The pillar of treatment approaches experimental and experienced PWUD on a personal level (Vander Laenen et al.,
2011). Further in this study, this pillar is appointed as (health) care. Medical problems related to substance use do
occur in nightlife settings (Calafat et al., 2009). Therefore, interventions targeting emergency rooms, medical, and
first-aid services are covered as well. An increasing number of Belgian organizers introduce first aid services at their
events.
The last pillar, enforcement, aims in the first place to reduce the distribution and production of drugs by means of
repressive governmental action (Vander Laenen et al., 2011). Other terms which are referring to this pillar are ‘law
enforcement’ or ‘repression’. Calafat et al. (2009) describe this category as licensing, law enforcement, and underage

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 9
checks. In general, law enforcement focuses on reducing the offer of illegal drugs at festivals (e.g., checks at the
festival entrance).
1.3 DRUG-RELATED INTERVENTIONS UNDER STUDY
In Belgium, numerous prevention, harm reduction, health care and/or law enforcement strategies are currently
implemented in nightlife settings, including the music festival scene. This study focuses on these different
interventions and their perceived impact on the behavior of PWUD at music festivals. For the purpose of this study,
15 different drug-related actions are included. All of them (mainly) focus on substance use and are, at least to a
certain extent, implemented in the music festival scene.
A description of the different drug-related interventions is listed below:
• Festival stewards are mainly deployed as volunteers by the festival organization and have a preventive task.
The stewards have to keep an eye on the festival- and camp area in terms of safety (e.g., to check if all
festival attendees are doing fine). Moreover, festival stewards are sometimes used to control the tickets of
the festival attendees at the entrance of the festival, especially at smaller sized festivals with fewer
resources.
• Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in force at the festival can be provided by the festival
organization. When implemented, the festival audience knows what is allowed or forbidden at the festival
in terms of legal or illegal substance use (e.g., information at the bar which increases awareness and
knowledge with regard to the alcohol law in Belgium). Moreover, festival attendees have a better idea what
to expect in terms of drug-related actions available at the festival. This information can be provided in
different ways: briefly described on the festival ticket, described in detail on the festival website, using
banners at the entrance of the festival, etc.
• Information banners/screens concerning alcohol and other drugs specifically focus on informing festival
attendees about substance use in a highly visible way; from a general message as ‘Keep an eye on your
friends’ to a specific warning about contaminated drugs.
• Information stands working from a harm reduction principle are drug-related actions introduced by Safe ‘n
Sound and Modus Fiesta. Through a mobile information stand, their primary purpose is to inform PWUD
about the consequences and risks, as well as the harm reduction measures to be taken related to a specific
licit or illicit drug. Often, peer educators stand behind the information stand to brief their fellow peers, who
mainly work as volunteers. If part of an integrated approach, peer education can be a (cost) effective
intervention (Noijen et al., 2006). In general, peer education is a frequently implemented intervention in
nightlife settings (Calafat et al., 2009).
• Sometimes, outreach harm reduction teams are specifically implemented at (larger) festivals. The aim of
this drug-related action is similar to that of drug information stands working from a harm reduction
principle, but the way of working is different. An outreach harm reduction team, or mobile team,
approaches individuals instead of them having to take the initiative to visit the information stand. Next to
informing festival attendees, the mobile team is also checking the festival area for attendees who need help
in light of drug-related or other health related problems.
• Free water services
• Rather rare is the implementation of drug testing services at Belgian festivals. Other frequently used terms
used in literature are drug checking or pill testing. In the nineties, these actions were introduced within a
limited number of events (EMCDDA, 2006), ever since no solid legal framework has been provided by the
federal government, which means that drug testing is neither officially recognized nor forbidden in Belgium
(Libois et al., 2019). However, a small number of new experimental projects were introduced in the last two

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 10
decades, integrated within research and/or harm reduction activities. Drug testing is a harm reduction
service facilitating PWUD to test the quality of their drugs.
• Relax zones/areas for non-medical care (e.g., bad trip management) have been implemented already by
Modus Fiesta and Safe ‘n Sound. Such harm reduction services are installed for people who have used
drugs and consequently experience some difficulties, usually linked to the use of psychedelic drugs.
Nonetheless, people who used drugs and who experience (serious) medical problems are referred to the
first aid service or emergency service.
• First aid services or mobile first aid teams (e.g., Red Cross, Het Vlaamse Kruis, etc.)
• Amnesty bins are sometimes foreseen; however, only limited effect has been obtained through their use
until now. This drug-related intervention allows festival attendees who are in the possession of illicit drugs
to throw away their illegal drugs without juridical consequences. Other terms are, for example: mercy bin
or drop box.
• Paying a fine to the police (i.e., Onmiddellijke Minnelijke Schikking (OMS), règlement à l’amiable immédiat).
The code of law provides the possibility for the offender to pay a certain amount of money to the federal
public service of finances. Consequently, this payment cancels the further prosecution. At festival settings,
this specific procedure is being used when illegal drugs are found which are intended for personal use of
adult suspects (Spaas et al., 2019).
• Plainclothes police at the festival area. Such a police intervention happens secretly in order to detect
criminal acts, such as drug dealing, at the festival area. Another term is undercover agent.
• Police in uniform at the festival area. Such a police intervention is a visible action where police officers are
present in uniform at the festival area.
• Police interventions with sniffer dogs can be implemented at music festivals. Sniffer dogs or drug detection
dogs are deployed to check specifically for the possession of illegal drugs on the festival attendees. When a
sniffer dog points out a person, he or she is taken separately by a police officer, who proceeds with a full
body check of the suspect.
• Control at the entrance or festival area by security staff is often implemented in nightlife settings, including
music festivals. They are mainly deployed to do a safety check on the festival visitors in order to check for
weapons or other prohibited items during such an event.
1.4 GENERAL OBJECTIVE & RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The aim of this study is to obtain a comprehensive understanding of how festival attendees – in particular PWUD –
and festival stakeholders perceive drug-related interventions implemented at Belgian music festivals, and to provide
knowledge on the perspectives of PWUD, facilitating well-considered interventions. Additionally, an extra emphasis
is put on perceptions of substance use and substance use norms at music festivals in Belgium, in order to
contextualize these drug-related interventions. For this purpose, the study is divided into two parts (while also
interconnecting these parts along the line to look at matches and mismatches between both). This results into the
following research questions:
Gaining insights into the perceptions of prevention, harm reduction, health care and law enforcement strategies
and perceptions of substance use (norms) by festival attendees.
• RQ1: How do festival attendees perceive substance use (norms) present at music festivals in Belgium?
• RQ2a: How do festival attendees perceive the implemented drug-related interventions (prevention, harm
reduction, health care, law enforcement) at music festivals in Belgium?
• RQ2b: How do festival attendees perceive the possible impact of these interventions on their use of
substances and related behavior?

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 11
Gaining insights into the perceptions of the implemented drug-related interventions and perceptions of substance
use (norms) by festival stakeholders from prevention, harm reduction, health care, and law enforcement strategies,
and other festival stakeholders.
• RQ3: How do festival stakeholders perceive substance use (norms) present at Belgian festivals?
• RQ4a: How do festival stakeholders perceive their efforts in a context of drug use at music festivals in
Belgium?
• RQ4b: How do festival stakeholders perceive the efforts of other drug-related interventions at music
festivals in Belgium?
In this report, a quantitative and qualitative study is integrated in order to attempt to answer the aforementioned
research questions. In the quantitative study, the experience sampling method is introduced to gain insights in the
perceptions of substance use (norms) and perceptions of drug-related interventions according to the festival
attendees. In the qualitative part, semi-structured interviews are used to study the perceptions of substance use
(norms) and perceptions of drug-related interventions by both the festival attendees and festival stakeholders.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 12
2. QUANTITATIVE STUDY
2.1 METHODS:
2.1.1 EXPERIENCE SAMPLING METHOD
In this study, using the experience sampling method (ESM), we specifically targeted festival attendees and their
perceptions regarding drug-related interventions at music festivals in Belgium. Festivals in the Dutch- as well as the
French speaking community of Belgium were included. Festival attendees who met following selection criteria were
included in our research: (i) having reached the age of 18 years or older; (ii) currently living in Belgium; (iii) planning
to attend a music festival in Belgium within the next two or three months; and (iv) being in possession of a
smartphone with internet connection.
The experience sampling method is a reliable method for collecting self-reported data in a real-world environment.
It uses a tool to ‘page’ respondents to fill out a short survey at given times. This method reduces recall biases and
increases ecological validity as the research setting is a real-world environment (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 2014).
Applied to our research, respondents filled out a short questionnaire before (T1), during (T2), and after (T3) the
festival visit (see Figure 1). Beforehand, the respondents were notified through a ‘push SMS’ with a link to the online
questionnaire, which was set up via Qualtrics using a mobile friendly interface. Furthermore, all respondents
received an extra reminder SMS to complete the questionnaire.
Figure 1: Timeline of the different survey moments
2.1.2 RECRUITMENT OF PARTICIPANTS
Participants for the ESM-study were recruited online, mainly by using Facebook advertisements (ads). To be able to
arrange Facebook ads, a Facebook page was created by the POPHARS research team: ‘The Belgian Festival & Drug
Survey’. Through the Facebook page, the research team was able to communicate by posting text messages,
pictures, videos, etc. By sponsoring specific messages, it was possible to reach a much bigger audience. To set up
those Facebook ads, criteria were implemented to specify the target group (in other words: who is able to see the
ads in their ‘news feed’). The following criteria were taken into account: (i) having reached the age of 18 years or
older; (ii) currently living in Belgium; (iii) being interested in music festivals1. Moreover, an extra criterium was taken
into account for the first recruitment wave specifically: (iv) being interested in a specific big music festival in Belgium
which annually takes place in August (i.e., Pukkelpop).
Moreover, our own communication departments, several festival organizations, and other partner organizations
were notified about the recruitment of participants for the ‘Belgian Festival & Drug Survey’. They were asked to
spread our call for recruitment through their communication channels and social media channels.
1 While making a Facebook advertisements ‘detailed targeting’ allows to specify the target group. For example, the interests of
the Facebook users can be specified in this request. As part of our research, ‘music festivals’ were indicated as ‘detailed
targeting’ information. By consequence, we only reached Facebook users who stipulated they were interested in music
festivals.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 13
A prize drawl2 was set up as part of an incentive strategy to motivate festival attendees to participate in our study
and to complete the three different questionnaires (T1, T2 and T3).
In total, two calls were launched to recruit respondents through Facebook ads. During the first wave, at the end of
July 2019, people were able to register for a period of one week. One month later, at the end of August 2019, the
second wave was launched and registration was open for five extra days.
During the recruitment, a first small questionnaire (T0) had to be completed by potential participants. Firstly, they
had to give their informed consent as described in the ethical application3. Secondly, four screening questions were
asked (cf. the selection criteria as mentioned earlier in this chapter) and more information was surveyed concerning
their planned festival visit (name of the festival, date they plan to attend the festival, number of visiting days). Lastly,
the participants had to provide their mobile phone number. Phone numbers were crucial for this study for two
reasons: Firstly, it enabled the research team to send a ‘push SMS’ to each participant during the different moments
related to the participants’ festival visit (as described earlier). Secondly, the research team was able to merge the
data collected during the different moments (T1, T2, and T3) by the phone number as the key variable. By
consequence, the answers of each participant could be linked to one another.
In total, 2936 recorded (partial) responses were collected through Qualtrics. The first – and most successful –
recruitment wave generated 2427 responses, while the second wave generated 509 responses. All these recorded
(partial) responses were subjected to data cleaning. Only responses from which following data could be derived
were eligible:
• The response included a planned festival visit within the next coming months4 (not later and not in the
past);
• The response included a correct festival date (thus no empty entries were allowed);
• The response included a valid phone number.
After data cleaning, both recruitment waves generated respectively 437 and 54 participants, which meant that finally
491 respondents were eligible and willing to participate in the ESM-study. As mentioned earlier, these participants
were requested to complete a short questionnaire at three different moments related to their festival visit. An
inevitable drop out of respondents after each questionnaire was determined (see Figure 2). Of all participants, 305
participants (62,18% from total) completed the first survey (T1), which took place a few days before their festival
visit. Subsequently, 213 of them (43,38% from total or 69,84% from 305) also completed the second survey (T2),
which had to be completed during the festival visit of the participant. Finally, 187 participants (38,09% from total or
87,79% from 213) completed all three questionnaires (T1, T2 and T3).
Figure 2: Number of participants who completed the questionnaires consecutively
2 The prize drawl contained a Lenovo tablet, 2 JBL Bluetooth speakers, and 10 Bol.com vouchers worth €50.00
3 The POPHARS research project was ethically approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Political and Social Sciences
(University of Ghent).
4 More specifically, a planned festival visit within the next three months for the first recruitment wave, and a planned festival
visit within the next two months for the second recruitment wave.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 14
2.1.3 THE OBJECTIVE & RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The aim was to obtain a comprehensive understanding of how festival attendees perceive drug-related interventions
implemented at music festivals, and to provide knowledge on the perspective of PWUD, facilitating well considered
interventions. More specific, to gain insight in the perceptions concerning prevention, harm reduction, care and law
enforcement strategies and perceptions of substance use (norms) by festival attendees.
Given the specific research design of the experience sampling method, participants of the ESM-study were able to
indicate their perceptions towards the drug-related interventions at different moments (see Figure 1). This enabled
the research team to look if certain perceptions differed in relation to the occurrence of a specific event or
experience.
By consequence, following research questions were determined:
• RQ1: How do festival attendees perceive substance use (norms) present at music festivals?
• RQ2a: How do festival attendees perceive the implemented drug-related interventions (prevention, harm
reduction, health care, law enforcement) at music festivals?
• RQ2b: How do festival attendees perceive the possible impact of these interventions on their personal use
of substances and related behavior?
• RQ2c: Does the perceptions change when festival attendees encounter the specific drug-related
interventions?
2.1.4 MEASURES
2.1.4.1 Questionnaire (T1)
In the first questionnaire of the ESM-study (T1), the participants were surveyed about different topics.
Socio-demographics. Year of birth was questioned through the use of a dropdown menu. Sex was surveyed through
following answering options: Male (1); Female (2); Other (3). Educational level was questioned via these answering
options: None, primary school or lower degree secondary school (year 3 finished) (1); Secondary school (year 6 or 7
finished) (2); Higher education (bachelor, master, doctorate) (3). Current occupation was surveyed via following
options: Full-time work (1); Part-time work (2); Student (3); Just graduated (4); Neither in education, employment
or training (5) (multiple answers could be selected).
Nightlife profile. First of all, number of past-year festival attendance was surveyed through a numeric dropdown
menu from 0 until 25+. Secondly, music style preference was assessed by presenting following categories:
Rock/Metal/Punk; Electronic music (techno, house, drum 'n bass, …); Jazz/Blues; Urban (R&B, hip hop, rap); World
(latin, reggae, …); Schlager; Pop; Classic; Country/Folk ; Other (multiple answers could be selected).
Substance use profile. Frequency of use was questioned through a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = never
to 7 = daily. In total, eight different substances (and alcohol) were surveyed: alcohol, cannabis (marihuana, weed or
hash), cocaine, speed/amphetamines, ecstasy/MDMA, magic mushrooms, LSD, ketamine, other drug(s) 5. The
selection of these eight specific substances was based on earlier findings from nightlife research focused on the
Belgian context (ALAMA, 2019 ; Rosiers, 2019 ; Van Havere et al., 2011).
Intentional use of illegal drugs at the festival. This concept was operationalized through three different items, which
were scored along a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = disagree to 5 = agree. The items were preceded by
“Thinking about illegal drugs …”
5 If the respondent used several substances, the participant was requested to stipulate the most used party drug.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 15
• I intend to use any of these drugs at the first coming festival I attend;
• I want to use any of these drugs at the first coming festival I attend;
• It’s my purpose to use any of these drugs at the first coming festival I attend.
Linked to Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), different concepts were added to the questionnaire
related to the use of illegal drugs.
Attitude. The participants’ attitudes towards the use of illegal drugs were tested through three different five-point
scales: “The use of illegal drugs at festivals is . . .?”. Scale 1: not acceptable – acceptable; Scale 2: unsafe – safe; Scale
3: irresponsible – responsible.
Subjective norm. This concept was surveyed through two different items, who were scored along a five-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 = disagree to 5 = agree.
• People who are important to me would approve of me taking illegal drugs at festivals;
• People who are important to me would consider it normal that I take illegal drugs at festivals.
Perceived behavioral control. Similar as for the operationalization of the subjective norm, two different items were
questioned by using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = disagree to 5 = agree.
• It is easy for me to obtain illegal drugs at festivals;
• I am confident that I can obtain illegal drugs at festivals.
Prototype similarity. Two items assessed the prototype similarity. The first item: “How similar do you think you are
to somebody who takes illegal drugs at a festival?” was scored through a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = not
at all to 5 = totally. Three different five-point Likert scales were assessed for the second item: “We would like to
know what you think about someone who takes illegal drugs at a festival. We don’t suggest anyone in particular, just
someone of the same age who might do this. Can you state which characteristics you find suitable?”. Scale 1 ranging
from unsympathetic – sympathetic; Scale 2 ranging from uncool – cool ; Scale 3 ranging from unpopular – popular.
Willingness. Again, two items assessed the concept, who were scored along a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1
= unlikely to 5 = likely. The items were preceded by “Imagine you are at a festival. An acquaintance offers you an
illegal drug for free. What would you do …”
• I would take the drug;
• after some hesitation, I would take the drug.
Finally, drug-related interventions were assessed by a specific group of participants; only respondents whose answer
was situated between 3 = neither agree nor disagree to 5 = agree concerning (one of) the questions assessing the
respondents’ intentional use of illegal drugs at the next festival visit, were surveyed about the following two items.
Intentional use of drug related services. Firstly, 10 different drug related services 6 were assessed by the selected
group of participants. It was checked whether they would make use of one or more of the following services for
drug-related issues, in case they would have been available at the festival they were planning to visit. The drug-
related services were questioned via following answer options: Yes, No, and I don’t know it. The question was
preceded by “If needed, I would make use of …”
• First aid service or mobile first aid team (e.g., Red Cross);
• Festival stewards (part of the crew organization);
• Drug-related information stand working from a harm reduction principle (e.g., Safe ‘n Sound or Modus
Fiesta);
6 Repressive actions were excluded for this question.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 16
• Relax zone/area for non-medical care (e.g., bad trip management);
• Drug testing service (to test the quality of your drugs);
• Mercy bin/Amnesty bin/Drop box (bin to drop your illicit drugs before the entrance of the festival without
juridical consequences);
• Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in force at the festival (e.g., on the website of the
festival);
• Information banners/screens concerning alcohol and other drugs (e.g., warnings about contaminated
drugs, information about combi use, driving under influence, …);
• Outreach harm reduction team (e.g., Modus Fiesta);
• Free water service.
Perceptions of drug-related interventions at festivals. Secondly, the group of participants who indicated to have
the intention to use illegal substances during their next festival visit (or were still undecided about it), was surveyed
about their perception of 15 different drug-related interventions at the festivals. Participants’ perceptions about
each drug-related intervention were assessed through two different five-point scales, ranging from 1 to 5 (for both
five-point Likert scales: 3 = no impact): “Due to [a specific drug-related intervention] users will use …”: Scale 1: less
illegal substances – more illegal substances. Scale 2: in a less risky way – in a riskier way.
Moreover, participants who indicated they didn’t know a specific drug-related service in the previous question were
not invited to answer the question concerning the perception of the related service. Following drug-related
interventions were included in this research:
• Control at the entrance or festival area by security staff;
• Police intervention with sniffer dogs;
• First aid service or mobile first aid team (e.g., Red Cross);
• Festival stewards (part of the crew organization);
• Information stand working from a harm reduction principle (e.g., Safe ‘n Sound);
• Relax zone/area for non-medical care (e.g., bad trip management);
• Drug testing service (to test the quality of your drugs);
• Mercy bin / Amnesty bin / Drop box (bin to drop your illicit drugs before the entrance of the festival without
juridical consequences);
• Paying a fine to the police (i.e., Onmiddellijke Minnelijke Schikking (OMS), règlement à l’amiable immédiat);
• Plainclothes police at the festival area;
• Police in uniform at the festival area;
• Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in force at the festival (e.g., on the website of the
festival);
• Information banners/screens concerning alcohol and other drugs (e.g., warnings about contaminated
drugs, information about combi use, driving under influence, …);
• Outreach harm reduction team (e.g., Modus Fiesta);
• Free water service.
2.1.4.2 Questionnaire T2
The second questionnaire of the ESM-study (T2) was completed by the participants of the ESM-study during their
festival visit. This short questionnaire only contained six specific questions concerning substance use and substance
use norms.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 17
Substance use at the festival among the friends of the participant. First of all, following questions were
operationalized through three different items, which were scored along a five-point scale ranging from None, Some,
About half, Most to All.
• How many of your friends are using alcohol during the festival?
• How many of your friends are using cannabis during the festival?
• How many of your friends are using other drugs during the festival?
Substance use norms. The concept was operationalized through three different items, who were scored along a five-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 = disagree to 5 = agree. An extra answering option was I don’t know.
• Cannabis use is omnipresent at the festival.
• Other drug use (excluding alcohol or tobacco) is omnipresent at the festival.
• It is easy for me to obtain cannabis or other drugs (except for alcohol or tobacco) at the festival.
2.1.4.3 Questionnaire T3
The participants of the ESM-study received the third and last questionnaire (T3) a few days after their festival
attendance. The content of this last questionnaire was mainly dedicated to the drug-related actions at the festival.
Substance use at the festival. First of all, the participants’ substance use during the festival visit was surveyed. The
same list of eight substances was questioned as in the first questionnaire (T1): alcohol, cannabis (marihuana, weed
or hash), cocaine, speed/amphetamines, ecstasy/MDMA, magic mushrooms, LSD, ketamine, other drug(s). The list
of substances was preceded by “Did you use following substances during the festival you recently attended?”. The
answer options were either Yes or No.
Experience with & perceived impact of drug-related interventions at the festival. The first question concerning
drug-related interventions at the festival was open for all respondents. 15 different drug-related interventions are
included (the same list as in the first questionnaire T1):
• Control at the entrance or festival area by security staff;
• Police intervention with sniffer dogs;
• First aid service or mobile first aid team (e.g., Red Cross);
• Festival stewards (part of the crew organization);
• Information stand working from a harm reduction principle (e.g., Safe ‘n Sound);
• Relax zone/area for non-medical care (e.g., bad trip management);
• Drug testing service (to test the quality of your drugs);
• Mercy bin / Amnesty bin / Drop box (bin to drop your illicit drugs before the entrance of the festival without
juridical consequences);
• Paying a fine to the police (i.e., Onmiddellijke Minnelijke Schikking (OMS), règlement à l’amiable immédiat);
• Plainclothes police at the festival area;
• Police in uniform at the festival area;
• Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in force at the festival (e.g., on the website of the
festival);
• Information banners/screens concerning alcohol and other drugs (e.g., warnings about contaminated
drugs, information about combi use, driving under influence, …);
• Outreach harm reduction team (e.g., Modus Fiesta);
• Free water service.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 18
Drug-related interventions noticed at the festival. The first question surveyed the presence – and to a smaller extend
also the visibility – of these drug-related interventions: “Did you notice following interventions or services at the
festival you recently attended?”. The answer options were Yes, No or Not sure.
Drug-related interventions encountered at the festival. The subsequent question was assessed by a specific group of
participants receiving a customized question. Only the respondents who noticed the specific drug-related
interventions7 at their festival visit were invited to answer the following question: “Did you get in touch with or make
use of these interventions or services at the festival you recently attended?”. The answer options were either Yes or
No.
Perceived impact of the encountered drug-related interventions at the festival. The third question focused on
perception of the perceived impact of the specific drug-related interventions in relation to the consumption of
PWUD. Only the drug-related interventions the participant indicated as encountered at the festival were assessed
by the respondent. Furthermore, the participants’ perceptions about drug-related interventions at the festival were
operationalized in the same way as in the first questionnaire (T1). The assessment happened through two different
five-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 to 5: “Due to [a specific drug-related intervention] users will use …”. Scale 1:
less illegal substances – more illegal substances. Scale 2: in a less risky way – in a riskier way (3 = no impact). This
enabled the comparison of participants’ perceptions about drug-related interventions before and after the festival
visit and whether these perceptions changed after encountering specific drug-related interventions.
Impact of drug-related interventions at the festival on the personal use of illegal substances. Finally, a specific
selection of respondents was invited for this last topic. Similar as in the previous question, only the drug-related
interventions the participant had encountered at the festival were assessed. In addition, only respondents who used
one or more illegal substances 8 at the festival were targeted. For each drug-related intervention under question, six
items were operationalized using six different five-point scales, ranging from 1 to 5 (3 = no impact). Following items
were preceded by: “Due to [a specific drug-related intervention] …”
• Scale 1: I used less illegal substances – more illegal substances;
• Scale 2: I used in a less risky way – in a riskier way;
• Scale 3: I bought my illegal substances less from an unknown dealer at the festival – more from an unknown
dealer at the festival;
• Scale 4: I drank less alcohol – more alcohol;
• Scale 5: I switched less to other drugs (legal highs or designer drugs) – more to other drugs (legal highs or
designer drugs);
• Scale 6: I was less aware of my use of illegal substances and associated risks – more aware of my use of
illegal substances and associated risks.
7 Only the drug-related interventions who were answered by the respondent with ‘Yes’ in the previous question (Did you notice
following interventions or services at the festival you recently attended?) are surveyed.
8 The use of illegal substances as surveyed earlier in the questionnaire T3: the use of cannabis (marihuana, weed or, hash),
cocaine, speed/amphetamines, ecstasy/MDMA, magic mushrooms, LSD, ketamine, or another illegal drug specified by the
respondent.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 19
2.2 PREVALENCE OF SUBSTANCE USE & PERCEPTIONS OF DRUG-RELATED INTERVENTIONS
2.2.1 THE SAMPLE (N=305)
In this chapter, findings of all participants (N=305) who completed the first questionnaire (T1) will be discussed (see
Table 1). Three-quarters of the respondents completed the questionnaire in Dutch, while only a small part of the
participants completed the questionnaires in French or English. Furthermore, the average age was 27,71 years and
median age was 25 years (range: IQR 22 – 32 years). The minimum and maximum age was respectively 18 and 61
years. More male than female respondents participated in the ESM-study, whereas just one participant indicated
‘other’ in terms of gender.
More than half of the participants accomplished higher education, although another substantial part of the
respondents completed secondary school. Just a small part of the sample finished school with a lower educational
level than the two levels just mentioned. Most of the respondents indicated as current occupation9 either full-time
employment or student, whereas a smaller part of the participants mentioned part-time work, just graduated, or
neither in education, employment, or training.
Demographics (N=305)
N
(%)
User language
EN
5
(1,64%)
FR
70
(22,95%)
NL
230
(75,41%)
Gender
Male
185
(60,66%)
Female
119
(39,02%)
Other
1
(0,33%)
Age (in years)
Min – Max
18 – 61
Mean (SD)
27,71 (8,13)
Highest education
None, primary school or lower degree secondary school (year 3 finished)
12
(3,93%)
Secondary school (year 6 or 7 finished)
125
(40,98%)
Higher education (bachelor, master, doctorate)
168
(55,08%)
Current occupation
Full-time work
147
(48,20%)
Part-time work
29
(9,51%)
Student
115
(37,70%)
Just graduated
11
(3,61%)
Neither in education, employment or training
12
(3,93%)
Table 1: Demographics of the participants who completed T1
2.2.2 PREVALENCE OF SUBSTANCE USE (LIFETIME & LAST YEAR USE)
Lifetime use and last-year use of eight different substances was assessed. Both for lifetime use and last-year use
similar patterns were unveiled (see Table 2). Alcohol was the most used substance among the sample of festival
attendees. Concerning the use of illegal substances, cannabis was the most used substance, followed by
ecstasy/MDMA and cocaine. In terms of last-year use, ketamine was more popular than amphetamines/speed.
Psychedelics – more specifically, magic mushrooms and LSD – had the lowest prevalence rate regarding last-year
9 Multiple answer options were possible.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 20
use. In terms of lifetime use, ketamine, magic mushrooms, and amphetamines/speed had almost the same
prevalence rate, whereas LSD had the lowest prevalence rate.
Substance use (N=305)
Type of substance
Lifetime use (%)
Last year use (%)
Alcohol
99,02%
95,41%
Cannabis
89,18%
69,84%
Ecstasy / MDMA
60,66%
44,59%
Cocaine
45,90%
30,16%
Ketamine
34,43%
18,69%
Amphetamines / Speed
33,11%
12,13%
Magic mushrooms
34,10%
9,18%
LSD
26,23%
6,23%
Table 2: Lifetime use and last-year use of eight different substances
2.2.3 PERCEPTIONS OF DRUG-RELATED INTERVENTIONS AT MUSIC FESTIVALS
As mentioned earlier, drug-related interventions at music festivals were the central research topic of the POPHARS-
project, as well as for the ESM-study. These interventions are often implemented to approach people who use illegal
substances in particular (cf. repressive actions or harm reduction actions at festivals). Therefore, questions on
perceptions of drug-related interventions were specifically dedicated towards the group of people who (potentially)
use illegal substances at the festival. To obtain a notion of who these potential PWUD were, through the first
questionnaire (T1), three different items were related to specific questions about intentional use of illegal substances
at the next festival visit of the participant. The items, which were scored along a five-point Likert scale ranging from
1 = disagree to 5 = agree, were preceded by “Thinking about illegal drugs …”
• I intend to use any of these drugs at the first coming festival I attend;
• I want to use any of these drugs at the first coming festival I attend;
• It’s my purpose to use any of these drugs at the first coming festival I attend.
The emphasis was put on respondents who (slightly) agreed or who neither agreed nor disagreed with at least one
of the items. By consequence, 208 participants (68,20%) were shown to have had the intention to use illegal
substances at the festival, or who were still undecided about it. Only this subgroup (n=208) received further
questions about drug-related interventions at music festivals during the first questionnaire (T1).
2.2.3.1 Intentional use of drug related services
A clear majority of the participants who intended to use illegal substances at their next festival visit (or who were
still undecided about it), would make use of most drug-related services when they believed this was necessary. A
free water service would have been used by nearly all participants (99,04%). The intentional use of three other
services peaked above 80%: a relax zone/area for non-medical care (86,54%), a first aid service or mobile first aid
team (83,17%), and a drug testing service (82,69%). Moreover, information banners/screens focusing on alcohol and
other drugs (73,08%), an information stand working from a harm reduction principle (66,35%), information
concerning the alcohol and drug policy in force at the festival (64,42%), and an outreach harm reduction team
(60,10%) would have been used by more than half of the participants if needed. Only two drug-related services
would have been used by less than half of the sample. Intentional use of festival stewards (43,27%) was reported by
almost half of the respondents, while only one fifth of them would have made use of a mercy/amnesty bin (21,15%)
(see Figure 3).

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 21
Figure 3: Intentional use of drug related services at the next festival visit
Furthermore, participants had the possibility to indicate whether they had knowledge about each drug-related
service. Especially harm reduction services were unknown to participants: outreach harm reduction teams (26,44%),
information stands working from a harm reduction principle (7,69%), and drug testing services (6,25%). Moreover,
more than 5% of the respondents were unfamiliar with festival stewards (8,17%) and mercy/amnesty bins (5,29%).
2.2.3.2 Perceptions of drug-related interventions (pretest)
The final question, which was related to the perception of drug-related interventions of those who intended to use
illegal substances at the festival (or who were still undecided about it), was assessed on two items. Moreover,
respondents who indicated they were unacquainted with specific drug-related services were excluded for the more
detailed question related to drug-related services.
The first item surveyed participants’ perceptions concerning the impact of the drug-related interventions at festivals,
focusing on whether they believed such interventions would have impacted usage extent (i.e., using less or more
illegal substances). A majority of the participants indicated for each drug-related intervention that it would have no
impact (see Figure 4). Nevertheless, the drug-related interventions with the highest perceived impact consisted of
police intervention with sniffer dogs and police in uniform at the festival area. Respectively, 42,31% and 36,54% of
the respondents indicated that, due to these drug related actions PWUD, they would have used (slightly) fewer illegal
substances.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Mercy bin / Amnesty bin / Drop box (bin to drop your illicit…
Festival stewards (part of the crew organization)
Outreach harm reduction team (e.g. Modus Fiesta)
Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in force at…
Drug information stand working from a harm reduction…
Information banners/screens concerning alcohol and other …
Drug testing service (to test the quality of your drugs)
First aid service or mobile first aid team (e.g. Red Cross)
Relax zone / area for non-medical care (e.g. bad trip…
Free water service
yes (%) no (%) I don 't know it (%)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 22
Figure 4: Perceptions of drug-related interventions at festivals regarding illegal substance use extent
For the second item, the emphasis was put on participants’ perceptions regarding the impact of such interventions
on substance use-related risks (see Figure 5). A totally different pattern was found concerning this specific item
compared to the previous one. First of all, most drug-related interventions had a clear impact in terms of belief of
having the potential to lead to a less risky or riskier way of consuming. Especially the perception about the impact
of a drug testing service was pronounced. More than four fifths of the participants (86,15%) indicated to believe that
‘due to a drug testing service, users will use in a (slightly) less risky way’. The perception on the impact of five other
prevention and harm reduction services showed a similar pattern, however less pronounced than the perception
concerning drug testing services. Still, for the following drug-related actions, the majority of the respondents
believed that these interventions would have led to a less risky way of using illegal substances: outreaching harm
reduction teams (69,93%), free water services (67,31%), information stands working from a harm reduction principle
(67,19%), relax zones/areas for non-medical care (59,50%), and information banners/screens concerning alcohol and
other drugs (57,84%). A rather opposite pattern was found for five repressive interventions. For the following drug-
related actions, more than half of the participants believed that users would have used in a (slightly) riskier way:
police intervention with sniffer dogs (64,42%), control at the entrance or festival area by security staff (54,33%), and
police in uniform at the festival area (50,48%). For these drug-related actions, almost half of the participants were
convinced they would lead to (slightly) riskier way of consuming: plainclothes police at the festival area (45,19%) and
paying a fine to the police (44,71%).
In contrast to the first item, only four drug-related interventions were indicated by the majority of the respondents
as having ‘no impact’ regarding risk of use: mercy/amnesty bins (74,62%), festival stewards (63,35%), information
concerning the alcohol and drug policy in force at the festival (58,08%), and first aid services or mobile first aid teams
(53,62%).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Due to a Relax zone / area for non-medical care (e.g. bad trip …
Due to a Free water service users will use …
Due to a First aid service or mobile first aid team users will use …
Due to a Drug testing service (to test the quality of your drugs) …
Due to a Drug infomation stand working from a harm reduction …
Due to Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in …
Due to an Outreach harm reduction team users will use …
Due to Festival stewards (part of the crew organization) users …
Due to Control at the entrance or festival area by security staff …
Due to a Mercy bin / Amnesty bin / Drop box users will use …
Due to Presence of plainclothes police at the festival area users …
Due to Paying a fine to the police (Onmiddellijke Minnelijke …
Due to Information banners/screens concerning alcohol and …
Due to Presence of police in uniform at the festival area users …
Due to a Police intervention with sniffer dogs users will use …
less illegal substances (slightly less illegal substances) no impact
(slightly more illegal substances) more illegal substances

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 23
Figure 5: Perceptions of drug-related interventions at festivals regarding substance use-related risks
2.2.4 CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we focused on the results concerning substance use and the perception of drug-related interventions
among festival attendees. These findings are based on the first questionnaire of the ESM-study (T1), which was
completed by 305 participants before their festival visit.
With regard to substance use at music festivals, similar patterns were found among participants of the ESM-study
when compared to the Belgian results from the ALAMA nightlife project (ALAMA, 2019), the Flemish results of the
VAD-nightlife research (Rosiers, 2019) or the results of the monitoring of substance use at festivals in Wallonia
performed by Modus Vivendi asbl (e.g., Modus Vivendi ABSL, 2020). However, most prevalence rates were (slightly)
higher among the participants of the ESM-study compared to the other nightlife studies. In other words, the ESM-
study has reached a group of festival attendees with a high prevalence rate in terms of substance use.
Perception of drug-related interventions was assessed by participants of the ESM-study who intended to use illegal
substances at their next festival visit or who were still undecided about it. Obviously, most of the participants in this
study intended to use most of the drug-related services at festivals, if they believed this to be necessary for them.
Nevertheless, only about 20% of the respondents indicated to be willing to make use of mercy or amnesty bins.
Furthermore, more than 25% of all participants indicated to be unfamiliar with the concept of an outreach harm
reduction team.
The majority of the participants believed that drug-related interventions, repressive actions included, would have
had no impact on extent of substance use. However, police intervention with sniffer dogs and police in uniform at
the festival area were believed to achieve the best result in the direction of using fewer illegal substances.
A totally different pattern was found for participants’ perceptions of drug-related interventions being able to impact
substance use-related risks. First of all, harm reduction actions were clearly believed to result in reducing substance
use-related risks. This is in strong contrast to repressive interventions, which a substantial part of the participants
perceived to (slightly) increase substance use-related risks.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Due to a Police intervention with sniffer dogs users will use …
Due to Control at the entrance or festival area by security staff …
Due to Presence of police in uniform at the festival area users …
Due to Presence of plainclothes police at the festival area users …
Due to Paying a fine to the police (Onmiddellijke Minnelijke …
Due to a Mercy bin / Amnesty bin / Drop box users will use …
Due to Festival stewards (part of the crew organization) users …
Due to Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in …
Due to a First aid service or mobile first aid team users will use …
Due to Information banners/screens concerning alcohol and …
Due to a Relax zone / area for non-medical care (e.g. bad trip …
Due to an Outreach harm reduction team users will use …
Due to a Drug infomation stand working from a harm reduction …
Due to a Free water service users will use …
Due to a Drug testing service (to test the quality of your drugs) …
in a less risky way (slightly in a less risky way) No impact (slightly in a more risky way) in a more risky way

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 24
2.3 SUBSTANCE USE (NORMS), PERCEPTIONS & IMPACT OF DRUG-RELATED INTERVENTIONS AT THE FESTIVAL
2.3.1 THE SAMPLE (N=187)
This chapter is dedicated to the findings of all participants who completed the three questionnaires (T1, T2 and T3)
which were related to the participants’ planned festival visit. In total, 187 respondents filled out all questionnaires.
In general, this sample (see Table 3) did not differ substantially with the sample of all 305 respondents (Table 1) who
completed the first questionnaire (T1).
Demographics (N=187)
N
(%)
User language
EN
2
(1,07%)
FR
41
(21,93%)
NL
144
77,01%
Gender
Male
111
(59,36%)
Female
75
(40,11%)
Other
1
(0,53%)
Age (in years)
Min – Max
18 – 55
Mean (SD)
27,80 (8,17)
Highest education
None, primary school or lower degree secondary school (year 3 finished)
7
(3,74%)
Secondary school (year 6 or 7 finished)
72
(38,50%)
Higher education (bachelor, master, doctorate)
108
(57,75%)
Current occupation10
Full-time work
85
(45,45%)
Part-time work
19
(10,16%)
Student
75
(40,11%)
Just graduated
6
(3,21%)
Neither in education, employment or training
7
(3,74%)
Table 3: Demographics of the participants who completed T1, T2 and T3
In terms of substance use, similar patterns were observed for the sample of 305 respondents and the final sample
of 187 respondents (see Table 4). Despite, small differences were seen in terms of lifetime use and past-year use.
Substance use among the group of 187 festival attendees was slightly lower for most of the substances compared
to the bigger sample. Concerning lifetime use, the biggest differences were observed for use of ketamine (-3,41%)
and ecstasy/MDMA (-2,90%), while the smallest differences were seen for use of alcohol (-0,09%) and cocaine (-
0,45%). In terms of past-year use, the most pronounced differences were found in use of cannabis (-4,60%),
ecstasy/MDMA (-3,41%), and ketamine (-3,18%). The use of the hallucinogens was almost equal in both samples.
10 Multiple answer options were possible.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 25
Lifetime use (%)
Past-year use (%)
Type of substance
N=187
N=305
Differences
N=187
N=305
Differences
Alcohol
98,93%
99,02%
-0,09%
93,58%
95,41%
-1,83%
Cannabis
87,17%
89,18%
-2,01%
65,24%
69,84%
-4,60%
Cocaine
45,45%
45,90%
-0,45%
28,88%
30,16%
-1,29%
Amphetamines / Speed
31,55%
33,11%
-1,56%
10,70%
12,13%
-1,44%
Ecstasy / MDMA
57,75%
60,66%
-2,90%
41,18%
44,59%
-3,41%
Magic mushrooms
32,62%
34,10%
-1,48%
9,09%
9,18%
-0,09%
LSD
24,60%
26,23%
-1,63%
5,35%
6,23%
-0,88%
Ketamine
31,02%
34,43%
-3,41%
15,51%
18,69%
-3,18%
Table 4: Differences in substance use between the two samples
2.3.2 SUBSTANCE USE AT THE FESTIVAL
Figure 6: Substance use of the sample of 187 festival attendees (specific percentage of festival use is indicated in the chart)
Substance use at the festival was surveyed a few days after their visit. Eight different substances were assessed by
the respondents (see Figure 6). As expected, alcohol was the most used substance (90,91%), while almost half of the
attendees (49,20%) indicating to have used cannabis at the festival. Regarding stimulants, ecstasy/MDMA was used
most often (29,95%), followed by cocaine (14,97%), while the use of speed/amphetamines (5,35%) was the lowest.
Ketamine had been used by 11,76% of the festival attendees, whereas the typical hallucinogens – magic mushrooms
(1,07%) and LSD (2,67%) – were used by only few participants. Moreover, 12 respondents (6,42%) indicated they
used at least one other drug11 during their festival visit. 2C-B and mephedrone were indicated most often used by
respectively four and three respondents, followed by GHB and poppers, which were both specified by two
respondents. In total, 117 festival attendees (62,57%) had used one or more illegal substances during their festival
visit (see Table 5).
11 In the questionnaire it was asked to indicate the most used substance at the festival if the respondent used more than 1
other substance.
90,91%
49,20%
14,97%
5,35%
29,95%
1,07% 2,67%
11,76%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Lifetime use (%) Last year use (%) Festival use (%)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 26
Number of illegal substances taken during the festival
N
%
%
0 illegal substances
70
37,43%
37,43%
1 illegal substance
58
31,02%
62,57%
2 illegal substances
29
15,51%
3 illegal substances
22
11,76%
4 illegal substances
7
3,74%
5 illegal substances
1
0,53%
TOTAL
187
100,00%
100,00%
Table 5: Number of illegal substances taken during the participants' festival visit
Before the festival visit, the participants were asked whether they intended to use illegal substances at their next
festival visit. The focus was put on the respondents who (slightly) agreed or neither agreed nor disagreed with at
least one of the three items measuring intentional use of illegal substances at the festival. By consequence, the other
respondents were categorized as having no intention to use illegal substances at their next festival visit. In total, 120
respondents (64,17%) intended to use illegal substances at their next visit or were still undecided about it. In Table
6, these findings are compared with the actual use of illegal substances at the festival. 105 respondents (87,50%)
who intended to use illegal substances or were still undecided were shown to have used illegal substances at the
festival. From a different point of view, 105 participants (89,74%) of those who used illegal substances at the festival,
intended to use illegal substances at the festival or were still undecided about it before their festival visit took place.
Intention of illegal drug use at the next festival visit
Use of illegal substances
during the festival (n)
No
Yes
TOTAL
No intentional use of illegal drugs at the next festival visit
55
12
67
Intentional use of illegal drugs at the next festival visit (or still undecided)
15
105
120
TOTAL
70
117
187
Table 6: Comparison between intentional use versus actual use of illegal substances at the festival
2.3.3 SUBSTANCE-USE NORMS
During the festival visit, participants of the ESM-study were asked to fill out a short questionnaire (T2) on their
friends’ substance use, as well as substance use norms at the festival, in terms of the omnipresence of illegal
substance use and availability of illegal substances at the festival.
Concerning the first item, most of the participants had friends who used substances at the festival. However,
differences were observed between use of alcohol, cannabis, and other drugs. More than half of the festival
attendees indicated that all of their friends were using alcohol during the festival, while only a small part of the
respondents specifies that for cannabis or other drugs (see Table 7).
How many of your friends are using … during the festival?
alcohol
cannabis
other drugs
None
2,14%
18,72%
37,97%
Some
6,42%
34,76%
29,95%
About half
3,74%
16,58%
8,02%
Most
32,09%
21,39%
17,11%
All
55,61%
8,56%
6,95%
Table 7: Substance use of friends at the festival

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 27
Further, Figure 7 clearly shows that a substantial part of the respondents perceived an overall use of cannabis or
other drugs during their festival visit, especially with regard to cannabis, as more than three-quarters of the festival
attendees (slightly or fully) agreed that cannabis use was omnipresent. Overall, although to a lesser extent, they
were also convinced of the omnipresence of other drugs.
Figure 7: The omnipresence of substance use at the festival
Lastly, more than one third (34,68%) of the festival attendees reported to be able to easily obtain cannabis or other
illegal drugs at the festival (see Table 8). From a different point of view, the availability of cannabis or other illegal
drugs at the festival seemed not really a problem for more than two thirds (67,63%) of the respondents who (slightly)
agreed to be able to easily obtain these substances.
It is easy for me to obtain cannabis or other drugs (except for alcohol or tobacco) at the festival
N
%
Valid %
Disagree
9
4,81%
5,20%
Slightly disagree
22
11,76%
12,72%
Neither agree or disagree
25
13,37%
14,45%
Slightly agree
57
30,48%
32,95%
Agree
60
32,09%
34,68%
Sub total
173
92,51%
100,00%
Missing values
14
7,49%
TOTAL
187
100,00%
Table 8: Perceptions about the availability of cannabis or other drugs (except for alcohol or tobacco) at the festival
2.3.4 DRUG-RELATED INTERVENTIONS AT THE FESTIVAL
In total, 15 potentially present drug-related interventions at music festivals were assessed. In the questionnaire
completed after their festival visit (T3), participants were in the first place asked whether they had noticed one or
more of these interventions during their festival visit (see Table 9). Clearly, most respondents had noticed first aid
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Disagree Slightly disagree Neighter agree
or disagree
Slightly agree Agree
The use of ... is omnipresent at the festival
Cannabis Other drugs (except for alcohol or tobacco)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 28
services or mobile first aid teams (92,51%), followed by festival stewards (81,28%), and control at the entrance or
festival by security staff (75,40%). More than half of the participants detected the following interventions:
information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in force at the festival (55,08%) and free water services (53,48%).
The 10 other drug-related actions were noticed by less than half of the respondents.
In terms of police interventions, the presence of police in uniform was spotted most often (47,06%), followed by
police intervention with sniffer dogs (30,48%), and plainclothes police (22,99%). Paying a fine to the police (12,83%)
was least often discerned by the participants. As good as one third (33,16%) of those being unsure about noticing an
intervention referred to the presence of plainclothes police at the festival area. Obviously, this finding is rather
unsurprising, since it is the purpose and specific task of plainclothes police to discreetly intervene.
Regarding harm reduction actions at the festival, information stands were noticed most often (35,29%), followed by
outreach harm reduction teams (23,53%), and relax zones/areas for non-medical care (22,46%). Drug testing services
were noticed the least often (5,88%).
Number of festival attendees who noticed a drug related intervention at the festival (N=187)
Yes
No
Unsure
N
(%)
N
(%)
N
(%)
First aid service or mobile first aid team
173
(92,51%)
5
(2,67%)
9
(4,81%)
Festival stewards (part of the crew organization)
152
(81,28%)
17
(9,09%)
18
(9,63%)
Control at the entrance or festival area by security
staff
141
(75,40%)
37
(19,79%)
9
(4,81%)
Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy
in force at the festival
103
(55,08%)
66
(35,29%)
18
(9,63%)
Free water service
100
(53,48%)
70
(37,43%)
17
(9,09%)
Presence of police in uniform at the festival area
88
(47,06%)
84
(44,92%)
15
(8,02%)
Information banners/screens concerning alcohol
and other drugs
78
(41,71%)
89
(47,59%)
20
(10,70%)
Drug information stand working from a harm
reduction principle
66
(35,29%)
95
(50,80%)
26
(13,90%)
Police intervention with sniffer dogs
57
(30,48%)
114
(60,96%)
16
(8,56%)
Outreach harm reduction team
44
(23,53%)
109
(58,29%)
34
(18,18%)
Presence of plainclothes police at the festival area
43
(22,99%)
82
(43,85%)
62
(33,16%)
Relax zone/area for non-medical care (e.g., bad trip
management)
42
(22,46%)
113
(60,43%)
32
(17,11%)
Mercy bin/Amnesty bin/Drop box
34
(18,18%)
125
(66,84%)
28
(14,97%)
Paying a fine to the police (OMS)
24
(12,83%)
127
(67,91%)
36
(19,25%)
Drug testing service (to test the quality of your
drugs)
11
(5,88%)
150
(80,21%)
26
(13,90%)
Table 9: Drug-related interventions noticed by the festival attendees during their festival visit
Only the festival attendees who noticed a specific drug-related intervention during their festival visit were able to
provide more information regarding the observed intervention. These respondents were asked: “Did you get in
touch with or make use of these interventions or services at the festival you recently attended?”
An overview of how frequently drug-related actions were encountered by the sample of festival attendees is
provided in Figure 8. Additionally, the results per drug-related intervention was calculated based on the number of
respondents who noticed the particular drug-related intervention (as reported in Figure 8). Control at the entrance
or festival area by security staff was encountered most often (58,29%), followed by a free water service (43,32%).
The least often encountered interventions consisted of plainclothes police at the festival area (4,81%), paying a fine
to the police (3,74%), mercy or amnesty bins (2,14%), and drug testing services (1,60%).

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 29
Based on the number of respondents who spotted a specific drug-related intervention, free water services were
used by most of the respondents (81,00%), followed by control at the entrance or festival area by security staff
(77,30%), and information banners/screens focusing on alcohol and other drugs (57,69%). With regard to harm
reduction interventions at the festival, some made use of relax zones/areas for non-medical care (47,62%) and
information stands (46,97%). Drug testing services were used less often (27,27%). Regarding police interventions,
some of them got in touch with sniffer dogs (29,82%) and police fine settlement (29,17%). Finally, some participants
also obtained experience with a first aid service or mobile first aid team (14,44%) and mercy/amnesty bins (11,76%).
Figure 8: Proportion of festival attendees who encountered drug-related interventions during their festival visit
2.3.5 PERCEIVED IMPACT OF DRUG-RELATED INTERVENTIONS ON PERSONAL SUBSTANCE USE AND RELATED BEHAVIOR
As the ESM-study targeted experience, only participants who encountered drug-related interventions and used one
or more illegal substances during their festival visit were able to provide more information regarding the impact of
these specific drug-related interventions on their personal substance use and related behavior. As a result, the total
number of respondents who met the criteria just mentioned, was often quite low (see Table 10).
Drug-related intervention
N
Control at the entrance or festival area by security staff
68
Free water service
53
Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in force at the festival
32
Information banners/screens concerning alcohol and other drugs
31
Festival stewards
30
Information stand working from a harm reduction principle
26
First aid service or mobile first aid team
15
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Drug testing service (to test the quality of your drugs)
Mercy bin / Amnesty bin / Drop box
Paying a fine to the police (Onmiddellijke Minnelijke Schikking)
Presence of plainclothes police at the festival area
Police intervention with sniffer dogs
Outreach harm reduction team
Presence of police in uniform at the festival area
Relax zone / area for non-medical care (e.g. bad trip…
First aid service or mobile first aid team
Drug information stand working from a harm reduction…
Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in force…
Information banners/screens concerning alcohol and other…
Festival stewards (part of the crew organization)
Free water service
Control at the entrance or festival area by security staff
Did you get in touch with or make use of these interventions or
services at the festival you recently attended?
Proportion of all participants (N=187) Proportion of participants who noticed the drug related intervention

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 30
Relax zone/area for non-medical care
15
Police intervention with sniffer dogs
13
Outreach harm reduction team
12
Presence of police in uniform at the festival area
8
Presence of plainclothes police at the festival area
7
Paying a fine to the police
6
Mercy bin/Amnesty bin/Drop box
4
Drug testing service
2
Table 10: Overview of number of respondents who encountered the specific drug-related intervention at the festival and used one
or more illegal substances at the festival
For each drug-related intervention under scrutiny, six items were surveyed using a five-point Likert scale. In what
follows, the findings of each item are presented by comparing the mean scores of the items for each drug-related
action. A mean score of 3,00 implies no impact, while a lower (higher) mean score implies a decrease (increase). A
mean score of 1,00 or 5,00 indicates the maximum impact in both directions (overall, mean scores lower than 2,50
or higher than 3,50 denote a clear impact). Although caution is needed when comparing the different drug-related
interventions due to the different sample sizes, trends can be observed when comparing mean scores per drug-
related strategy (cf. harm reduction strategies versus repressive strategies).
Seen the fact the sample sizes (n’s) for some drug-related interventions are very small (see Table 9), only the mean
scores with more than 10 participants included, were taken into consideration when testing the significance and
interpreting the findings. However, mean scores of all drug-related interventions are consultable in Tables 10 to 15.
2.3.5.1 The impact regarding illegal substance use extent
When comparing the impact of the different drug-related actions in terms of frequency of illegal substance use, the
broader picture shows that most of the drug-related interventions had no impact (see Table 11).
A police action with sniffer dogs was demonstrated to have resulted in a decrease of illegal substance use.
Nonetheless, the impact of this specific repressive intervention was quite low.
Due to …
N
Mean
SE
SD
A drug testing service …
2
2,00
1,00
1,41
A police intervention with sniffer dogs ...
13
2,69
0,21
0,75
Plainclothes police at the festival area ...
7
2,71
0,29
0,76
Police in uniform at the festival area ...
8
2,75
0,16
0,46
Festival stewards ...
30
2,87
0,08
0,43
Control at the entrance or festival area by security staff
...
68
2,91
0,07
0,54
An information stand working from a harm reduction
principle ...
26
2,92
0,08
0,39
Information banners/screens at the festival concerning
alcohol and other drugs ...
31
2,94*
0,06
0,36
A mercy bin/amnesty bin/drop box at the festival ...
4
3,00
0,00
0,00
Paying a fine to the police at the festival ...
6
3,00
0,00
0,00
Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in
force at the festival ...
32
3,00
0,06
0,36

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 31
An outreach harm reduction team ...
12
3,00
0,00
0,00
A free water service ...
53
3,04***
0,05
0,34
A first aid service or mobile first aid team …
15
3,07***
0,07
0,26
A relax zone/area for non-medical care …
15
3,07***
0,07
0,26
Mean score of 1,00-2,50 = less use of illegal substances
Mean score of 2,50-2,90 = slightly less use of illegal substances
Mean score of 2,90-3,10 = (almost) no impact
Mean score of 3,10-3,50 = slightly more use of illegal substances
Mean score of 3,50-5,00 = more use of illegal substances
*p < .05 / **p < .01 / ***p < .001 (based on Z of Skewness)
Table 11: The impact of the drug-related interventions at the festival regarding illegal substance use extent
2.3.5.2 The impact in terms of substance use-related risks
A different picture is painted when comparing the perceived impact of the different drug-related interventions at
festivals in terms of substance use-related risks (see Table 12). In general, harm reduction actions at festivals were
perceived as leading to a less risky use, in particular harm reduction information stands, outreach harm reduction
teams, and free water services. In other words, the majority of the participants who used illegal substances at the
festival and who encountered a specific harm reduction service at the festival, used in a (slightly) less risky way due
to these particular harm reduction actions. Adverse effects were observed when encountering repressive
interventions. Apparently, these drug-related actions resulted (slightly) in a riskier use among a substantial part of
the respondents who used illegal substances and encountered these interventions.
Due to …
N
Mean
SE
SD
A drug testing service ...
2
2,00
1,00
1,41
An information stand working from a harm reduction
principle ...
26
2,08
0,20
1,02
An outreach harm reduction team ...
12
2,08
0,23
0,79
A free water service ...
53
2,11
0,13
0,93
A relax zone/area for non-medical care ...
15
2,60*
0,16
0,63
A first aid service or mobile first aid team ...
15
2,67
0,23
0,90
Information banners/screens at the festival concerning
alcohol and other drugs ...
31
2,77*
0,11
0,62
Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in
force at the festival ...
32
2,81***
0,09
0,54
A mercy bin/amnesty bin/drop box ...
4
3,00
0,82
1,63
Festival stewards ...
30
3,17
0,17
0,91
Paying a fine to the police at the festival ...
6
3,17
0,17
0,41
Control at the entrance or festival area by security staff
...
68
3,28
0,09
0,77
A police intervention with sniffer dogs ...
13
3,38
0,24
0,87
Plainclothes police at the festival area ...
7
3,71
0,36
0,95
Police in uniform at the festival area ...
8
4,00
0,38
1,07

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 32
Mean score of 1,00-2,50 = less risky use
Mean score of 2,50-2,90 = slightly less risky use
Mean score of 2,90-3,10 = (almost) no impact
Mean score of 3,10-3,50 = slightly riskier use
Mean score of 3,50-5,00 = riskier use
*p < .05 / **p < .01 / ***p < .001 (based on Z of Skewness)
Table 12: The impact of the drug-related interventions at the festival in terms of substance use-related risks
2.3.5.3 The impact in terms of purchasing from unknown dealers at the festival
The impact of drug-related interventions on purchasing from unknown dealers at festivals was somewhat less
pronounced (see Table 13). Information stands working from a harm reduction principle (e.g., a peer support info
stand from Safe ‘n Sound) were indicated to result in fewer purchases from unknown dealers at the festival, while
free water services were shown not to impact this measure at all.
Due to …
N
Mean
SE
SD
An information stand working from a harm reduction
principle ...
26
2,38
0,18
0,90
An outreach harm reduction team …
12
2,58
0,26
0,90
A relax zone / area for non-medical care ...
15
2,73*
0,21
0,80
Control at the entrance or festival area by security staff
...
68
2,75
0,14
1,18
Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in
force at the festival ...
32
2,75
0,16
0,88
Information banners/screens at the festival concerning
alcohol and other drugs ...
31
2,77***
0,10
0,56
A police intervention with sniffer dogs ...
13
2,85
0,34
1,21
Festival stewards ...
30
2,87
0,16
0,86
A free water service ...
53
2,91***
0,08
0,56
A drug testing service ...
2
3,00
0,00
0,00
Police in uniform at the festival area ...
8
3,00
0,42
1,20
A mercy bin/amnesty bin/drop box ...
4
3,25*
0,25
0,50
Plainclothes police at the festival area ...
7
3,29
0,47
1,25
A first aid service or mobile first aid team ...
15
3,33**
0,16
0,62
Paying a fine to the police at the festival...
6
3,50
0,34
0,84
Mean score of 1,00-2,50 = buying less illegal substances from an unknown dealer at the festival
Mean score of 2,50-2,90 = buying slightly less illegal substances from an unknown dealer at the festival
Mean score of 2,90-3,10 = (almost) no impact
Mean score of 3,10-3,50 = buying slightly more illegal substances from an unknown dealer at the festival
Mean score of 3,50-5,00 = buying more illegal substances from an unknown dealer at the festival
*p < .05 / **p < .01 / ***p < .001 (based on Z of Skewness)
Table 13: The impact of the drug-related interventions at the festival in terms of purchasing from unknown dealers at the festival
2.3.5.4 The impact in terms of frequency of alcohol use
Similar to the previous section, not much impact in terms of frequency of alcohol consumption was observed (see
Table 14). In general, several drug-related interventions did not impact this measure, such as information concerning
the alcohol and drug policy in force at the festival, and relax zones/areas for non-medical care.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 33
However, some did slightly impact alcohol consumption frequency, as a number of participants indicated some harm
reduction services at the festival to lead to a slightly decrease in alcohol use.
Due to …
N
Mean
SE
SD
A free water service ...
53
2,60
0,14
1,03
An information stand working from a harm reduction
principle ...
26
2,62
0,17
0,85
An outreach harm reduction team ...
12
2,67**
0,19
0,65
Information banners/screens at the festival concerning
alcohol and other drugs ...
31
2,90
0,13
0,70
A relax zone/area for non-medical care ...
15
2,93
0,21
0,80
Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in
force at the festival ...
32
2,97
0,11
0,65
A mercy bin/amnesty bin/drop box ...
4
3,00
0,00
0,00
Paying a fine to the police at the festival ...
6
3,00
0,00
0,00
Control at the entrance or festival area by security staff
...
68
3,16***
0,09
0,75
A first aid service or mobile first aid team ...
15
3,20
0,26
1,01
Festival stewards ...
30
3,20***
0,11
0,61
A police intervention with sniffer dogs ...
13
3,31
0,31
1,11
Police in uniform at the festival area ...
8
3,38
0,26
0,74
Plainclothes police at the festival area ...
7
3,57
0,37
0,98
A drug testing service ...
2
4,00
1,00
1,41
Mean score of 1,00-2,50 = drinking less alcohol
Mean score of 2,50-2,90 = drinking slightly less alcohol
Mean score of 2,90-3,10 = (almost) no impact
Mean score of 3,10-3,50 = drinking slightly more alcohol
Mean score of 3,50-5,00 = drinking more alcohol
*p < .05 / **p < .01 / ***p < .001 (based on Z of Skewness)
Table 14: The impact of the drug-related interventions at the festival in terms of frequency of alcohol use
2.3.5.5 The impact in terms of switching to other drugs
Overall, drug-related interventions did not result in switching to other drugs, such as legal highs or designer drugs
(see Table 15). No clear impact was observed for several drug-related interventions, such as festival stewards, first
aid services or mobile first aid teams, police intervention with sniffer dogs, relax zones/areas for non-medical care.
Due to …
N
Mean
SE
SD
A drug testing service ...
2
2,00
1,00
1,41
An information stand working from a harm reduction
principle ...
26
2,58*
0,16
0,81
Police in uniform at the festival area ...
8
2,63
0,38
1,06
An outreach harm reduction team ...
12
2,75***
0,18
0,62
Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in
force at the festival ...
32
2,81***
0,11
0,64
A free water service ...
53
2,83***
0,07
0,55

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 34
Control at the entrance or festival area by security staff
...
68
2,90**
0,09
0,78
Information banners/screens at the festival concerning
alcohol and other drugs ...
31
2,90*
0,07
0,40
A relax zone/area for non-medical care ...
15
2,93***
0,15
0,59
A police intervention with sniffer dogs ...
13
3,00
0,25
0,91
A first aid service or mobile first aid team ...
15
3,00
0,22
0,85
Festival stewards ...
30
3,00
0,05
0,26
Paying a fine to the police at the festival ...
6
3,00
0,00
0,00
Plainclothes police at the festival area ...
7
3,14***
0,14
0,38
A mercy bin/amnesty bin/drop box ...
4
3,25
0,25
0,50
Mean score of 1,00-2,50 = switching less to other drugs
Mean score of 2,50-2,90 = switching slightly less to other drugs
Mean score of 2,90-3,10 = (almost) no impact
Mean score of 3,10-3,50 = switching slightly more to other drugs
Mean score of 3,50-5,00 = switching more to other drugs
*p < .05 / **p < .01 / ***p < .001 (based on Z of Skewness)
Table 15: The impact of the drug-related interventions at the festival in terms of switching to other drugs
2.3.5.6 The impact in terms of overall awareness of illegal substance use and associated risks
Almost all drug-related interventions were shown to increase the overall awareness concerning use of illegal
substances and associated risks (see Table 16), although generally with limited impact. Only information stands
working from a harm reduction principle and outreach harm reduction teams were demonstrated to clearly increase
awareness.
Due to …
N
Mean
SE
SD
A drug testing service ...
2
2,50
0,50
0,71
Paying a fine to the police at the festival ...
6
2,83
0,17
0,41
A free water service ...
53
3,11
0,09
0,64
Police in uniform at the festival area ...
8
3,13
0,40
1,13
Control at the entrance or festival area by security staff
...
68
3,19
0,08
0,70
A police intervention with sniffer dogs ...
13
3,23
0,32
1,17
A first aid service or mobile first aid team ...
15
3,27
0,25
0,96
Festival stewards ...
30
3,27***
0,13
0,69
A relax zone/area for non-medical care ...
15
3,27*
0,12
0,46
Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in
force at the festival ...
32
3,31
0,12
0,69
Plainclothes police at the festival area ...
7
3,43
0,43
1,13
Information banners/screens at the festival concerning
alcohol and other drugs ...
31
3,45
0,15
0,85
A mercy bin/amnesty bin/drop box ...
4
3,50
0,29
0,58
An outreach harm reduction team ...
12
3,83
0,21
0,72
An information stand working from a harm reduction
principle ...
26
3,88
0,19
0,99

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 35
Mean score of 1,00-2,50 = being less aware of the use of illegal substances and associated risks
Mean score of 2,50-2,90 = being slightly less aware of the use of illegal substances and associated risks
Mean score of 2,90-3,10 = (almost) no impact
Mean score of 3,10-3,50 = being slightly more aware of the use of illegal substances and associated risks
Mean score of 3,50-5,00 = being more aware of the use of illegal substances and associated risks
*p < .05 / **p < .01 / ***p < .001 (based on Z of Skewness)
Table 16: The impact of the drug-related interventions at the festival in terms of overall awareness of illegal substance use and
associated risks
2.3.6 PERCEPTIONS CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF DRUG-RELATED INTERVENTIONS: BEFORE AND AFTER THE FESTIVAL VISIT
A substantial part of the participants was surveyed before and after their festival visit regarding their perception
about drug-related interventions at festivals. These results have been described more comprehensively before (see
section 2.2.3.2). Here, we only report on the perceptions of the festival attendees who completed the first
questionnaire (T1) and who had the intention to use illegal substances during the festival or who were still undecided
about it (N=208). Similar as in the pretest, perceptions on the impact of drug-related interventions were assessed
on two different items, using a five-point Likert scale. The first item focused on the perceived impact of illegal
substance use frequency, whereas the second item targeted the perceived impact in terms of substance use-related
risks.
In this chapter, only participants who encountered the specific drug-related interventions at the festival are included.
Moreover, their perceptions before the festival visit (pretest) are compared to those after their festival visit. Similar
as in the previous chapter (see 2.3.5), the impact is measured by calculating the mean scores, with a mean score of
3 implying no impact.
Important to keep in mind when interpreting the results is that often (very) small numbers of respondents (n’s) were
surveyed (see e.g., Table 17 and 18), since they 1) had to have encountered one or more specific drug-related
interventions at the festival, and 2) had to have indicated in the first questionnaire (T1) to have the intention to use
illegal substances during their festival visit, or to be undecided about it. Consequently, only groups were compared
if the number of participants was more than 10. However, mean scores of all drug-related interventions are
consultable in the Tables 16 and 17.
2.3.6.1 Perceived impact in terms of illegal substance use frequency
When compared to their convictions assessed in the pretest, after encountering drug-related interventions,
respondents’ perception regarding impact of specific drug-related interventions on frequency of use changed for
most of these drug-related interventions in the direction of using fewer illegal substances (see Table 17). Especially
first aid services, or mobile first aid teams, and information stands working from a harm reduction principle were
believed to lead to decreased consumption frequencies. Moreover, overall, differences were small and not much
effect of actual experience with such interventions on respondents’ general beliefs regarding this specific item was
retrieved. Vice versa, participants’ perceptions somewhat changed in the other direction, thus leading to increases
in substance use frequency, such as for police interventions with sniffer dogs. In general, no clear changes were
observed between harm reduction initiatives or repressive actions in particular.
Mean
Difference
between the
mean scores
N
Due to …
before the
festival visit
after the
festival visit
Control at the entrance or festival area by security
staff, users will use ...
2,93
2,73
-0,19
67
A police intervention with sniffer dogs, users will use
...
2,54
2,85
0,31
13

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 36
A first aid service or mobile first aid team, users will
use ...
3,29
2,93
-0,36
14
Festival stewards, users will use ...
3,11
2,89
-0,21
28
An information stand working from a harm reduction
principle, users will use ...
3,07
2,74
-0,33*
27
A relax zone/area for non-medical care, users will use
...
3,20
3,07
-0,13
15
A drug testing service, users will use ...
3,00
3,00
0,00
2
A mercy bin/amnesty bin/drop box, users will use ...
4,00
3,00
-1,00
2
Paying a fine to the police, users will use ...
2,75
3,00
0,25
4
Plainclothes police at the festival area, users will use
…
3,17
3,00
-0,17
6
Police in uniform at the festival area, users will use ...
2,60
2,50
-0,10
10
Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy in
force at the festival, users will use ...
3,00
2,87
-0,13
30
Information banners/screens concerning alcohol and
other drugs, users will use ...
2,83
2,63
-0,20
30
An outreach harm reduction team, users will use ...
2,73
2,91
0,18
11
A free water service, users will use ...
3,06
3,02
-0,04
53
*p < .05 / **p < .01 / ***p < .001 (paired samples t-test)
Table 17: Comparing the perceived impact before and after the festival visit concerning the drug-related interventions in terms of
illegal substance use frequency
2.3.6.2 Perceived impact of drug-related interventions on substance use-related risks
Further, it was checked whether respondents’ perceptions regarding the impact of drug-related interventions on
substance use-related risks changed after encountering such interventions at the festival (see Table 18). Although
also here, overall, most differences were rather small or no differences were retrieved at all. Nevertheless, after
encountering these interventions, respondents more strongly believed that first aid services or mobile first aid
teams, information banners/screens targeting alcohol and other drugs, and information stands working from a harm
reduction principle were able to potentially reduce substance use-related risk.
Overall, both before and after encountering these interventions at the festival, participants believed repressive
actions could lead to a riskier substance use, whereas the typical harm reduction actions were considered to result
in less risky substance use.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 37
Mean
Difference
between the
mean scores
N
Due to …
before the
festival visit
after the
festival visit
Control at the entrance or festival area by security
staff, users will use ...
3,78
3,76
-0,01
67
A police intervention with sniffer dogs, users will use
...
4,00
3,77
-0,23
13
A first aid service or mobile first aid team, users will
use ...
3,07
2,64
-0,43
14
Festival stewards, users will use ...
3,14
3,25
0,11
28
An information stand working from a harm
reduction principle, users will use ...
1,78
1,52
-0,26*
27
A relax zone/area for non-medical care, users will
use ...
2,33
2,13
-0,20
15
A drug testing service, users will use ...
1,50
1,00
-0,50
2
A mercy bin/amnesty bin/drop box, users will use ...
4,00
4,00
0,00
2
Paying a fine to the police, users will use ...
3,25
3,50
0,25
4
Plainclothes police at the festival area, users will use
...
3,67
3,83
0,17
6
Police in uniform at the festival area, users will use ...
3,60
3,70
0,10
10
Information concerning the alcohol and drug policy
in force at the festival, users will use ...
2,70
2,80
0,10
30
Information banners/screens concerning alcohol and
other drugs, users will use ...
2,40
2,10
-0,30
30
An outreach harm reduction team, users will use ...
1,55
1,45
-0,09
11
A free water service, users will use ...
1,85
2,06
0,21
53
*p < .05 / **p < .01 / ***p < .001 (paired samples t-test)
Table 18: Comparing the perceptions before and after the festival visit concerning the drug-related interventions in terms of
substance use-related risks

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 38
2.3.7 CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we presented the results of a subset of the ESM-study, focusing on respondents who completed the
questionnaire before, during, as well as after the festival visit (N=187). Regarding demographics, the sample did not
differ substantially from those who only completed the first questionnaire (N=305) (discussed in the previous
chapter 2.2). This sample demonstrated a high prevalence rate of illegal substance use. Moreover, almost two third
of the participants used one or more illegal substances during their festival visit. In terms of substance use norms,
drug use was perceived as (omni)present during the festival visit. Especially prevalence of alcohol was high, while
also cannabis proved to be rather popular.
With regard to drug-related interventions, differences in the proportion of participants who noticed or obtained
experience with specific interventions were observed. Most often encountered interventions consisted of control of
security staff and free water services, while the least interaction occurred with mercy/amnesty bins and drug testing
services. The perceived impact of drug-related interventions after encountering specific drug-related interventions
during the festival visit was also assessed by the participants. In general, the findings did not differ substantially from
the sample of respondents who were assessed before their festival visit. In general, no clear changes were observed
for most of the drug-related interventions in terms of frequency of illegal drug use. However, the findings remain
very clearly that the perceived impact of harm reduction initiatives was situated in the direction of using in a less
risky way, whereas the opposite effect was found for repressive actions at festivals.
Next to the perceptions of drug-related interventions, the festival attendees assessed the impact of these
interventions on their personal substance use and related behavior. Only respondents who used one or more illegal
substances at the festival were targeted. Overall, only limited effects of drug-related interventions on the frequency
of illegal substance use, purchasing from unknown dealers at the festival, alcohol consumption, and switching to
other drugs were observed. Moreover, participants believed that most harm reduction services would result in less
risky use, in contrast to repressive measures which they thought to lead to riskier use. In accordance with these
findings, some harm reduction initiatives were believed to increase overall awareness of illegal substance use and
associated risks.
2.4 ON-THE-SPOT OBSERVATIONS
In addition, on-the-spot observations of drug-related interventions at music festivals were conducted. Through these
observations, it could be verified whether certain drug-related actions were actually present at the attended music
festivals in Belgium. During the recruitment phase of the ESM-study (T0), 491 respondents indicated to visit a festival,
which resulted in a list of 66 different music festivals in Belgium. On-the-spot observations were narrowed to those
festivals where at least three respondents had planned to go to, resulting in a list of 26 music festivals. Consequently,
in order to monitor the different drug-related actions on the spot, these music festivals were attended by
researchers of the POPHARS-project (or members of a partner organization) using a checklist of the same 15 drug-
related interventions as used in the ESM-study. In case the observers were unable to check certain interventions’
presence, the festival organizer (or another stakeholder) was contacted during or after the festival to provide the
missing information.
The presence of drug-related interventions at the 26 music festivals under study varied strongly (see Table 19).
Whereas drug testing services or relax zones/areas for non-medical care were hardly present, first aid services or
mobile first aid teams were available at almost all the music festivals. Furthermore, repressive actions were clearly
implemented more often than harm reduction initiatives.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 39
Presence of drug related actions at music festivals
N
%
First aid service or mobile first aid team (e.g., Red Cross)
25
(96,15%)
Control at the entrance or festival area by security staff
22
(84,62%)
Festival stewards
21
(80,77%)
Paying a fine to the police (OMS)
20
(76,92%)
Police in plainclothes at the festival area
18
(69,23%)
Police in uniform at the festival area
16
(61,54%)
Information concerning alcohol and drug policy in force at the festival
16
(61,54%)
Police intervention with sniffer dogs
15
(57,69%)
Information stand working from a harm reduction principle
13
(50,00%)
Free water service
13
(50,00%)
Information banners/screens concerning alcohol and other drugs
9
(34,62%)
Outreach harm reduction team
9
(34,62%)
Mercy bin/Amnesty bin/Drop box
5
(19,23%)
Relax Zone/Area for non-medical care (e.g., bad trip management)
2
(7,69%)
Drug testing service
1
(3,85%)
Table 19: Overview of drug-related interventions at 26 music festivals in Belgium

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 40
3. QUALITATIVE STUDY: INTERVIEWS WITH FESTIVAL ATTENDEES
3.1 THE OBJECTIVE & RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The interviews with festival attendees were implemented to better understand the perceived drug consumption
norms at music festivals and attendees’ perceptions of drug related strategies (prevention, harm reduction, care,
and law enforcement) present at the attended festival. In-depth interviews are perfectly suited to examine taboo
topics (e.g., illicit substance use) or to describe specific, everyday conditions.
This results in following research questions:
• RQ1: How do festival attendees perceive substance use (norms) present at music festivals?
• RQ2a: How do festival attendees perceive the implemented drug-related interventions (prevention, harm
reduction, health care, law enforcement) at music festivals?
• RQ2b: How do festival attendees perceive the possible impact of these interventions on their personal use
of substances and related behavior?
3.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS & RECRUITMENT OF THE PARTICI PANTS
The interviews build further on the data originating from the ESM-study. During the interviews, we focused on
perceptions and experiences of participants and respondents’ reflections on these perceptions and experiences.
Moreover, the purpose was to understand why festival attendees and/or PWUD provided these specific answers
(referring to the results concerning the drug-related interventions and personal substance use behavior of the ESM-
study).
3.2.1 RECRUITMENT OF THE FESTIVAL ATTENDEES
At the end of the last questionnaire (T3) of the ESM-study (see section 2.1), respondents were invited for an optional
follow-up interview. In total, 101 festival attendees (84 Dutch speaking respondents, 16 French speaking
respondents, and one English speaking respondent) expressed their willingness to participate. Potential interviewees
received an e-mail with extra information concerning the semi-structured interviews and an invite to partake in this
part of the study. After confirming, a contact moment was settled to conduct the interview. Purposive sampling12
was employed in order to obtain a balance in terms of gender and age, and to reach enough festival attendees who
had experience with illegal substance use. As an incentive, all participants received a Bol.com voucher of €20.
Since only a small number of French speaking respondents was reached using the above-described procedure, an
extra online call was set up by Modus Vivendi. The same selection criteria were used as in the ESM-study. However,
priority was given to respondents who were unfamiliar with Modus Fiesta and the harm reduction approach in
general. This was done in order to prevent an overrepresentation of festival attendees favorable to harm reduction
in the sample. In order to avoid inclusion of mainly festivals where Modus Vivendi and harm reduction initiatives are
well established, a wide variety of attended music festivals was included.
In total, 40 festival attendees were interviewed. The sample consisted of 20 Dutch speaking and 20 French speaking
participants. The total sample (Table 20) consisted of 22 male (55,00%) and 18 female respondents (45,00%). The
age of the participants ranged between 19 and 50 years old (M=27,38 years). Most participants (81,58%) had
experience with illegal substance use. Moreover, more than two-thirds of the respondents expressed to have used
at least one illegal substance during their festival visit.
12 Purposive sampling is commonly used in qualitative research and aims to cover a range of potentially relevant
social phenomena and perspectives from an appropriate array of data sources (Giacomini & Cook, 2000).

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 41
Characteristics
Dutch speaking
sample
(n=20)
French speaking
sample
(n=20)
Total sample
Age
average
27,90 years
26,85 years
27,38 years
min - max
21 – 50 years
19 – 40 years
19 – 50 years
Gender
male
11 (55,00%)
11 (55,00%)
22 (55,00%)
female
9 (45,00%)
9 (45,00%)
18 (45,00%)
Substance use
(lifetime)
alcohol
20 (100,00%)
13 (92,86%)
33 (97,06%)
cannabis
18 (90,00%)
12 (70,59%)
30 (81,08%)
other illegal drug(s)
16 (80,00%)
15 (83,33%)
31 (81,58%)
Substance use
(at the festival)
intentional use of
illegal drugs
10 (52,63%)
14 (73,68%)
24 (63,16%)
illegal drug use
13 (68,42%)
14 (73,68%)
27 (71,05%)
Table 20: Characteristics of Dutch speaking and French speaking interviewees
3.2.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
The semi-structured interviews were set up using an interview guideline. Key questions and sub questions were
distinguished; key questions were necessary queries, while sub questions were optional ones that could help the
interviewer to clarify certain items of the interview.
The interview guidelines were divided in two main parts: substance use (norms-), which is linked to the first research
question, and drug-related interventions at music festivals, which is the operationalization of research questions 2a
and 2b). In the first part, the perceptions and attitudes regarding substance use in general and substance use norms
at festivals are being discussed, next to participants’ personal substance use and social setting. The second part deals
with perceptions and experiences regarding drug-related interventions at music festivals, more specifically relating
to prevention, harm reduction, health care, and repressive actions (see attachment A for the detailed interview
guideline).
Interviews in Dutch were executed online in the period April - May 2020 with the assistance of Louise Gousseau,
Master student Science in Health Promotion, in the context of her master thesis: ‘Drugs op festivals: preventive,
harm reduction, zorg en wetgeving door de lens van de festivalbezoeker’. For this purpose, Microsoft Teams was
used, which enables the possibility to set up a video conference (audio as well as video functions were used to
conduct the interviews). Audio recordings were made using a separate audio recorder, to ensure audio quality.
Interviews with the French speaking respondents were conducted online as well, from November - December 2020.
Discussing the topic of illegal substance use is considered as a sensitive practice, for which face-to-face interviews
are generally preferred over online interviews. However, seen the restrictions concerning the COVID-19 pandemic,
the research team had no other option than to conduct the interviews online. Nevertheless, the researchers who
conducted the online interviews perceived no restraints by the participants. On the contrary, participants seemed
to find their way rather easily to the online platform. Moreover, in literature, ethical issues for face-to-face and
online interviews are considered as highly similar (Janghorban et al., 2014). Applied to the POPHARS-research, the
interviewer obtained informed consent by sending an online form to the interviewee just before the start of the
interview. Only after consent was provided, the interview started. The recording allowed the interviewer to fully
focus on the conversation during the interview (Hagen, 1998), and afterwards, all recordings were transcribed
verbatim.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 42
3.3 RESULTS OF THE DUTCH SPEAKING FESTIVAL ATTENDEES
3.3.1 PERCEPTIONS ABOUT SUBSTANCE USE (NORMS)
3.3.1.1 Perceptions about personal substance use
All Dutch-speaking participants had experience with the use of alcohol. In addition, most of these participants (n=18)
also had experience with illegal substance use. In most of the cases, substance use was linked to festivals and
nightlife in general. Only in a few cases, respondents linked their use specifically to other settings, such as domestic
ones, which were generally linked to the use of psychedelics or cannabis. The majority of the respondents (n=14)
had experience with combi use13, although some festival attendees (n=5) explicitly indicated to (try to) avoid it as
much as possible or to take precautions when using different substances the same day (or night). Some participants
(n=5) explicitly reported to drink less alcohol, or no alcohol at all, when using other (illegal) substances. Most
respondents with combi use experience referred to combinations of alcohol and illegal substances (n=10), while
others mentioned combinations of cannabis and other illegal drugs (n=6). In terms of usage frequency, some
participants (n=6) referred to regular use of alcohol or cannabis (on a daily or weekly base), whereas other illegal
substances, especially MDMA/ecstasy, were generally used only monthly or less.
Almost all respondents (n=17) perceived their own substance use as (rather) safe. Several of them (n=7) nuanced
that the use of illicit drugs is never totally safe, since they are never completely sure whether their substances are
uncontaminated, not too highly dosed, etc. However, on numerous occasions, festival attendees mentioned
practices enabling (fairly) responsible ways to consume.
“If I use ecstasy at a festival, for example, I make sure that I never take too much. Uh, that I drink enough
water, so I can cool down. I am aware of the risks and also how I can reduce risks, let us say. […] Yes, but of
course it is never 100% risk free, which I am aware of.” (citation 1, respondent NL-18, male, 24 years)
In what follows, the most cited practices are listed. Obtaining information about substance use (n=14) was reported
most frequently. Many respondents stressed the importance of information and knowledge prior to using, especially
when using the substance for the first time. In this context, some of these festival attendees (n=4) emphasized the
importance of reliable and scientifically sound information. Moreover, some respondents (n=4) appointed very
specific sources of information, such as PsychonautWiki, where information about recommended dosage or about
which combinations of substances to avoid is being offered. Furthermore, some participants (n=3) referred to their
friends as a source of information, particularly in the context of their friends’ personal experience of PWUD.
“I am quite rational and I looked up all I had to do beforehand. Uh, what kind of effects it could have, what
uh, what could I do to make it… if it got too bad, so I… Well, also obtaining enough advice from people who
have done that before. Never take too much. Always like, uh, taking quarters instead of suddenly a half [pill]
or something like that, so… I, um… I consider myself as a safe user or something like that [laughs].” (citation
2, respondent NL-16, female, 24 years)
Secondly, many festival attendees (n=10) stressed the importance of ‘knowing your limits’. Some respondents (n=4)
specified this as ‘knowing your dose, thus emphasizing the importance of substance use dosing (e.g., weighing the
specific dose in advance). In this sense, some participants (n=5) reported to take a minimal dose in order to avoid
problems afterwards. Not uncommonly, the insight ‘knowing your limits’ was often picked up after unpleasant
experiences in the past (n=4).
“Uh, and actually always in a relatively moderate way. Not too much huh. Uh, little by little. Uh, a pill.
Nowadays, a pill, uh, of ecstasy, I divide it into eight pieces. Uh, I take each time one… eighth every two
hours and by the end of the night I may have taken a third of a pill so… It's not that bad. It's also because I
13 Using two or more substances (alcohol and/or illegal drugs) at the same time.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 43
had a few times… it's enough to exaggerate a few times and to feel how hard that, uh, the comedown is.”
(citation 3, respondent NL-15, male, 36 years)
Thirdly, the following practices considered substance use preparation. Some of the festival attendees (n=5) specified
they always wanted to buy their substances in advance, while other participants (n=3) indicated to avoid buying
from unknown dealers at festivals (thus to only buy from people they trust and/or known dealers).
“I always bring my own things with me. I would only sporadically buy something at a festival or in the
nightlife, but only rarely to never. Uh, once I had a bad experience with it. So since then, uh yes, I always
take my own stuff with me. That's the safest. […] And yes, in the end not really... I haven't had yet a bad
experience with it. You also don't know 100% what's in it, ... but I do think that the quality from where I get
it, is a lot higher than the average quality at festivals [when a drug is bought at a festival]." (citation 4,
respondent NL-19, male, 22 years)
Fourthly, the role of friends was described. Some participants (n=4) referred to the ability to openly communicate
with friends regarding their substance use as crucial. Others (n=4) acknowledged the relevance of using together
with (experienced) friends or being accompanied by friends who are not under influence. Furthermore, a few
respondents (n=2) stressed the importance of taking care of your friends.
“It is difficult to define what a safe situation is, of course. But uh, people around me. There are always
several people who are aware of what I consume and how much I approximately do consume, there is always
at least one person who is aware of it, uh, who may also use much less or even not at all. But that (s)he could
have a little more control if the situation would go wrong.” (citation 5, respondent NL-13, male, 27 years)
3.3.1.2 Attitude towards substance use in general
The distinction between legal and illegal substances was not perceived as a key element by most of the participants
(n=14). On the contrary, several festival attendees (n=7) stressed that especially alcohol (potentially) creates
problems and risks. In particular respondents experienced with illegal substance use were more skeptical towards
alcohol. Most of these participants (n=5), however, stressed the highlighted related health aspect, more in particular
in the sense of the effects and harms particular substances could generate, or to what extent they could harm third
parties. In addition, two respondents discussed the relevance of the extent to which substances are being used, as
well as the exact circumstances they are being used in.
“I used to draw a clear line between that matter. Uh, that illegal substances, I was absolutely against them.
But uh, yes, because I also think that alcohol is also a fairly heavy thing, I have that, is that [border between
legal and illegal] actually a little less important… Because, yes, how you deal with it all depends on the
situation. Anyway. For example, it may be that you use something illegal, but that you handle it more
responsibly than, for example, alcohol consumption. So, it's kind of the total picture." (citation 6, respondent
NL-06, female, 23 years)
Furthermore, some gave special attention to the use of cannabis (n=5), stating to regard it as less harmful than other
illegal, as well as legal, substances.
“So, and alcohol is legal and… It doesn't matter to me, no. That's actually not a limit for me. For me the limit
is rather what I think about it myself and […] on what I have experienced by myself. […] Then I will judge
about it. But if I read something somewhere because the government says ‘Yes, weed is bad, alcohol is
allowed’, for me it's the other way around.” (citation 7, respondent NL-17, female, 27 years)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 44
3.3.1.3 Substance use norms at music festivals: the perceived omnipresence of substance use
Several respondents (n=6) indicated legal and illegal substances to be omnipresent at music festivals. Overall, they
experienced substance use as a part of the festival setting. However, perceptions with regard to the presence of
illegal substances among the whole sample of respondents depended on different aspects. Firstly, cannabis use was
perceived differently than consumption of other illegal substances. Some participants (n=6) mainly detected
cannabis use at festivals, and a few of them related this experience to the camp site. In this context, some
respondents added that cannabis use is more detectable (referring to the smell) and visible in contrast to other
illegal substances.
“Let's just say after being 18 years old, I have noticed that cannabis is uh… very uh… more frequently present
among uh a much wider audience, yes.” (citation 8, respondent NL-10, male, 37 years)
Secondly, the use of illegal substances was often linked to particular music festivals. Some festival attendees
perceived an omnipresence of so-called ‘hard drugs’ at certain music festivals. On the one hand, some (n=3) referred
to an overall open attitude towards these specific types of drugs at some festivals, in the sense of open
communication among festival attendees or in the light of overt substance use at the festival. On the other hand,
some respondents (n=3) linked illegal substance use – referring to stimulants such as ecstasy – with the electronic
dance music scene in particular. Nevertheless, it was also mentioned that illegal substances are mostly used in a
rather covert way at the festival area (n=3), due to the control of police or security staff.
“[…] my first real festival was when I was 16 [years] and, uh, I went to [NAME FESTIVAL] with a buddy of
mine who was a bit of a hippie. […] But then at night on that [electronic dance music stage] I looked around,
I remember that moment very well. And really everyone around me was using something. Someone was
cutting a line on the screen of his mobile phone, someone was, uh, taking a pill, someone was… Yes, that
night… […] For me, that was a moment like: Okay so that's how it works [laughs].” (citation 9, respondent
NL-12, male, 21 years)
“What's really striking at techno festivals is that everyone knows about each other. Uh, I notice that a lot.
People who just ask: Do you have anything? Do you have any [ecstasy] pills? Are you selling anything? Uh,
or asking for chewing gum or something like that [jaw-skating due to the use of stimulants]. Uh, and the
amount of water that is being consumed. Well, you notice that everyone there knows what's going on. And
that there is actually a very open mutual communication about it. […] And that is a lot more at the techno
festivals or the electronic music festivals than at other festivals. I don't notice that as such at other festivals.”
(citation 10, respondent NL-20, male, 24 years)
Furthermore, several festival attendees (n=5) explicitly mentioned an omnipresence of alcohol by referring, for
example, to the social acceptance of alcohol use at music festivals and beyond.
“Gho yeah, I think a festival […] I think you almost don't see anyone walking around there without a beer.
[…] That really has been normalized.” (citation 11, respondent NL-09, female, 25 years)
3.3.2 PERCEPTION, EXPERIENCE AND IMPACT OF (HEALTH)CARE SERVICES AT MUSIC FESTIVALS
3.3.2.1 Perceptions about first aid services at festivals
In general, respondents perceived first aid services at festivals in a positive way. Many of these festival attendees
(n=9) noted the relevance of first aid service presence to accommodate feelings of safety.
Nevertheless, several participants (n=6) experienced some retainment to use first aid services when experiencing
drug-related problems. They expressed to prefer to try to fix their problems themselves or ask their friends for help.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 45
Eventually, several respondents (n=8) pronounced to intentionally turn to first aid services in case of emergency or
if their friends would insist.
Respondents also perceived specific barriers such as fear of legal consequences, fear of judgment among the medical
staff, and feelings of shame. The fear of legal consequences is rather remarkable seen the fact that medical staff and
first aid workers maintain medical confidentiality. Notwithstanding, even though some participants (n=3) explicitly
referred to doctor-patient confidentiality, several participants (n=7) did mention an existing belief among festival
attendees that police would interfere and/or attendees would be removed from the festival area.
“I will go to the first aid service with someone under the influence of alcohol much faster than under the
influence of an illegal substance. Because it's much more, yes, accepted, or less wrong to say... They might
say, "Hey, you've let him get fed up" or "What has he done now?", but that will be it. Uh, nobody's going to
call the police or you're not going to get thrown off the festival site. While you are not sure about it, uh, with
other substances." (citation 12, respondent NL-20, male, 24 years)
A few respondents (n=2) mentioned that, according to them, medical staff or first aid workers lack knowledge and/or
skills to treat specific mental problems potentially caused by substance use, in particular referring to a bad trip.
3.3.2.2 Experiences with first aid services at festivals
Several festival attendees (n=6) perceived first aid services as visible. Some respondents (n=5) noticed mobile first
aid teams at the festival, actively scouting for individuals in need. However, one participant explicitly mentioned that
this type of intervention is missing in the nightlife context.
Only a few respondents (n=2) had obtained personal experience with first aid services at music festivals due to
substance related problems. Additionally, several other experiences (n=7) were mentioned in the context of
accompanying friends or other festival attendees to the first aid service. About half of the experiences were related
to alcohol (n=4), while other (n=5) were related to other drugs or a combination of alcohol and other drugs. Overall,
the experiences with first aid services in the light of alcohol-related problems were perceived in a positive way. The
festival attendees described the provided help as friendly and non-judgmental.
“That was, yes, happened to be one of our neighbors and she really couldn't stand on her feet anymore and
then we took her there [at the first aid service] and those people were… Well, at first, I thought like, yes,
they may look at her a bit crooked because, yes, she was really drunk... But they were really super sweet and
they just asked for information and they said: We'll keep you posted and they were, yes, not pretty ordinary,
they took it seriously… But you didn't feel judged or anything.” (citation 13, respondent NL-04, female, 21
years)
The experiences due to other substance related problems were portrayed in a more mixed way. Two respondents
described their personal experiences with first aid services due to illegal substance use. One of them had an overall
good experience, however the respondent felt judged. The other participant claimed she did not receive any help.
“Uh yeah, a little embarrassing. Uh… my lips were open from biting on it. So I went there [at the first aid
service], uh… but they couldn't help me [laughs]. […] It was a little igniting. So I uh… so I got somehow over
my embarrassment. Went there. Waiting in a long queue. Asked in advance: Can you help me? Yes, yes yes.
When it was my turn: Ah yes, no, we have nothing to disinfect your mouth, just go back.” (citation 14,
respondent NL-16, female, 24 years)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 46
3.3.2.3 Impact of first aid services at festivals
Many respondents (n=10) were convinced that first aid services have no impact on substance-use behavior of festival
attendees. Above all, no impact of the presence of such services was experienced on the personal behavior of most
participants (n=15).
“No, I don't really take that into account. Uh, I am aware of the fact that they [first aid workers] are there
or not, but it is not in function of that whether I would take more or less.” (citation 15, respondent NL-07,
male, 26 years)
Some participants (n=5) considered the idea of a drug-related problem leading to an intervention at the first aid
service as potentially impacting the own behavior or that of other PWUD as some sort of ‘wakeup call’.
3.3.3 PERCEPTION, EXPERIENCE, AND IMPACT OF PREVENTION AND HARM REDUCTION ACTIONS AT MUSIC FESTIVALS
During the interviews, prevention and harm reduction interventions were examined together. Seen the fact that
several participants were unfamiliar with the concept of harm reduction, the interviewer initially explained the
concept in the following way: “In the first place, harm reduction is not about preventing people from using
substances, but primarily about reducing the risks related to substance use”.
In general, approximately half of the festival attendees (n=9) specifically indicated to regard the harm reduction
principle in a positive way, while none of the participants expressed negative feelings towards it. In this context,
some festival attendees (n=4) specified harm reduction as ‘promoting a safer substance use’ or ‘avoiding drug related
incidents’. Additionally, they indicated to believe that harm reduction actions target specific festival scenes, such as
the electronic dance music scene or goa scene, as well as PWUD in particular.
“I think it's hard to say that nobody is going to use, because I think that's impossible to avoid […] Uh, if use
occurs, yes, then I think it's better to make sure that your festivalgoers will use safely, so that there are no
casualties. And, I don't know, I think that's a lot more positive than just, well, not giving any information."
(citation 16, respondent NL-R06, female, 23 years)
In what follows, the perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of the festival attendees towards prevention and harm
reduction actions at music festivals is presented, as well as the impact of these specific interventions on the
participants’ own substance use a well as that of others. Moreover, the findings will either be specified according to
different currently applied harm reduction actions – such as an info stand or a drug testing service – or presented
under the harm reduction concept in general.
3.3.3.1 Perceptions and experiences concerning an information stand
An info stand, which offers substance use-related information at music festivals can focus on prevention (staffed by
prevention workers) or peer support and harm reduction approach (staffed by harm reduction workers and peer
workers). Almost all participants were referring to a harm reduction- and peer support info stand, which is in Belgium
generally organized by Safe ‘n Sound (mostly operating at festivals in Flanders) or Modus Fiesta (mostly operating at
festivals in Brussels and Wallonia).
Attitudes towards an info stand
As already indicated earlier, most of the respondents (n=14) emphasized the importance of obtaining information
to increase usage safety. Taking this into account, the cautious attitude among several participants towards info

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 47
stands at festivals is rather remarkable. First of all, some festival attendees (n=7) mentioned they were already
informed on substance use (e.g., on a personal initiative or by their friends). By consequence, these participants
indicated they were not in need of information on the topic.
“Once I went to see the Safe 'n Sound stand, but I actually looked up in beforehand for the information I
needed. […] It was good that they were there, of course.” (citation 17, respondent NL-08, female, 28 years)
Another point that was raised by some attendees (n=4) concerned the importance of a harm reduction info stand in
combination with a drug testing service. They specified such an info stand to be only interesting when their
substances could be tested.
Furthermore, specific legal barriers and related consequences were mentioned. Due to the fact that (illegal) drugs
are often subject to repressive approaches or are perceived as a taboo topic, these respondents were convinced
that this refrains festival attendees from visiting information stands. In this context, not only the contrast between
the implementation of a repressive approach at the festival entrance on the one hand, and a harm reduction info
stand at the festival area on the other, was mentioned, but also the fear of being judged by others was expressed.
“There are people who easily take the step to go to such a stand, but these are usually the people who
already know a lot about it who are going to such a stand. I think that there are quite a lot of people who
are, yes, feeling a bit ashamed about it or can't talk about it well, or maybe they don't know how to inquire,
they will not go to such a stand so quickly." (citation 18, respondent NL-08, female, 28 years)
Lastly, a minority (n=4) did simply not perceive an info stand as interesting (e.g., by referring to it as ‘boring’).
Experiences with an info stand
In total, 14 respondents already obtained experience with info stands at music festivals. However, a few of them did
not actively make use of this specific drug-related service. Important to note is that several experiences were
associated with one specific music festival which already offers a harm reduction- and peer support info stand since
many years (n=4) or were specifically referring to the Flemish peer support- and harm reduction project Safe ‘n
Sound (n=4). Other experiences were not specified as such.
Some participants associated an info stand with the distribution of leaflets or flyers (n=4). Positive aspects that were
linked to the festival attendees’ experiences with an info stand were: ‘low threshold’ (n =1), ‘non-judgmental’ (n =1),
non-intrusive (n =1), and ‘objective information’ (n =1). Negative characteristics that were related to such
experiences were: ‘non-attractive’ (n =1), ‘incomplete information’ (n =1), and ‘moralizing’ (n =1).
3.3.3.2 Perceptions and experiences concerning a relax zone
Many respondents were unfamiliar with the concept of a relax zone14. Moreover, some participants had a wrong
image about what a relax zone stands for or confused the concept with a chill out area. After all, several festival
attendees (n=7) indicated to be willing to make use of a relax zone, at least if they knew about the presence of such
a service at the festival they attended. Two respondents emphasized the importance of a non-medical approach of
such services, especially in the context of mental support for people who use hallucinogens.
“Of course, for the people who don't have someone like that [trip sitter] or who are tripping really hard, this
[relax zone] can indeed offer a, uh, solution. […] I think it's especially important to have someone who can
help them in all calmness, someone who knows something about it. […] Yes, certainly also with psychedelics,
14 A relax zone is a harm reduction service which provides non-medical care (e.g., bad trip management)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 48
because if you would go to the doctor, uh, and you're under the influence of psychedelics, they're probably
going to give you a, uh, benzo or something to calm down, to reduce the trip a little bit. But they do not
know what you are going through at that moment. So, what they tell you, I don't think it will do much either,
so yeah. At that moment you are under the influence of psychedelics and what that doctor is telling you. I
don't think that ... I think it could be rather scary.” (citation 19, respondent NL-19, male, 22 years)
Several festival attendees (n=6) indicated to have noticed or encountered (a) relax zone(s) at a festival. These
experiences were mostly related to one specific music festival (which offers such a type of harm reduction service
for many years).
3.3.3.3 Perceptions and experiences concerning a drug testing service
In terms of harm reduction actions, pill or drug testing services were positively received by more than half of the
respondents (n=12). Several of these festival attendees (n=7) expressed to intend to use such a drug-related service.
Moreover, a drug testing service was described as an effective way to reduce drug-related harms. In this context,
some respondents linked a drug testing service to other harm reduction initiatives at festivals. On the one hand,
alarming results of a drug test can potentially be announced through information banners or posters all over the
festival area, using EWS15-messages (e.g., ecstasy tablets contaminated with other more harmful substances or
containing a much higher amount of MDMA than usual). On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, some respondents
explicitly mentioned they would make use of an information stand if there was a possibility to test their drugs.
“Yes, certainly and especially when it is the case at festivals […], they notice that a particular pill is
dangerous, yes, let it circulate on those screens, I said at the stages: watch out, these pills are in circulation,
uh, with that particular substance and that might be causing the risk or the effect, and that's an effect you
don't want ... Well, suppose they say: this chemical is in it, uh, avoid those pills, be careful with it, have them
tested, etc. Yes, that seems, well, that seems like a step in the good direction. This also creates awareness
and also in terms of harm reduction. Because that's a ... that's harm reduction I would say.” (citation 20,
respondent NL-18, male, 24 years)
Only one festival attendee had obtained experience with drug testing services at Belgian festivals (i.e., a drug testing
facility at Modus Fiesta in Brussels and a mobile drug testing service at a music festival) and one at a festival abroad.
Both festival attendees positively assessed the service and referred to the counselling aspect that was offered at the
drug testing service.
“I must say: I also have, well, talked to the people of Modus Vivendi and, well, I also have, one of my
questions I raised there – because then I was still searching a bit – was look, I think this is nice but I don't
really know how often I can do it or want to do it and etc. And they also gave good advice, in a sense of:
look, uh, if you think it creates more fun at parties uh… if you have a party every weekend, then these are
not really parties anymore, then it's just a routine and then there is nothing special anymore and that was
very, uh… that was very, uh, powerful I think, that message. […] I'm really like, look, I like something, I don't
absolutely have to maximize it and I can just keep it for special occasions, uh, so that, uh, so it stays enjoyable
and stays safe.” (citation 21, respondent NL-07, male, 26 years)
Furthermore, one of the respondents indicated drug testing services to be rather unknown overall and expressed
that people are often surprised when he talks about it. In addition, a number of respondents (n=3) addressed the
lack of drug testing services at festivals in Belgium.
15 Early Warning System

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 49
3.3.3.4 Perceptions and experiences concerning information banners and -posters
Information banners or posters were mentioned during the interviews, both in terms of substance related health
information and in terms of the drug policy present at a music festival. Several participants (n=8) acknowledged the
presence of information banners with substance use-related health information in the nightlife context; of which six
participants experienced them at music festivals specifically. Most information banners were containing harm
reduction messages (e.g., ‘Never waste a great party’-campaign), followed by alcohol-related information. In terms
of perception, two respondents stated that the effectiveness of these information banners depend on the message
they contain. As mentioned before, in this context, some other festival attendees (n=3) referred specifically to early
warning messages (e.g., warnings about contaminated substances circulating at the festival). Nevertheless, in
general, a few respondents were more skeptical regarding information banners, as it was not always clear to what
type of information they were referring to.
“I think it really depends on what's on it [laughs]. The way the message is brought. […] I just think something
short, and not too pedantic. Like those of Safe 'n Sound, they are short and there is a picture. And there's
such a quip in that, which is kind of funny." (citation 22, respondent NL-14, female, 31 years)
Only a few festival attendees specifically expressed their attitude towards provided information concerning the drug
policy present at the festival. Communication highlighting a zero tolerance policy was not perceived as effective,
whereas communication containing information about the policy in force at the festival combined with a positive
message was regarded as more preferable.
“For example, their website [of the festival organization] is not saying any longer that drugs are ... Well, it
used to be mentioned, and I think this is common on almost all websites of clubs and festivals: uh, drugs are
prohibited, are not tolerated. If you get caught, you will be kicked out. Uh, it's not okay. Don’t do it. And now
it says: okay, uh… it's forbidden, we don't tolerate it, but we do want to give you this advice: if you feel bad,
and it explicitly states that if you feel bad, go to the first aid service and be honest, because we are bound
by medical [professional] secrecy.” (citation 23, respondent NL-07, male, 26 years)
3.3.3.5 Perceptions and experiences concerning a free water service
Only few respondents had obtained experience with free water services at music festivals (n=4), with most of them
mainly considering it as a specific measure against heat temperatures.
“Free water and that is… festival by festival. At some [festivals], that's very clear. For others, it is like well
hidden. Uh, but I've always felt that it was more for the heat than for, uh, drug use.” (citation 24, respondent
NL-17, female, 27 years)
One of the respondents indicated to have made use of the service while using ecstasy, whereas another participant
used it in the context of alcohol consumption.
3.3.3.6 Impact of prevention and harm reduction actions at festivals
The festival attendees were questioned about the impact of prevention and harm reduction actions at music
festivals, both concerning the impact on the level of (other) PWUD and the impact on their personal behavior. They
almost exclusively focused on the impact of the different harm reduction interventions. The efficacy of harm
reduction actions was questioned in different ways, including in terms of usage frequency and substance use-related
risks.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 50
Perceived impact on (other) people who use drugs
Most of those acknowledging the impact of harm reduction initiatives in terms of frequency of use (n=7), considered
these actions as obtaining no impact. Two respondents believed that harm reduction actions probably encourage
experimental use, whereas one of them thought the ‘combi chart’16 could stimulate PWUD to experiment with safer
combinations. Moreover, another respondent was convinced that, when being aware of the risks, PWUD would use
less.
Moreover, most of those (n=10) mentioning the impact of harm reduction actions in terms substance use-related
risks, were convinced that PWUD were prompted to use in a safer way due to these initiatives. None of them believed
that such initiatives would increase risk.
“I don't think people will use it less because of that, because if they want to use it, they will use it anyway.
But if you have those relax zones and those information stands, that they can do it in a safer way” (citation
25, respondent NL-17, female, 27 years)
“[…] Suppose that they say: ho, last week was too much, and my body has since refrained. I would actually
like to cut back, but then, yes, we meet at someone’s place and then we go there and then it becomes
difficult, with that social pressure, not to join. But when they see a banner like that, they might think: yes,
yes, yes, I'm going to stick to that. From this point, I'm not going to take anything more because… Well, a
kind of a reminder or something like, well yes, that's the sign for me to stop now. And to make sure that I
have now, that I have truly a good week next week. Because last week was not good because I exaggerated
during the weekend.” (citation 26, respondent NL-05, female, 50 years)
Several participants (n=8) were convinced of the overall positive impact of harm reduction actions. Nevertheless,
some participants (n=4) mentioned that not all festival attendees or PWUD are susceptible towards the informative
aspect of these drug-related interventions (e.g., more experienced or older PWUD). This finding can be linked to one
of the preceding results indicating that PWUD who intend to use at a festival, are already informed. By consequence,
these respondents believed that harm reduction services have more potential impact on younger PWUD or people
who use for the first time.
“I might think of, uh, novice users or people who don't really have much experience that this [harm reduction
initiatives like an info booth and a drug testing service] can really impact their first time trying it, how much
they take and the dose and so on, I'll say.” (citation 27, respondent NL-11, male, 22 years)
“Uh, I say what stands out most at festivals, I think, is that people come prepared. So, people who want to
use, will use. If you can give, uh, some more information about it, frame it better, give some advice, I think
that will have a positive effect on people who already started using something anyway.” (citation 28,
respondent NL-15, male, 36 years)
“I've been to those stands. But, uh, friends of mine who use hard drugs or uh – no legal substances I'll say –
a lot of them just pass by those stands. So, I'm actually the one who walks around with the leaflets and I'm
reading something, so that they eventually pick up on that, but… it's not that everyone is equally susceptible
to that.” (citation 29, respondent NL-03, male, 24 years)
Concerning difference in perceived impact between the different types of harm reduction actions, drug testing
services were considered as very effective interventions by some (n=5), especially since it enables to take a safer
dose when the user knows what the substance contains. In contrast to drug testing services, information stands
16 The combi chart gives an overview of the risks of combing different substances. In a matrix format, combinations of two
substances are indicated from low risk to highly dangerous.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 51
were perceived in different ways. However, although more participants were convinced of the positive impact (n=4),
still a few participants (n=2) were more skeptical regarding the potential impact on the behavior of PWUD.
“You can inform yourself in advance, and also like, come on, in the end you're still not totally sure what
you're taking. […] But then you know that there is something in it that shouldn't be there, or that it is very
heavily dosed or very pure. Then you can also adjust your dose to what you have. This makes it less likely for
you to overdose or have other negative effects.” (citation 30, respondent NL-14, female, 31 years)
A similar pattern was found concerning the perceived impact of relax zones. Two participants were convinced of the
positive effect of such services, as PWUD generally perceive a lower threshold to visit relax zones than first aid
services, especially those using illegal substances. However, others (n=3) believed that relax zones could potentially
create a (false) feeling of safety for a certain group of PWUD. Knowing that a relax zone can serve as a safety net for
them, the question was raised by these respondents whether it would lead to riskier behavior.
Furthermore, the perceived impact of a free water service was mainly linked to a reduction in alcohol consumption,
and less to a safer use of stimulants, such as ecstasy or amphetamines. Perceptions with regard to the impact of
information banners was mentioned earlier. By some respondents (n=4), the content of the message was regarded
as crucial for information banners in order to be effective. For example, when information on the drug policy of the
festival contains a positive note, the potential impact is believed to be higher.
Impact on personal behavior of people who use drugs
Next to the perceived impact on (other) PWUD, the question was also raised whether harm reduction actions
impacted their personal behavior. First of all, several participants (n=8) believed harm reduction interventions at
festivals had no (potential) impact on their personal behavior. Most of them (n=5) were referring to the informative
aspect of harm reduction services and explained they were already informed in advance.
“I was well informed, but that was a bit on my own anyway […]. But not with those stands. Well, maybe in
the future this would be the case, but hey, because of those stands in particular I'm not personally, well, that
didn't really have a big influence.” (citation 31, respondent NL-06, female, 23 years)
Two of the respondents who claimed harm reduction services had no impact on their personal use, however,
reported an impact of free water services, specifically on their own alcohol use.
Furthermore, several other participants (n=8) were convinced of the potential impact of harm reduction actions to
reduce substance use-related risks. In this context, some respondents (n=4) explicitly mentioned the power of drug
testing services in order to avoid substance use-related risks and to accomplish a safer use. In addition, two festival
attendees described the impact of harm reduction actions in terms of ‘feeling (mentally) supported’ when
experiencing a difficult moment during a trip.
“Another very specific example that I have learned from the stands is that, yes, with substances which you
have to snort you are more likely to uh … Many people use a key or a banknote, but then you can also get
hepatitis from it, while, yes, many people don't know that and just do it. That's too bad." (citation 32,
respondent NL-03, male, 24 years)
“Yes, of course depending on the result of my pill, I might adjust my use. […] Well, it's just different from
MDMA. It's just a different substance. So uh, I'd rather avoid it than taking a risk." (citation 33, respondent
NL-18, male, 24 years)
Finally, two festival attendees explicitly acknowledged that the impact of harm reduction services on their personal
behavior was affected by the presence of repressive interventions, this in terms of an inhibitory effect.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 52
3.3.4 PERCEPTION, EXPERIENCE AND IMPACT OF REPRESSIVE INTERVENTIONS AT MUSIC FESTIVALS
3.3.4.1 Perceptions concerning repressive actions
From a broader perspective, most of the festival attendees with illegal substance use experience (n=10) perceived
repressive actions in a rather rational manner; they accepted and understood the repressive measures, which are in
line with the Belgian drug law. Moreover, from a safety perspective, repression was generally seen as useful and
important.
Nevertheless, policing actions, which specifically focused on illegal substance use, were perceived in a rather
negative way by many (n=9), especially in the context of recreational drug use (n=3) and police interventions with
sniffer dogs (n=3). Some respondents (n=4) emphasized problematic ways of how repressive actions are
implemented (e.g., an authoritarian or aggressive approach) or referred to the experience of fear (n=5) due to these
measures and related consequences at festivals.
“The outsiders who are not really involved. They like the police. But that's also the most visible. That's like: we
did something, we have put the police there, we have dogs, we do something against drugs. But that's not the
case." (citation 34, respondent NL-05, female, 50 years)
“I am more in favor of informing and making sure that people can use drugs in a safe way, because drug use
has already been… it has been around since the dancing scene exists and will continue to do so, no matter how
repressive they are and how hard they shout it is illegal.” (citation 35, respondent NL-16, female, 24 years)
In the context of tackling drug dealers or in terms of personal safety (in non-drug related contexts), repressive
interventions were perceived rather positively overall.
3.3.4.2 Experiences with repressive actions
Most of the festival attendees already spotted police interventions at festivals, with those with sniffer dogs being
most often mentioned (n=16). Half of the respondents even obtained personal experience with such interventions.
Most of these experiences took place at the festival entrance, however, a few respondents noticed or encountered
mobile police actions with sniffer dogs at the festival area or festival camp site.
Drug-related body searches were other policing actions experienced personally by some (n=4). Moreover, friends
of some of the attendees (n=3) were body searched during a police action, with two participants explicitly
mentioning that their friend(s) had to undergo a naked body search. A few mentioned that selection for these
searches was based on physical appearance, in the sense of ‘looking suspicious’. In addition, one participant stated
that her friends are often targeted for body searches because of the color of their skin.
In total, five respondents spotted attendees who had to pay an instant fine (Onmiddellijke Minnelijke Schikking or
OMS) at the festival, yet only one attendee had to pay one himself. In this context, different experiences were
reported. In a few cases, the individual carrying illegal drugs was caught by the police, had to pay an OMS, and was
removed from the festival area, while in two other cases, they had to pay an OMS but were still admitted to the
festival.
Furthermore, several festival attendees (n=7) spotted mercy or amnesty bins17, of which five of them specified not
to have been using them (nor did their friends). In fact, none of the respondents specifically indicated to have used
such a bin.
17 A mercy bin or amnesty bin allows festival attendees who are in the possession of illicit drugs to dispose of their illegal drugs
without juridical consequences.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 53
“I've seen it several times, yes. Uh, but honestly, I've never deposited in it. Uh yeah, I get the idea anyway. Uh ...
But I think the perception of the festivalgoers is: Ok, I'm already so close to the entrance of the festival […]. I
don't really know if it's used a lot. Uh, I've never heard of friends of mine using it. Uh, I think if people take it to
a festival, then… uh, they're doing it premeditated [mumbles a moment]. They take the risk of entering with it
anyway, so why would you change your mind when encountering such a barrel?” (citation 36, respondent NL-
18, male, 24 years)
Several attendees (n=5) stated to have noticed plainclothes police or undercover police at the festival. However, in
two cases the participant clearly confused them with security staff. Furthermore, only one participant expressed to
have been caught by plainclothes police at the festival.
Next to police actions, also interventions executed by security staff were reported. About half of the respondents
referred to control at the festival entrance by security staff, whereas several festival attendees (n=6) indicated
specifically to have notified security staff at the festival area. From a broader safety perspective, interventions by
security staff were not necessarily perceived in a negative way. Some participants specified that security staff were
keeping an eye on the festival area to detect problems, or focused on finding weapons at the entrance. Two
participants explicitly mentioned to have experienced such interventions in a positive way, as it increased their
overall feeling of safety. Some (n=4) explicitly indicated that security checks at the entrance were not very strict, or
claimed that it was easy to hide certain items.
3.3.4.3 Impact of repressive actions
The impact of repressive interventions at music festivals was studied through exploration of the perceived impact
of (other) PWUD on the one hand, and the influence on the personal behavior of the participant on the other.
Perceived impact on (other) people who use drugs
Even though several festival attendees (n=8) acknowledged potential deterrent effects of repressive actions for
certain groups (e.g., for less experienced PWUD), still more than half of the respondents (n=11) believed these
actions were making no big difference regarding illicit substance use frequency. In addition, several respondents
(n=6) were convinced that repressive interventions only marginally impact substance use at festivals.
“Perhaps it will have a small impact of how much people carry with them, but I'll say it: anyone who wants
to do it ,will bring it or do it at the campsite or something like that … Yeah, I don't think it has such a huge
impact. If a festival-goer wants to use drugs, he/she will do it one way or another with or without those
controls.” (citation 37, respondent NL-16, female, 24 years)
On the contrary, according to more than half of the respondents, repressive actions could have a potential negative
impact in terms of health (i.e., using in a riskier or more dangerous way). Most often, they (n=10) claimed that festival
attendees (potentially) consume all substances at once when encountering police control.
“You will deal with it in a more unsafe way because you do it more secretly or do a larger dose at once
because you know, yes, maybe I won't get it all inside [the festival site] and then I can't dose anymore as the
festival continues. Uh, and that you are generally more afraid that the police will be involved if you end up
with another aid worker or steward, causing also a higher threshold for all other aid services.” (citation 38,
respondent NL-20, male, 24 years)
Moreover, different other consequences with a negative health impact were mentioned: being scared to search for
help when experiencing a drug related problem (n=5), using more alcohol at the festival instead (n=5), and/or buying
from unknown dealers at the festival (n=3).

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 54
Furthermore, several participants believed that PWUD anticipate repressive actions, especially in terms of evading
checks at the festival entrance. Some (n=7) mentioned that festival attendees were using rather creative solutions
to hide illegal drugs.
“Ho, I think for, let’s say, starting … Well, because when I look at myself now, It would really scare me. That
you get caught just like that. But I think once you realize that so many people get away with it and you will
succeed at a certain point. You're basically just going to ignore it. […] That you just teach yourself tricks to,
uh, slip through.” (citation 39, respondent NL-04, female, 21 years)
Other ways of anticipating repressive actions consisted of: taking less or no drugs at the festival area (n=4), using or
hiding the drugs at the camp site instead (n=3), and/or using in a more concealed way (n=4).
Impact on personal behavior of people who use drugs
In general, for most participants (n=14), repressive actions had no impact on their personal use.
“Respondent: But I do what I do. I think police is useful but also very un-metal and uh… I think they are there
uh… yes okay those people are just doing their job but I'm at the right place and they're not. […] Then I'm
like: oh fuck. And then you have to be a little more creative.
Interviewer: Yes. So, then you are looking for a solution to get it in anyway?
Respondent: Yes, of course. Well, I'm not bothering anyone with what I'm doing eh. Uh, suppose that I, uh,
somehow get caught and they want to fine me, yes, then I'll have to pay it.” (citation 40, respondent NL-02,
male, 34 years)
Moreover, they described different ways of how they anticipated repressive interventions. First of all, more than
half of the respondents (n=12) were hiding their drugs to mislead controls. Also, some consumed no or less drugs at
the festival area (n=5) or used at the camp site instead (n=5). Less frequently, participants used their substances
before entering the festival zone (n=2) or used in a more concealed way (n=2).
Furthermore, several respondents experienced fear or stress (for being caught) due to repressive interventions
(n=6), however, most of them were hiding their drugs to mislead drug checks anyway.
Less frequently mentioned, however crucial in terms of impact, was the particular negative health impact of
repressive actions. Due to repressive interventions, two persons who used drugs admitted using a larger quantity of
a particular substance at once than actually intending to.
3.3.5 CONCLUSION
Overall, festival attendees perceived their personal substance use as safe (or as safe as possible). In this sense, overall
knowledge on drug use (e.g., knowing your limits) was key. Furthermore, they put less focus on the legal aspect of
substance use (legal versus illegal) but rather emphasized its effects and harms.
Overall, alcohol use was omnipresent at the festivals. Also, illegal substances (in particular cannabis) were prevalent
according to the participants. Frequency of legal and illegal substance use depended on the type of substance, as
well as the festival and its characteristics.
Overall, health care services succeeded in making attendees feel safer. Specific drug-related barriers perceived at
first aid services were mostly linked to fear of being judged and unease in relation to law enforcement, especially in
the context of illegal substance use. Respondents did not perceive or experience any impact on (personal) substance
use linked to the presence of first aid services.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 55
Notwithstanding some festival attendees being less familiar (or completely unfamiliar) with the concept of harm
reduction, in general, they regarded such interventions in an overall positive manner. In terms of harm reduction
actions at festivals, information stands and drug testing services were referred to most often by the festival
attendees, with drug testing services being regarded as most crucial in the context of reducing (illegal) substance
use-related harms. In contrast to drug testing services, information stands were regarded as slightly less appealing.
Respondents argued to have been informed or aware of their own limits in terms of substance use previous to the
festival visit. Overall, harm reduction services were less common at music festivals (and in line; less known to certain
attendees). Potential effects of harm reduction actions were mainly described in the context of safer use.
Finally, repressive actions were perceived in two different ways. On the one hand, respondents looked from a
rational perspective towards repressive interventions (repression as part of law enforcement), affirming the
relevance of repressive actions. On the other hand, repressive interventions specifically focusing on (recreational)
substance use (e.g., police interventions with sniffer dogs or naked body searches) were regarded in a more negative
way and/or perceived as unreasonable. Repressive actions were generally believed to only slightly impact substance
use, sometimes even having deterrent effects. In terms of personal substance use, most participants experienced
no impact of the repressive actions. Different strategies to anticipate such interventions were mentioned (e.g., to
better hide their illegal substances), as well as (potential) negative health effects (e.g., using all substances at once)
related to the presence of such interventions.
“My usage has decreased in the previous years, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the repressive
measures. It involves my own search for information. Getting to know myself better, getting older.” (citation
41, respondent NL-01, female, 32 years)
3.4 RESULTS OF THE FRENCH SPEAKING FESTIVAL ATTENDEES
3.4.1 USE OF LEGAL AND ILLEGAL PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS AND HOW FESTIVAL ATTENDEES PERCEIVE THE USE OF THESE
DRUGS. A NORMALIZATION OF THE USE OF ILLICIT DRUGS DESPITE SOME CRITICAL AWARENESS.
3.4.1.1 A rather conventional categorization of psychotropic drugs
Of the 20 festival attendees questioned, only five stated not to use drugs other than alcohol or cannabis during
festivals. Fifteen of them or three-quarters of the sample recognize – and with some ease – fairly regularly consuming
psychotropic drugs, which some consider as stronger or more dangerous than alcohol or cannabis. According to
some of our respondents, even if alcohol can have intense effects, it is on the condition of being consumed in
relatively large quantity, whereas a simple little pill of MDMA, ecstasy, or LSD is enough to produce a relatively
intense effect and, for some of them, with a short onset of action.
When we speak of common, classic, or spontaneous use of the different qualifiers associated with drugs, we are
referring, firstly, to the way in which the festival attendees evaluate these drugs themselves: according to them,
there is alcohol, cannabis, and then “other” drugs. Secondly, we are referring here not so much to a paradigm that
would aim to be biological and “strictly objective” as to an “open sociological paradigm”, taking into account
different feelings determined by trying out different psychotropic drugs or by observing the use of psychotropic
drugs by others.
As a matter of fact, there is a consensus among health professionals and scientists that the categories of soft and
hard drugs are social and political rather than medical constructions (Batel, 2017; for expert classification, see
Degenhardt et al., 2018; Nutt, King, & Philips, 2010). They are not (or hardly ever) based on properties (e.g., toxicity)
of the drugs themselves. It is usage rather than drugs that could be labelled soft or hard (Mangeot, 2000). This being
said, it is of utmost importance to examine if, when, and how our respondents use these categories in their discourse,
as this gives us the opportunity to delve into their perceptions of risks. Theron, although alcohol consumption seems
to be perceived by the majority of festival attendees as fairly widespread, commonplace, and even encouraged by
festival organizers and their sponsors (as we will also see below, the vast majority of the various stakeholders

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 56
interviewed confirm this), the harmfulness of this legal psychotropic drug is not lost on some. For instance, F15, a
young 19-year-old festivalgoer, who consumes a lot of alcohol, among other things, told us:
“I don't see any difference [between legal and illegal drugs]. Alcohol is the most dangerous drug in the world,
the most addictive, and it's the only drug that, when you stop using overnight, you can die. On the drug
scale, alcohol is right up there with crack and heroin. And I know tons of alcoholic people, tons of relatives
of my alcoholic friends. Alcohol takes its toll on the body, as much as drugs. In my opinion”. (citation 1,
respondent F15, female, 19 years)
Most of the festival attendees acknowledged to drink alcohol regularly and often in large quantities. Only two of
them openly explained that they never use it. Those who identified themselves as not using cannabis – nine out of
20 festival attendees – were more numerous. Although some of them did not mix alcohol with (perceived as) 'hard'
psychotropic drugs, they do use it – often in large doses – when they are not taking such drugs. The effect of
cannabis, for almost half of the festival attendees, seemed to be perceived as not very compatible – or less
compatible than alcohol – with the effects and sensations sought and associated with so-called “hard”, energizing,
or “strong” drugs (rapidly producing a state of altered consciousness and/or perception) or hallucinogens.
3.4.1.2 Banalization of the use of stimulants and psychedelics?
From the majority of the interviews with festival attendees, an essential element emerges, what we will call an
attitude tending to normalize/trivialize the use of drugs, at festivals and elsewhere. This normalization/trivialization
(removal of the “spectacular” aspect) concerns both legal psychotropic drugs, in this case alcohol, and those usually
perceived as 'soft', such as cannabis, and psychotropic drugs usually perceived – and sometimes claimed – as 'strong'
and more likely to give rise to discomfort or bad trips. The 'strong' psychotropic drugs mentioned repeatedly by the
majority of our festival respondents are: MDMA, ecstasy (the two are often equated, but the first is often described
as an “ecstasy with more stable effects”), speed, cocaine and ketamine.
For example, when asked about his consumption, F3, a 25-year-old male festivalgoer, explained that he uses, among
other things, and particularly at festivals:
“LSD, mushrooms, anything psychotropic [he doesn't use “psychotropic” for alcohol]. I quite like it, but I do
it, I would say once a month at the most. And otherwise, I've calmed down a bit, but there was a period
when it was all amphetamines, so speed, MDMA, and ecstasy: it was once a week, once every fortnight. But
I calmed down a lot, because the coming down period was getting stronger and stronger”. (citation 2,
respondent F3, male, 25 years)
F4, a 20-year-old woman, told us that she took LSD at two big festivals in Wallonia:
“I think on the first day. And it lasted for three days because I continued the trip. And I didn't drink alcohol
because that's not my thing... I took Ké [ketamine], Coke and then on the last day I took speed to keep me
going. And there you have it. All in all, that was it. I don't know if that's explicit enough”. (citation 3,
respondent F4, female, 20 years)
F14, a 24-year-old festivalgoer who has attended four different large festivals in Wallonia in recent years, says that
she “organises her consumption at festivals” and “brings the drugs to the festival hidden” in her “bras” or “tampons”.
(citation 4, respondent F14, female, 24 years)
F14 reported using alcohol, MDMA and ketamine (but less than MDMA) at festivals and on other occasions.
F13, a 22-year-old man, consumed alcohol and various drugs with a very rapid effect during festivals:
“In festivals I started strong. It was straight ecstasy, MDMA, and cannabis (but I don't know if that's really
the main topic). So, it was mainly ecstasy and yes, then it evolved into speed, cocaine, ketamine”. (citation
5, respondent F13, male, 22 years)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 57
F15, a young student, told us that she had already tested, at festivals and parties she attends, alcohol and cannabis,
MDMA, speed, mushrooms, poppers, no cocaine (because it frightens her, as does LSD), and hallucinogenic
mushrooms:
“I never wanted to test medicines. I took tramadol once, but that was because my girlfriend had a
prescription for it. So, there you go. But otherwise, I've never taken Xanax or anything like that. I'm a
hyperactive person, I don't want to take drugs that might slow me down”. (citation 6, respondent F15,
female, 19 years)
F18, a 21-year-old man, describing his consumption habits, said:
“MDMA! But that's not often. Ecstasy, that's about once a month maximum. Ketamine is once a week or
two. 2CB for the moment too, that's once every two months or once a month, it depends. And speed too,
that's just when I'm tired and I really feel I need it”. (citation 7, respondent F18, male, 21 years)
F9, a 22-year-old man, testified:
“I used to use a lot of amphetamines, so mainly speed. At the very beginning when I went to festivals, I didn't
use anything for a year and a half, then I started using pills again, then I continued with amphetamines, so
a lot of speed and MDMA. And then I stopped the MDMA and continued with the speed. Then I stopped the
speed and switched to cocaine”. (citation 8, respondent F9, male, 22 years)
At this point we would point out that our respondents are rather young (not yet in their thirties). They were either
studying or working, sometimes even doing both at the same time. They seemed to be undeniably rather middle
class and were all of European descent. The confidence they placed in their level of knowledge (theoretical and
practical) about drugs reinforces the feeling that, in the eyes of these young festival attendees, so-called strong or
hard drugs did not symbolise a repulsive, foreign universe or one that would be particularly frightening and to be
avoided. However, the majority of these young festival attendees did not seem to be oblivious to the sometimes
violent effects and consequences of these various psychotropic drugs and the types of borderline experiences that
overuse could lead to.
For example, F14 considered her experience of drugs at festivals to be …
“positive. Because I didn't get a bad trip. I had a great time so that's all18”. Then she said: “However, the
days afterwards don't go well.” (citation 9, respondent F14, female, 24 years)
F15 told about a specific experience at a major festival in Wallonia (the only festival she “did”), with a diverse
program (Rock, Electro, so-called “world music”, Hip-hop):
“At the time, I didn't really know what it meant to go beyond the limits, to go beyond the doses, because I
had the impression that I could never go too far. I thought everything was going to be fine. And on the last
day, at 8am, I fell. Well, I overdosed [F15 took different drugs every day, alcohol, speed, ecstasy]. I fell to
the ground. I'm not dead. Huh! I'm here so everything's fine. But it was a lesson to me. But we didn't see the
hospitals or anything [...] I just woke up a little later. I was put on a train. And I went home and for a week,
it was hell, it was the downhill slide, and after that, I was really careful and I didn't consume at all like I had
done at the festival.” (citation 10, respondent F15, female, 19 years)
F18 said he had a bad trip with ecstasy during a big festival in Wallonia. Others also mentioned bad trips, fainting
spells or alcohol comas (the majority of our respondents did not call for First Aid, or did so anecdotally).
In addition, the majority of festival attendees interviewed acknowledged various bad trips, fainting spells, or alcohol
comas experienced by some of their friends or by strangers observed during one or more festivals. 'Bad trips',
fainting spells, momentary paralyses (half an hour or so) or alcoholic comas did not seem to be rare and exceptional
phenomena in the eyes of our respondents. Nor were these experiences described as benign and particularly easy19.
18 In saying that she did not have a “bad trip”, F14 implicitly acknowledges the strong possibility of a “bad trip”.
2089

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 58
Nevertheless, the consumption, admittedly festive but regular and sometimes dense, of hard illicit drugs, even in
small doses, seemed to have been perceived as unavoidable, at least for a time (between 20 and 30 years) by our
respondents, clients, and festival lovers.
3.4.1.3 The availability of illegal psychotropic drugs at festivals
In the same way that the majority of the comments made by the festival attendees interviewed seemed to (tend to)
normalize the regular or heavy use of illicit drugs, they also tended to reflect the fact that it is in the end quite
commonplace to find and use drugs in the context of a festival, whatever it may be, although the “big festivals”
whose programming is more (or increasingly) oriented towards “electro” music seemed to be the ones where illicit
drugs are the most accessible and consumed. Thus, F3, a young man of 25, told us about the consumption of
psychotropic drugs and alcohol at a major festival in Wallonia:
“Oh yes, I think it's widespread and I think everyone knows it. I think that sometimes it's even an image that
we have of festivals. In any case, since I've been going to this festival, I know that... Come on, when you think
of it, even for parents, it's drugs and alcohol!” (citation 11, respondent F3, male, 25 years)
F15 reported on another big festival that is less known for being a consumer hot spot:
“We started the festival like this by taking speed. Afterwards, there were dealers everywhere. We were in
the festival camp site and we were just walking for five minutes and we met someone who said “Here, here
you can find this. And over there you can find that, etc. If you're more interested in “that”, it's over there”.
And we were thinking: where are we, what? It's worse than ... the X20 festival ..., what! I've already heard
opinions about X.., and testimonials, but it's true that I've had the experience with another festival than X”.
(citation 12, respondent F15, female, 19 years)
3.4.1.4 Normalization / socialization of risk-taking?
As we have pointed out, our participants generally came from the middle class, both in terms of their socio-economic
background and their educational and professional background (the vast majority of them were in higher education).
We also noticed that they were mostly of European descent. Their words may make us wonder whether the use of
illicit drugs among the Euro-descendant middle class has become highly normalized. Their words may also invite us
to question the social function that this normalization of consumption unconsciously fulfils in the eyes of the young
middle class. Does it represent a risk-taking/rite of passage for middle classes children into adulthood? Is it a way of
stating the need generated by our contemporary societies to experience moments of disconnection that are
increasingly powerful, even violent and dangerous for the body and psyche21? Is it a sign of the density of stresses
in the contemporary world of the globalized liberal economy and the growing socio-economic and climate
uncertainty? Is it a sign of a distance from the body and awareness of its fragility, or of a feeling of omnipotence or
of great confidence in one's power of resistance ('I can put myself in crisis and in danger and I know I will survive')
linked to a certain social position and class consciousness?
Research on the relationship between social economic status (SES) and drug use is inconclusive as no clear
relationship between these variables seem to emerge from the literature (Charitonidi et al., 2016; Patrick et al.,
2012). This being said, there was a clear underrepresentation of festival attendees from lower classes and from
different ethnic or cultural background in the sample. As a consequence, we cannot exclude the possibility that the
present findings are not representative of the perceptions of all festival attendees, including the ones using drugs:
some drug uses may be underrepresented, and they may be related to different perceptions of drug-related
interventions and their efficacy. We consider this as an interesting direction for future research.
20 By naming it “X”, we anonymize this festival which seems to be perceived as the one where the use of psychotropic drugs is
the most intense in Wallonia.
21 As the organizer of the “Listen” festival Lorenzo Serra reminded us during our interview with him: “The party can also be the
place of a quickly broken destiny”.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 59
3.4.2 FESTIVAL ATTENDEES' PERCEPTION OF THE DRUG RELATED INITIATIVES AT MUSIC FESTIVALS
3.4.2.1 Perception of the initiatives of the Security and Police teams, linked to law enforcement: a necessary
presence with sometimes contradictory and counterproductive effects
A necessary presence with little stress
At first glance, the majority of festival attendees interviewed had little to say about the interventions of security and
police teams, which were deterrent, preventive, and repressive in nature. The issue did not seem to inspire them
too much. With regard to police and security, the view was quite clear, without illusion and shared: they are first
and foremost there to search, to ensure that as little drug as possible is brought in and circulated, and to stop fights,
to contain violent or potentially dangerous behavior, and, possibly, to spot (the role of security) and to arrest (the
role of the police) dealers.
While police and security teams were not idealized, neither were they demonized.
The presence of these two teams, which can, at least in theory, represent a power of repression as well as a reminder
and application of the law, was even finally recognized as necessary by the vast majority of festival attendees. Their
presence was even generally stated to be relatively reassuring, useful in the event of violence, and, at least in theory
or in part, a deterrent for certain PWUD. For the majority of our festival respondents, neither police nor security
seemed to be a threat or a source of stress.
F1, a 39-year-old festivalgoer, told us about police and security at festivals:
“Everything to do with police or security guards is indispensable. Nothing needs to change. There are many
people. Well, there are people who drink, take drugs, and so on. And then there are sometimes even people
who are just aggressive for no reason. It can happen, so it's essential”. (citation 13, respondent F1, female,
39 years)
However, F1 also told us that she believed the intervention of other “intermediary actors” such as “educators or
stewards” to be potentially more effective or more appropriate.
F2, a 40-year-old woman who participated in four festivals in Belgium in the previous months, which were rather
“Rock” oriented, considered that the presence of police and security was rather reassuring and not too repressive.
F9, a 22-year-old festivalgoer, told us of the police that:
“Oh yes, yes, it calms people down, it slows them down in their consumption. Because I think the fear of
getting caught is pretty common to everyone”. (citation 14, respondent F9, male, 22 years)
He also acknowledged that he consumed less because of police presence.
F7, a 25-year-old festivalgoer who had attended four major festivals, including two electro festivals in Belgium,
believed that security is necessary even if it does not prevent her from bringing in products, which she does, for
example, on her own, fully aware of the risks. According to F7, police and security have a (deterrent) impact but it is
weak because their presence and even their potentially repressive action do not in fact prevent those who want to
consume or bring in products from doing so.
F4, another festivalgoer, remarked in the same vein that while …
“it [police and security] sometimes causes more legal problems for some consumers”, it “doesn't really stop
them from continuing to consume”. (citation 15, respondent F4, female, 20 years)
Finally, the idea that the deterrent police and security forces remain quite limited and do not prevent those who
want to consume from doing so, was shared by the vast majority of our festival respondents.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 60
Of course, for festival attendees who are likely to be smuggling a relatively large amount of drugs, for consumption
or resale, police and security were at first sight stated to be a threat and a source of stress. In this sense, F3, who
consumes and resells at festivals, told us about police and security, in an initially somewhat hesitant tone:
“I'm not going to lie to you, in our situation, a lot of times it [Police and Security] means problems. I mean,
we know it's illegal, we know it can lead to some pretty negative things in our lives. So, it causes problems”.
(citation 16, respondent F3, male, 25 years)
Then F3 immediately put his statement into context by adding:
“On the other hand, I try to keep things in perspective and not see all cops as just people who are going to
cause us problems. I understand their job, I understand that they want to help people and enforce the law.
I think that's part of it and I think as consumers we need to be aware that they're not just out to bust our
balls. There is a system and you have to work with it. I think sometimes it helps people because, come on,
maybe it will stop a 15-year-old boy from using a product that he would have found too easily”. (citation 17,
respondent F3, male, 25 years)
Finally, despite his own criminal activity and the risks that the presence of police and security teams can represent
for himself, our respondent recognized the relative impact that their presence can have in terms of deterrence and
limiting consumption.
In the same way, F4, a 20-year-old festivalgoer, although she smuggled and sold drugs at the festival, also ended up
admitting that she considers police presence to be normal and desirable. More explicitly, and although she is a
dealer, she added:
“I assume that drugs are illegal and will remain illegal. So, selling is illegal, it's normal that there are cops to
control it. Even though I do it and I do it all the time [transport and smuggle drugs]. But if one day I get
checked, if I get in trouble with the police, I can only blame myself. Do you know what I mean? Like it's
normal to get arrested for having drugs on me”. (citation 18, respondent F4, female, 20 years)
Security teams were also presented by some of our festival attendees as being able to act as a relay between the
festival attendees and the first aid or harm reduction services:
“If someone falls down, who is not well, we will go and get a security guard and tell him; so that the
security guard can take the person who is ill to the first aid or harm reduction services.” (citation 19,
respondent F11, male, 31 years)
A sometimes counterproductive presence
F12, a 32-year-old woman, who mainly uses alcohol and cannabis (and once in her life, “Speed”), confided that she
had hardly noticed police and security presence during the only major festival she had attended in Brussels, as she
had never found herself in danger of having to deal with them. However, she noted she believes that their presence
may encourage more hidden and therefore more risky consumption.
Other respondents agreed with F12, suggesting that police and security forces, far from being a deterrent, could be
counterproductive and encourage a less 'safe', more clandestine and therefore more dangerous way of using
psychotropic drugs. For example, F9, referring to his experience of policing at festivals, told us that:
“The more police etc. etc., the more drugs will be used, but much faster and more often. [...] The less police,
the more peaceful I feel and I can take my drugs without having to stress etc.”. (citation 20, respondent F9,
male, 22 years)
F9 mentioned that police controls and the fear of them could push some people to consume the drugs they have
brought with them as quickly as possible and in large quantities, thereby putting themselves at risk of bad trips,
illnesses or overdoses.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 61
F6, another 28-year-old festivalgoer, put it even more explicitly:
“[At the big festival he attended], I didn't see much [police or security guards]. I don't think it's useful [police
and security]. I even tend to say that it's not useful because, as a result, they [the consumer festival
attendees] will buy on the spot. And there, we are less aware of the quality of what we will find. I would be
less likely to trust the people who deal on the site.” (citation 21, respondent F6, male, 28 years)
Thus, according to F6, police presence could even encourage a less secure deal because it takes place on the festival
site itself and is organized by unknown dealers, who are likely, at least in theory, to sell products that are (more
often) adulterated with harmful substances, and more difficult to “source” (to know the source and therefore
deduce the composition or concentration).
In conclusion, the initiatives related to the control of festival attendees, surveillance and law enforcement, are
therefore perceived in an ambivalent way by the different festival attendees we interviewed. Police and security
teams seem to be low stress inducing in the eyes of the festival attendees, and sometimes even rather reassuring.
They also seem to be able to fulfil a certain deterrent function with regard to the use and sale of drugs; however,
the effectiveness of this function seems to have been assessed as relatively modest by the festival attendees. Finally,
police presence was also considered by some of the festival attendees (about a quarter) to be conducive to more
hidden, faster, and therefore riskier drug use.
Finally, F9 mentioned that he had observed aggressive and, on one occasion, racist police behaviors during festivals.
Concerning the racist behavior, he saw a person of sub-Saharan origin, to whom a police officer, while in custody,
said “You stink”. The same F9 also told us that he had seen a change in police behavior at festivals in 2019. At the
festival he attended that year:
“there were quite a few cops bringing back people who were way too high. They didn't put them in a cell or
anything like that. No, they took them to the first aid booths and to the booths where the prevention and
harm reduction teams are located”. (citation 22, respondent F9, male, 22 years)
According to F9, the change in police behavior could be due to the influence of the initiatives of the harm reduction
teams.
3.4.2.2 Perception of the actions carried out by the “first aid” teams
Overall, the first aid services and stands were fairly well identified by our festival respondents. As F6, a 28-year-old
festivalgoer, explained:
“We always think of this or that known first aid service. You can see their tents which are indicated on the
site, which are on all the maps. It's pretty clear, people at the festival know where it is, it works pretty well”.
(citation 23, respondent F6, male, 28 years)
The use they can make of these services was also fairly well identified by the majority of the interviewed festival
attendees. First aid is in fact directly associated by all festival attendees – among others – with the use of
psychotropic drugs – whether their own or others' – and the risks inherent in this use: physical or mental discomfort,
cardiac arrhythmia, alcohol comas, ketamine, speed, or cocaine overdoses. In festivals where only stands and first
aid teams are present to help with problematic drugs use, festival attendees see these as the place to go for refuge
or help in the event of feeling mentally unwell. However, in festivals where prevention and harm reduction stands
and teams are present, the majority of festival attendees would rather use them than first aid. First aid thus seemed
to be perceived by the majority of festival attendees as services and places that are able to perform medical
procedures that concern the body more than the psyche. We will see below that this is also how the first aid teams
perceived and presented themselves.
For example, F9 toldus about first aid:

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 62
“I think it prevents a lot of overdoses. But it's mostly ketamine-related overdoses. I don't know if you know
the K-hole”. (citation 24, respondent F9, male, 22 years)
F10 says:
“I think if I ever get a bad trip or whatever or – yeah – a heat stroke like you say, I'll go to the relax zones
first. If ever it really doesn't pass on its own in my corner or whatever. Or with friends. And then from there,
if I ever really feel that there are complications, then I will ask the first aid service nearby. But for me, first
aid is one of the services that should not be overloaded, you know. It's really a last resort”. (citation 25,
respondent F10, male, 22 years)
First aid is therefore generally considered to be the place of last resort in serious cases 22. As respondent F9 again
reminds us:
“Usually when I see someone starting to feel ill, I'm the type of person who goes to the person to see what's
going on. Or I often call the first aid service there, even for people I don't know because they're not well,
they're having a K-hole or they're too hot or they've taken too much, they've got acid reflux or something”.
(citation 26, respondent F9, male, 22 years)
F11 was an avid festivalgoer (he goes to festivals every year and makes plans months in advance). He was 31 years
old and presented himself as an eclectic user: alcohol (daily “it's the basis”, he tells us), cannabis (regularly), or, more
occasionally, poppers or Benzodiazepine. F11 explained that he considered first aid services to be very useful in the
event of a problematic intake, as they can, for example:
“secure his [the user's] airway, put him in a safe condition, let him sleep it off. Ensure that the person does
not inhale his or her own vomit. Check a few vital functions, etc. Finally, basic first aid until the crisis passes”.
(citation 27, respondent F11, male, 31 years)
Moreover, F11 told us, contrary to the vast majority of other festival attendees, that in case of a bad trip, he would
spontaneously use the first aid services first rather than the harm reduction services. But F11 was an emergency
nurse by profession. He seemed culturally and spontaneously inclined, because of his job, to feel confident with the
first aid centre, whose functioning he knows well and which is a familiar and therefore a priori particularly reassuring
place for him.
On the whole, the first aid services played a rather reassuring role for the vast majority of the festival attendees
interviewed, although on the one hand, they reported to have used them very little for themselves and, on the other
hand, some festival attendees seemed to consider the attitude of the first aid services to be sometimes inappropriate
and too authoritarian towards a person experiencing a problematic 'coming up' or 'going down' related to drug use.
Thus, festivalgoer F5, explained:
“If we go for an injury, then yes because things are done and that's it. But I think if you go there for a bad
trip or drug related stuff, unfortunately, even though the ethos of first aid is not to judge, there are far too
many people who just don't know any better.” (citation 28, respondent F5, male, 21 years)
In this sense, F14, a 24-year-old woman, told of having accompanied a friend on an ecstasy high to first aid one day
and finding their attitude rather out of place. They didn't want her friend to leave before his heart rate dropped. But
forcing him to stay, she said, gave him a “bad trip”, and stressed him out. On the other hand, F14 considered relax
zones (harm reduction) to be more suitable for dealing with intense drug use. She believed that, for her friend – on
an ecstasy high – it could have worked …
“much more anyway. But that, the relax zone, we go there anyway as a matter of course.[...] Rarely in the
evening. I go in the afternoon or something like that. Or, when we're well stoned to settle down for a while,
actually.” (citation 29, respondent F14, female, 24 years)
22 It should be noted that this is in contrast to what we observe in the field as many festival attendees tend to go directly to the
First Aid due to lack of knowledge about the existence and role of harm reduction interventions.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 63
3.4.2.3 Perception of prevention and harm reduction initiatives
Prevention
It emerged from the interviews that even though the dynamics of “prevention” and “harm reduction” are sometimes
difficult to dissociate, it is rather the stands – or parts of the stands – providing information, flyers, games, or various
operations on the different psychotropic drugs and their effects, which come under the heading of prevention. In
this respect, the information material made available seemed to be generally well received by the majority of our
respondents, but has – according to them – little impact in terms of encouraging the reduction of consumption. The
comments of our respondents also highlight the sociability of the providers of this service, and the fact that they
appreciate it very much. But, for example, according to F1, prevention stands are mainly aimed at – and can mainly
impact – a non-consumer audience.
F15 refers to the fact that:
“When we arrive at the festival, there are a lot of people who come to see us, with leaflets [...] And, I mean,
they are young people like us. They have already taken stuff! They are there, they are nice. They are listening.
Simply, the booklets that explain the danger of drugs, there were about fifteen different ones, that explain
a lot of things, that explain how to react, what number to call: the anti-poison centers, etc... And then there
are lots of stands. In any case, in the big festival I went to, it was really good, really well constructed in
relation to that, really top.” (citation 30, respondent F15, female, 19 years)
One can see from these remarks that the term “prevention” spontaneously made him think of booklets explaining
“the danger of drugs”. Moreover, the fact that these booklets are distributed by people who have “already taken
stuff” seemed to have been perceived as reassuring by F15. Then, gradually, quite quickly, F15 mentioned the fact
that these same booklets – or others – already indicate the process to follow in case of problematic drug use. Here,
we are at the borderline of the prevention and harm reduction approach. Even when prevention is mentioned during
the interviews, the festival attendees easily and quickly switched to mentioning the dynamics of harm reduction,
i.e., not the dissuasion of consumption, but rather the possibility for the festival attendees to manage their
consumption or that of their friends. This shift is not surprising given that in many festivals the prevention and harm
reduction actors are the same. As we will see in the section on the perceptions of stakeholders, the workers in the
harm reduction teams also carry out work that can be assessed as prevention, and some sometimes have the official
title of prevention worker, even though they consider that they are essentially doing harm reduction and not
prevention, at least in the conventional sense of the term (information/dissuasion).
In any case, clarifying her view of the dynamics of prevention, F15 added:
“I found it very, very good indeed. All festivals should have the same facilities. Even in schools there should
be someone who comes by one day to do this kind of prevention. For me, it is simply vital. It must have
helped a lot of people. Lots of people came by the stand and asked questions.” (citation 31, respondent F15,
female, 19 years)
Like F15, most of the festival attendees we interviewed noted the importance of the friendly dimension of the
prevention stands and teams. These stands are a place where people can get information, have discussions, and
where one is listened to when asking questions.
However, the fact remains that, for many of our festival respondents, prevention had little impact:
“I don't know if they can really have a preventive impact on festivals. [...] If someone comes up to me with a
flyer explaining the damage of drugs, if I'm at the festival and I've said to myself I'm going to turn my head
upside down, I'll do it anyway! So, I think that the preventive impact is limited.” (citation 32, respondent
F11, male, 31 years)
Finally, when asked about the issue of prevention, respondent F1 noted that at the only festival she had been to,
there were no harm reduction initiatives, only prevention stands. This was not enough in her view, although it was
“already useful”. Then this respondent told us, making the delimitation between the preventive and harm reduction
approaches quite clear, that what would be important …

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 64
“would be to strengthen prevention more” both “primary” [basic prevention] and “tertiary”. I think we
should not deny it, there are people who need this, who consume. And they might as well do it safely too”.
(citation 33, respondent F1, female, 39 years)
Thus, according to F1:
“Primary prevention is before the problem occurs. So, it's the typical prevention messages as we can see [on
stands only related to prevention]. It's aimed at an audience that is not a consumer. And “tertiary” is more
about people who are already into drug use. [...] In some festivals I've already seen it being done: they can
have tests done on their ecstasy pills [...] their products to see if the products are clean. That's not the right
term because by definition they are chemicals (Smile). But [...] the products will not put their lives at risk. It's
not curative. This is tertiary prevention”. (citation 34, respondent F1, female, 39 years)
“Tertiary prevention”, which is easily evoked by festival attendees when they are asked about prevention initiatives
at festivals, seems to correspond to the approach characterizing harm reduction initiatives. According to F1, tertiary
prevention – in the context of accompanying psychotropic drug use – seems to refer in fact to third-line prevention,
prevention behind the line of information/dissuasion, prevention behind the line of heavy or potentially risky use of
illicit products. Tertiary prevention refers to the prevention of hazards that may occur after substance use has taken
place: in short, a hazard and harm reduction approach par excellence.
F1’s discourse cannot be considered representative. Such a nuanced view on prevention was uncommon in the
sample, and most probably among festival attendees in general. Despite her nuanced view, the discourse of F1 also
betrays a lack of understanding of the difference between prevention and harm reduction as was also observed
among other participants as she clearly mistaken harm reduction stands for prevention stands.
Harm reduction
Whatever their degree of knowledge of the different harm reduction initiatives – whether they only knew them in
theory (F1), superficially (F2), or had more precise knowledge and experience of them, whether they had spotted
the harm reduction stands or not, whether they have tried them out or not – it emerged from the interviews that
the vast majority (not to say almost all) of the festival attendees we interviewed had a view of these different
initiatives that was both almost unanimously positive and diversified: relax zone; provision of consumption material
(F3)23 (such as “roll your straw”); leaflets (already mentioned) informing about the different steps to follow in case
of an overdose; distribution of water; empathetic support of people experiencing a problematic dose by the harm
reduction teams; reception of any festivalgoer with questions related to consumption or – when it is a festivalgoer
who knows the harm reduction teams – simply coming to say hello; testing.
As noted above, only one festivalgoer, F11, a nurse by training, said that if he felt unwell, he would turn first to the
first aid services. All the others tended to think that the preferred place of refuge in case of fatigue or problematic
use (without too obvious physical effects) or in case of dealing with a friend having a bad trip, was the harm reduction
teams’ area.
As examples, F15, although apparently unsure whether she was referring to a first aid or harm reduction stand,
described very precisely what harm reduction teams provide:
“There was a whole stand: I don't know if it was a first aid service or what, but it was: if one of your friends
has a bad trip, if he overdoses, if he doesn't feel well because of a drug, you take him there. They put you on
23 F3 says, however, that he never really knew the difference between first aid and HR services, “because maybe I was too out
of it and didn't really pay attention”. However, he has identified and used the materials provided by the HR teams and finds
their work very useful.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 65
a little bed, with a little duvet, a little pillow. You put yourself there and, hey, you can stay as long as you
like. They give you water, they feed you, they take care of you. So: incredible.
Next to it, there is a stand where you can go and test your drugs. So, you bring anything, the person gives it
back to you at the end! She takes her sample, she does her test and she gives you the drug back. And she
won't ask you any questions. She will just advise you to do this or that in relation to your product. And that
way, you have the information. You take them, you don't take them, it's your problem.
On top of that, the stand with all the leaflets was basically manned by people who knew, who had already
taken drugs themselves. It's not just old people who have no experience and will start harping on about stuff
and you think you're just dealing with someone who's an old jerk. No, it's really people who know what it's
like, who have already experienced things... They will even tell you about their experience. I loved that part
of the “X” festival I went to”. (citation 35, respondent F15, female, 19 years)
The stand mentioned in the first part of the extract quoted, where one can be welcomed, rest, be hydrated, could
be either a first aid stand or an harm reduction stand (it seems that the second hypothesis is the most reliable since
F15 did not talk about equipment or advanced medical actions performed by the workers at this stand). On the other
hand, the other stand described by F15 and adjacent to the first stand was undoubtedly part of the harm reduction
process: testing, provision of information on drug use and, above all, an apparently open and informed attitude (on
drug use) from those working there. Finally, F15's comments shed light on what seems to be a fundamental
dimension of harm reduction services in the eyes of almost all of our most experienced festivalgoer respondents:
the feeling of proximity to the actors of these services. Beyond the information that can be gleaned, these services
are run by people with whom experienced festival attendees can feel comfortable: these people are peers, 'people
who know', 'not just old people' 'without experience'.
In the same vein as F15, F3, when talking about harm reduction spaces at festivals, noted:
“Well, the good thing is that they are people you can talk to, you can talk about products, you can ask
questions. But otherwise it is also simply for the distribution of products that can help, such as the “roll your
straw”. I suppose it's aptly named to reduce risk and avoid straw sharing and that sort of thing. […] Every
time I meet them, I spend some time with them, I know one of the harm reduction structures quite well”.
(citation 36, respondent F3, male, 25 years)
F3 eventually continued the contact to the point where he ended up taking a “harm reduction course” “outside of
festivals”. Another respondent, F5, also said that he would like to attend harm reduction training and even create
his own harm reduction association. Based on his observations at festivals where he saw many people on bad trips
joining the harm reduction areas, F5 describes them as follows:
“First of all, it will be a “chill out” tent, so that people who are too “out of it” can rest in a calm and trusting
atmosphere, because it will be directly with experienced people who can help them to get back into their
trip if they get bad or just let them rest. Possibly give water and all that. That's it: really giving the basic stuff
to be able to deal with bad trips and all that”. (citation 37, respondent F5, male, 21 years)
For F18, a 21-year-old man, the role of relax zones was also located in case of overconsumption:
“There's a time when you use them, because standing around and all that is just exhausting. So, you sit for,
I'd say, half an hour. I even use it as a meeting point. As soon as I can't find my mates or whatever, I know if
I go there and wait a bit, there'll be no worries. We'll meet there because it's an easy place where there
aren't many people”. (citation 38, respondent F18, male, 21 years)
These different testimonies show that the harm reduction spaces were generally perceived as places that are not
only safe, but also welcoming, available and friendly, where it seems that no one feels left out, since they can even
use them as a meeting place to meet their group of friends.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 66
F10, a 22-year-old festivalgoer, designed first aid services for emergencies. For the rest (bad trips, anxieties linked
to over-consumption), he considered that harm reduction spaces, and more specifically relax zones, are the places
that should be used, although he confessed to never having had a “bad trip” himself:
“I think if I ever get a bad trip or whatever or – yeah – a heat stroke like you say, I'll go to the relax zones
first. If ever it really doesn't just go away on its own.” (citation 39, respondent F10, male, 22 years)
But he also saw the relax-zones as spaces for distancing oneself from consumption:
“It lets them [consumers] become more aware of their consumption, I find. Like just wondering about it.
Because there are plenty of people who actually do it automatically. And just the fact of wondering about
it, of even starting to think about it, allows you to take a step back, to distance yourself from it, to say to
yourself “well, what am I doing, I'm taking it every week, is it perhaps a bit dangerous or what”? And then I
say to myself “ah, is there a way at Modus to contact a psychologist?” (citation 40, respondent F10, male,
22 years)
This function of the relax zones, identified by F10, of distancing oneself from one's consumption, is therefore not
limited, according to him, to the time of the festival. This distancing may, if we are to believe his words, allow the
emergence of a long-term reflection on one's consumption in general.
Drug testing
When drug testing was mentioned during the interviews, i.e. the fact of being able to have one's products officially
tested at the harm reduction stand at a festival, the festival attendees were unanimous; and this was true whether
they had already experimented or observed the process at work, or whether they only knew about it in theory, or
whether they were PWUD – or (and) sometimes dealers – of drugs that are testable, or not.
So, for example, when we asked her what she thought about having people test the products they consume, F20
said:
“Well, why not? Even so, I have never seen these testing services. So, I've never done it, but frankly: why
not? Because it's really important. Especially since it already happened to me, at the big festival in Wallonia
in 2010, I got some MDMA, or something, with a friend! It makes you wonder what was really in it! S,o it's
true that it's interesting to check your product. Because sometimes there is so much crap put into a product!”
(citation 41, respondent F20, female, 21 years)
F18, for his part, said that he had never seen, in the festivals he had attended, places where people could test the
products they were going to consume, but that he would use them without hesitation if they were available. F5
noted that the festival testing system should be generalized. According to another festivalgoer, F6, who did not
consume anything apart from alcohol, testing can …
“make sure that people are taking quality weed that is not mixed with crushed glass to increase the weight
without increasing the quantity of cannabis”. According to this respondent, we have to “ensure that the
products that people consume, given that they are going to consume them, are of high quality. That's my
opinion”. (citation 42, respondent F6, male, 28 years)
Harm reduction attitude?
The interviews we conducted showed that harm reduction services are undeniably perceived by the festival
attendees – whether consumers or not – as being the most in line with their reality – 'there will always be consumers
whether we like it or not' – and with the needs of the consumers and, beyond that, with the safety of all (those
experiencing a bad trip, a crisis, a state of anxiety, or those likely to witness the crises). In chapter I of this section,
we saw that the festival attendees we interviewed were very frank in their answers and showed an attitude that

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 67
went in the direction of a normalization/trivialization of regular and fairly dense consumption of so-called hard drugs.
In view of this reality, it is not surprising that the harm reduction services – or the prevention services coupled with
those involved in the harm reduction process – appear to be the best placed to respond to the needs of festival
attendees: to accompany their consumption through a certain number of actions that are both informative (leaflets,
testing) and reassuring, empathetic and welcoming (provision of beds, rest areas and water, listening, a presence
that is not perceived as authoritarian or judgmental).
The harm reduction philosophy actually seems to be more in line with the imagination of the festival attendees than
that of security, police or first aid services. This is, after all, logical since risk seems to be at the very heart of the
perspectives of the festival attendees with whom we were able to talk to.
On the other hand, although they are openly pro-harm reduction, the vast majority of festival attendees did not
think that harm reduction initiatives have much impact in terms of reducing consumption. Certainly, in the eyes of
the festival attendees, the harm reduction teams supervise, provide support and make consumption safe. Of course,
all the actions (testing, distribution of “safe” material, kits or information booklets) proposed by the teams should,
in the eyes of the festival attendees, be deployed at all festivals. According to our respondents, the provision of
information could even encourage people to think about, stabilise, and even better plan their consumption at the
festival. However, its dissuasive impact remains rather weak at the moment (during the festival). In short, those who
want to use drugs and have come to the festival to use drugs will use them, whatever support is offered to them; a
finding which is quite similar to that at the origin of the harm reduction dynamics.
3.4.2.4 Perception of the role played by the festival organizers
Overall, our festivalgoer respondents had nothing particularly specific to say about the role of festival organizers in
accompanying consumption. The effectiveness and uniqueness of their role was in fact evaluated indirectly: by the
evaluation of the different services (security, first aid, and above all prevention/harm reduction), which the
organizers used or did not use to provide a safe framework for festival attendees' consumption. The more organizers
multiplied, diversified, and ensured the competence of their partners – and the complementarity between these
different partners – the better they were evaluated by festival attendees.
Thus, for example, a certain festival in Wallonia – described as at least partially 'family friendly' – was described as
rather successful in terms of the dynamics of accompanying drug taking (F15). F15 pointed out how important the
practice of “testing” is, alongside other initiatives, such as the relax zones or reception areas; stands for leaflet
distribution and discussion. However, the same respondent stressed the dysfunctions and shortcomings of another
big festival in Wallonia – increasingly focused on “electro” programming – where there is no testing, and where the
presence of harm reduction and prevention services seems – according to what F15 heard about this big
festival – less extensive. Her perception of this second festival – and therefore of those who organize it – became
much more negative. F15 said she had no desire to go. This large festival was described by F15 as the “worst of all”,
the most dangerous, the most frightening. For many other respondents, it seemed to be the very example not to
follow in terms of harm reduction policy related to consumption – in the broadest sense of the term.
Another example is that of F1, who, as we have seen, reminded us that she noticed that there was only one
prevention stand at the festival she went to, and no stand for harm reduction or, to use her expression, “tertiary
prevention”. In the eyes of F1, the absence of harm reduction stands and teams is undeniably a sign of a lack of
support and supervision for the use of psychotropic drugs at festivals.
3.4.3 CONCLUSION: HARM REDUCTION PARADIGM AND REINFORCEMENT
From our interviews with the 20 festival attendees, it appears that the initiatives that are specifically “harm
reduction” or “prevention coupled with harm reduction” seem to be the most appreciated, whether or not they are
known or identified as such (confused, for example, with first aid actions). Firstly, the harm reduction actions seem
to be recognized as offering rest areas that are managed by people who are more open, closer to the festival
attendees, and more expert in the experiences of festival attendees who use psychotropic drugs. Secondly, there

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 68
was no criticism of the harm reduction initiatives and their actors. When harm reduction was mentioned, there was
no mention of stress generated by harm reduction actors (contrary to what is said about police and security teams).
Nor was it said that they would be ignorant of psychotropic drug use or authoritarian towards consumers (contrary
to what is stated about first aid services).
Beyond the appreciation of harm reduction services and initiatives as such, they seem to have become the dominant
paradigm in the imaginations of the interviewed festival attendees against which to evaluate all other initiatives.
What seems to be expected of any service is not so much the ability to dissuade festival attendees from using drugs,
but rather to provide safe support for the use of drugs and for the consumers, so as to encourage harm reduction:
the fact that police and security teams, beyond their repressive dimension, can accompany a consumer in crisis to
harm reduction or first aid services, but also that they could curb violent attitudes towards consumers who are in no
state to defend themselves. The analysis of these 20 interviews leads us to note what we will call the emergence, in
the imagination of the festival attendees interviewed, of a rising and partially established attitude of harm reduction.
This dimension of harm reduction – as a paradigm that is now apparently dominant in the various initiatives related
to the regulation of consumption at festivals – was also found in the various interviews we have conducted with the
different stakeholders.
Finally, the comments made about testing (an initiative that is fully in line with the harm reduction approach and
logic) show a desire, shared by the vast majority of the festival attendees, to see the emergence of a greater presence
and visibility of harm reduction initiatives in festivals and festive contexts in general.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 69
4. QUALITATIVE STUDY: INTERVIEWS WITH FESTIVAL STAKEHOLDERS
4.1 THE OBJECTIVE & RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In this chapter, the general objective is to obtain a comprehensive understanding of how festival stakeholders
perceive drug-related interventions implemented at music festivals in Belgium. These festival stakeholders are
situated in the field of prevention, harm reduction, care, and law enforcement. Similar as in the previous chapter,
the focus was put on both perceptions concerning drug-related strategies and those of substance use (norms).
More specifically, we aimed to answer the following research questions:
• RQ3: How do these stakeholders perceive substance use (norms) present at music festivals?
• RQ4a: How do festival stakeholders perceive their efforts in a context of substance use at music festivals?
• RQ4b: How do festival stakeholders perceive the efforts of other drug-related interventions at music
festivals?
4.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS & RECRUITMENT OF THE PARTICI PANTS
In this part, festival stakeholders have been targeted who implemented and/or executed drug-related interventions
at music festivals in Belgium. The purpose was to include a diverse range of both professionals and volunteers who
were specifically focusing on prevention, harm reduction, care, or law enforcement strategies: festival organizers;
stakeholders from prevention and harm reduction services; stakeholders from first aid- and medical services;
bouncers or security staff; police officers or -chiefs; local policy representatives; and public prosecutors.
4.2.1 RECRUITMENT OF THE FESTIVAL STAKEHOLDERS
Two different recruitment strategies were employed. Firstly, recruitment of Dutch speaking festival organizers was
based on the 22 music festivals in Flanders that were considered in the on-the-spot observations. Initial recruitment
of the festival organizers was performed through purposive sampling, in order to obtain a balance between
homogeneity and heterogeneity of festivals characteristics, namely: music style, province, and scale of the festival
(number of visitors). In a second phase, theoretical sampling was used to reach participants of music festivals with
different characteristics than those already included, or in other words: “to maximize opportunities to discover
variation among concepts and to densify categories in terms of their properties and dimensions” (Strauss & Corbin,
1998, p. 201).
Secondly, a more pragmatic approach was used to recruit the other festival stakeholders, i.e., prevention and harm
reduction workers; first aid workers and medical staff; security staff; police officers; local policy representatives; and
public prosecutors. Through the research team’s network, VAD (the Flemish expertise center on alcohol and other
drugs) and Modus Vivendi, festival stakeholders were recruited from all over Belgium (including Dutch- and French
speaking regions). Initially, purposive sampling was used, next to snowball sampling24, which was used more at the
end of the data collection.
In total, 44 interviews were executed with festival stakeholders. The sample consisted of 26 Dutch and 18 French
speaking participants. Demographic information (gender, language, work status and function) is provided in table
21.
24 In general, snowball sampling is a highly effective sampling technique for the study of difficult to reach or hidden
populations such as PWUD (Waters, 2014).

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 70
Characteristics
Dutch speaking
sample
(n=26)
French speaking
sample
(n=18)
Total sample
Gender
male
17 (65,38%)
13 (72,22%)
30 (68,18%)
female
9 (34,62%)
5 (27,78%)
14 (31,82%)
Work status
professional
18 (69,23%)
16 (88,89%)
34 (77,27%)
volunteer
3 (11,54%)
0 (0,00%)
3 (6,82%)
both
5 (19,23%)
2 (11,11%)
7 (15,91%)
Role25
festival organizer
11 (42,31%)
4 (22,22%)
15 (34,09%)
security staff
2 (7,69%)
2 (11,11%)
4 (9,09%)
police
4 (15,38%)
1 (5,56%)
5 (11,36%)
prevention- or harm
reduction worker
5 (19,23%)
9 (50,00%)
14 (31,82%)
first aid- or medical staff
2 (7,69%)
4 (22,22%)
6 (13,64%)
local policy
representative
2 (7,69%)
0 (0,00%)
2 (4,55%)
public prosecutor
2 (7,69%)
1 (5,56%)
3 (6,82%)
Table 21: Characteristics of the festival stakeholders
The sample consisted of predominantly male respondents, both for the Dutch speaking and French speaking sample.
Moreover, most of the participants were professionally executing their role as festival stakeholder. Festival
organizers represented almost half of all Dutch speaking stakeholders, whereas prevention and harm reduction
profiles represented half of all French speaking festival stakeholders. By consequence, these two profiles were most
strongly represented. Law enforcement actors (including public prosecutors, police, and security staff) were the least
represented subgroup, however, still including more than a quarter of all stakeholders.
4.2.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
Semi-structured interviews were used to explore stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences regarding implemented
drug-related interventions and substance use (norms). An interview guideline was used, which helped the research
team to focus on the research topics, containing key questions as well as sub questions (similar to the guidelines
described in 3.2.2).
Similar to the guidelines for the festival attendees, these guidelines were divided in two main parts. The first part
focused on substance use (norms), which related to the third research question. The second part focused on drug-
related interventions at music festivals, which consisted of the operationalization of research questions 4a and 4b.
In particular, perceptions and experiences concerning drug-related interventions were discussed with the
interviewees, focusing on prevention, harm reduction, health care, and repressive actions (see attachment B for the
detailed interview guideline).
In February and March 2020, festival organizers were interviewed with the assistance of Olivia Himpe, a Master
student Science in Health Promotion, in the context of her master thesis: ‘Harm reduction at music festivals in
Flanders: Barriers and Facilitating Factors through the Eyes of Festival Organisers: A Qualitative Research’. These
organizers were questioned through face-to-face interviews (except for the last interview, which was conducted
during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic). Subsequently, in January and February 2021, interviews with the
25 Some participants had multiple roles as a festival stakeholder, which explains why the sum of all the different
roles was more than the total number of interviewed festival stakeholders

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 71
other Dutch speaking festival stakeholders were conducted. Due to measures induced by the COVID-19 pandemic,
these interviews were executed through online video conferencing using Microsoft Teams (using both audio and
video functions). Similar to the face-to-face interviews, a separate audio recorder was employed. Before the start of
the interviews, informed consent was provided and all interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.
4.3 RESULTS OF THE DUTCH SPEAKING FESTIVAL STAKEHOLDERS
4.3.1 PERCEPTIONS ABOUT SUBSTANCE USE (NORMS)
4.3.1.1 Normalization of substance use?
Substance use at music festivals – and in a broader sense in the nightlife context – was seen as common by almost
all participants (n=24), and some respondents (n=5) even added to believe that substance use is common in society
as a whole.
Many stakeholders (n=17) stated that alcohol is strongly present at music festivals and beyond. Moreover, some
(n=4) indicated that alcohol consumption serves as an important revenue stream for the festival organization.
Furthermore, several stakeholders (n=11) experienced different patterns of alcohol consumption from festival to
festival, with young festival audiences being associated with a more problematic use, while some festivals could be
linked with heavy alcohol use.
During most of the interviews (n=18), the topic was raised whether substance use is being normalized. Although
most of them indicated, in one way or another, that this is indeed the case, there was a less clear consensus about
in what manner this is manifested. First, several stakeholders suggested that the process of normalization reflects
the idea that there is more social acceptance and less taboo towards illegal substance use, especially concerning
cannabis (n=8) or so-called ‘soft drugs’. A few stakeholders mentioned illegal substance use is evolving to occur more
openly at some festivals and that people who use illicit drugs regard their behavior as rather common.
Concerning the so-called ‘normalization’ of illegal substance use, most festival stakeholders did not relate this
evolution with increased consumption per se, but rather described it as an evolution towards more acceptance
(n=12) and more presence in particular settings, such as nightlife or festival settings (n=7). At least, some (n=4)
acknowledged the idea that illegal substance use has become a part of our society. Hence, the presence of illegal
substance use is no longer denied or ignored (as was more often the case in the past). Nevertheless, some festival
stakeholders (n=4) raised the issue of stigma and taboo, still experienced by some people who use illegal substances.
“ […] of course, if I compare it with the 1990s, a taboo has been broken. It has sneaked into the mainstream.”
(citation 1, respondent NL-18, female, prevention or harm reduction worker)
“I don't know if people accept it more now, but I do think people are more aware, that it's just there. I do
believe that. Simply because drugs are discussed much more in the media, in everything, in our entire life
[…]” (citation 2, respondent NL-24, male, prevention or harm reduction worker)
A few festival stakeholders (n=3) mentioned that a certain group of youngsters regard alcohol as less important
nowadays, in the meaning of a mentality switch that doesn’t take alcohol use as for granted anymore. This attitude
results in less alcohol use or even no alcohol use for certain youngsters, according to these stakeholders.
4.3.1.2 Festival characteristics & related substance use
As mentioned earlier, substance use is seen as a part of the festival culture. Some festival stakeholders (n=4) claimed
that music festivals can serve as places where festival visitors can escape from the daily routines and obligations. In
this sense, festivals are seen as free ports where having fun and acting freely is crucial. However, many festival
stakeholders stressed the importance of different festival characteristics, which are strongly related to the use of
certain substances.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 72
“The narcotics are usually related to some, well, more specific events” (citation 3, respondent NL-16, male,
law enforcement)
Firstly, music style was regarded as crucial by many (n=13) in relation to substance use norms. In general, festivals
in the electronic dance music scene were often linked with illicit substance use, especially of stimulants such as
ecstasy and cocaine, whereas rock- or metal festivals were generally linked with (heavy) alcohol use. Festival
attendees’ profiles were another key component according to several festival stakeholders (n=8). The age or
maturity (in terms of users experience) of the festival attendee was perceived as a crucial factor in terms of
substance use. Whereas young festival visitors were generally considered as inexperienced and less awareness of
the risks of substance use, both for alcohol and other drugs, more mature festival attendees were believed to be
more experienced and having a better understanding of their personal limits, for example in terms of avoiding
drug-related incidents.
“The average age at [NAME FESTIVAL] was 28 years. Eh, which means that there, well, everyone who is 30+
has a different outlook on life, who has no longer that experimental phase and who can, um, handle it very
well. There are a lot of people I know… are people (laughs), who are 30, 40, 50 years old, who are going out
three times a year and then take a pill three times a year. These are such people, they are recreational users,
who used to go out every week and take a pill every week, but nowadays they are going out to have a big
party again. Uh, and [NAME FESTIVAL] has the advantage that there are a lot of those types of people who
don't uh, who create little nuisance, who have already learned to go out safely for themselves.” (citation 4,
respondent NL-02, male, festival organizer)
Some festival stakeholders (n=4) expressed that larger festivals are more diverse in terms of musical styles and
visitor profiles (i.e., age and music preference). In this context, the presence of young families at certain festivals
was related by some (n=2) to child safety. A last indicator of festival identity mentioned by some (n=3) concerned
the distinction between mainstream and alternative festivals. In this context, when compared to alternative ones,
mainstream festivals were mainly linked to a low incidence rate of illegal substances but with a high incidence rate
of alcohol use.
4.3.1.3 Recreational use and problematic use
Other topics that were discussed by several festival stakeholders concerned recreational substance use (n=8) and/or
problematic substance use (n=15). Most of these stakeholders distinguished two types of use, with recreational use
being linked to a responsible or safer way of using. Some explicitly stated that information is a key element, enabling
festival attendees to use in a responsible way. Also, setting limits and lowering usage frequency were linked to more
responsible (or recreational) use.
“As a festival, we don’t really have to make a distinction between that [recreational versus problematic
use], but we do want people, uh, who use recreationally, to be warned about the dangers. And we also want
to give the people who use problematically the offer of: look, you can also get rid of it, you can also be
helped. So, that's a distinction, we specifically have chosen for to look at, yes, just a bit of a follow-up process,
to offer the aftercare, at the festival.” (citation 5, respondent NL-07, female, festival organizer)
However, according to several festival stakeholders, legal or illegal substance use can potentially lead to specific
problems at festivals, such as medical (e.g., PWUD in need of medical help due to an overdose of certain substances)
or behavioral ones (e.g., PWUD becoming aggressive under the influence of certain substances). More specifically,
problematic use was often linked to alcohol use (n=7). In this context, it is notable to add that a number of them
were questioning the legal status of alcohol, or at least did not take the legal status of alcohol for granted.
Nevertheless, some (n=6) (also) reported on experiences with problematic use of illegal substances, which was often
linked with combi use, especially of alcohol with other drugs (n=2). In this context, a few stakeholders (n=2)
acknowledged increases in combi use-related incidents at first aid services.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 73
4.3.2 PERCEPTION & EXPERIENCE OF (HEALTH)CARE SERVICES AT MUSIC FESTIVALS
4.3.2.1 Perception & experience among first aid workers & medical staff
As the main attention concerning drug related strategies was put on prevention, harm reduction, and law
enforcement interventions, only two stakeholders in the medical field participated in the interview. Nevertheless,
some interesting findings were collected from this subgroup.
As was already mentioned in the previous chapter, the number of patients related to substance misuse ending up at
first aid services – including more severe cases – are generally increasing. Both stakeholders in the medical field
added that one of the main objectives for first aid services at festivals nowadays is to safeguard local emergency
practices and intensive care at the nearby hospital. Due to this worrying evolution, which causes a serious
responsibility for first aid workers, stakeholders mentioned that first aid services have switched more towards
medicalized care services. By consequence, these services are, on the one hand, more and more staffed by
individuals with a medical background/education (e.g., doctors and nursing staff) and, on the other, more and more
furnished with specialized medical equipment (e.g., respiratory equipment, monitors). Often, these professional
workers are (partially) paid, whereas most first aid organizations, such as the Red Cross, are typically employing
volunteers. In addition, one of these stakeholders mentioned that this new evolution sometimes creates ambiguities
between first aid professionals on the one hand and volunteers on the other. They are often working independently
from each other, where clear preparatory agreements are lacking.
Another issue that was raised by both stakeholders concerns the openness of PWUD towards first aid workers. They
mentioned that festival attendees are often not totally honest about what has been taken, as well as regarding the
quantity (for alcohol as well as other drugs). However, one of them provided examples of both a dishonest attitude
and a trend towards a more open attitude concerning substance use. Notwithstanding, this stakeholder also claimed
that such openness only took place in absence of visible policing, as police presence at the first aid can be very
counterproductive. It is key that festival attendees are feeling safe at first aid services and that they do not feel
inhibited to ask for help or communicate crucial health information (e.g., regarding the type and amount of, legal or
illegal, substances they have used).
“So the safety has to ... those guarantees and, yes, it’s a relationship of trust that you build over the years
with festivalgoers. Uh, because yes, once something goes wrong, then it will spread like wildfire.” (citation
6, respondent NL-25, male, first aid services)
Also, cases of aggression at the first aid service by patients under influence were discussed. One of the festival
stakeholders mentioned that these cases primarily originated from persons who misused alcohol, rather than from
those misusing other substances.
Finally, both stakeholders regarded the way of working of the festival organization as an important factor. A good
relationship with the organization generally led to satisfactory collaborations and results. Yet, it was also stated that
a more highly professionalized first aid service is more costly. One of the stakeholders mentioned that some festival
organizations can afford to spend more means, while others are trying to economize as much as possible on first aid
services. In this sense, the stakeholder continued, a first aid organization could be regarded as an underdog when
compared to police and fire departments, who both have the ability to even shut down the complete festival.
4.3.2.2 Perception & experience among other festival stakeholders
In the first place, first aid services at festivals are seen by several stakeholders (n=5) as a safety net for those who
are in need of help. Similar to accounts of stakeholders from the medical field, some other festival stakeholders (n=3)
also stressed the importance of medical practitioners’ presence at first aid services. As such, certain severe cases
can be treated and less patients end up at the emergency department of a nearby hospital. Correspondingly, this
creates a better impression of the overall festival organization.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 74
“We actually have an emergency doctor on site, on Saturday and Sunday. And in the past that was actually
purely a first aid service by the Red Cross, those people yes, as soon as someone actually is unconscious for
some moment then uh, they call the ambulance, is the ambulance ready. […] in nine out of ten cases it is not
necessary. So of course, this is what a doctor can estimate, like okay, take some rest, drink some water or a
Baxter or whatever.” (citation 7, respondent NL-08, male, festival organizer)
The relevance of medical practitioners’ presence was also emphasized from another perspective. Since medics rely
on specialized expertise concerning substance use, some stakeholders (n=4) stressed their informing and sensitizing
role in terms of transmitting knowledge tailored to the PWUD. In this context, an example was given where a medical
practitioner was conducted a constructive telephone call with minors who got caught with illegal substances at a
festival.
“[…] I also thought that was a good initiative. Uh, minors don't get OMS. At [NAME FESTIVAL] you obviously
have a lot of minors. Eh, and there was the situation, that a fixed GP was available throughout the entire
festival, who had a telephone conversation with that minor who was then, uh yes, caught with drugs. That
was a light conversation, but it was indeed a conversation like: these are the consequences, think carefully
about it. Uh, so often a bit from the medical approach, this was given. […] I think that's not bad. Especially
that conversation with the GP is something that I certainly support, because that is the right person.”
(citation 8, respondent NL-22; female; law enforcement)
Stakeholders from first aid services as well as other stakeholders (n=3) shared views on the accessibility of first aid
services at music festivals. Especially repressive actions (e.g., police control with sniffer dogs at the festival entrance),
were perceived as inhibiting attendees to approach first aid services.
“ […] but we try to keep it all a bit, yes, the police away from, from it. For example, uh, pulling the medical
service and the police apart. In the past, they often stood side by side. But that is a barrier for people to go
to the medical service. I think those human lives are important, so they have to go to the medical service. So
OK, we move a little further, so they don't see us, so they aren't scared." (citation 9, respondent NL-19,
female, law enforcement)
Furthermore, several festival stakeholders stressed the relevance of close cooperation between first aid service and
mobile teams present at the festival area (e.g., mobile security or mobile harm reduction teams). These teams in
particular can detect drug-related problem cases at the festival area, whereby the mobile teams are able to notify
the staff members of the first aid service. In this context, especially the role of security teams was emphasized (n=4).
However, in this context, also the role of mobile harm reduction teams was stressed (n=3), not merely to detect
drug-related problem cases, but also to facilitate open communication, crucial for facilitating patient treatment.
Next to the importance of a good collaboration between specific stakeholders and sharing life-saving information,
several festival stakeholders (n=5) referred to specific knowledge on substance use as well as experience with PWUD,
most specifically in nightlife contexts. Both aspects are seen as essential for first aid workers or medical staff,
although in practice, such knowledge/experience is often missing according to some (n=4).
“What I also find important is the medical staff, that they are also trained in how to deal with illegal
substances and know what you can and cannot do. […] I feel that this is not always the case. Or that they
even just, don't even ask about it [referring to ask about the patient's substance use].” (citation 10,
respondent NL-13, female, prevention or harm reduction worker)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 75
4.3.3 PERCEPTION & EXPERIENCE OF PREVENTION AND HARM REDUCTION ACTIONS AT MUSIC FESTIVALS
4.3.3.1 Perception & experience among prevention and harm reduction workers
During the interviews with prevention and harm reduction workers (n=5) different actions were referred to, such as
the concept of Quality Nights26 and the harm reduction project Safe ‘n Sound27. Additionally, breath tests (to check
for alcohol intoxication) were named as additional preventive actions offered at music festivals.
First of all, the impact of these actions was discussed. Measuring the outcome of implemented preventive- and harm
reduction interventions was considered as rather difficult to most (n=4). However, some indications towards
potential impact were obtained through the festival attendees’ feedback stakeholders obtained during their actions.
In general, the actions of Safe ‘n Sound were perceived as positive by several prevention and harm reduction workers
(n=3), impacting the target group of PWUD. Notwithstanding the generally rather modest number of people visiting
info stands, according to one of the harm reduction workers, a potentially big impact on the individual level of the
substance user can be experienced. In addition, a snowball effect was mentioned, created by info stand visitors
sharing the obtained information with their friends.
Preventive actions with breath tests were regarded more skeptically. As it is difficult to measure the outcome of
such actions, their efficiency was questioned. Notwithstanding the fact that one prevention worker highlighted the
impact on a personal level (i.e., when festival attendees with a BAC-level above the limit decided not to conduct
their vehicle), these specific types of actions were not perceived as sustainable overall. In general, these types of
preventive actions are considered to be part of an integrated drug policy at festivals. Moreover, prevention workers
are considered to support and stimulate this policy together with other stakeholders, festival organizers in particular.
One single action was believed never to be the ultimate goal of a preventive strategy.
“It is very often the case that festivals in their organizations are mainly fan of those more 'one shots', uh,
actions and interventions, which we actually know they don't really do much. Eh, but then they can say that
they have implemented drug prevention of course. So that is often a bit of a consideration of ... Sometimes
we do such things or we do support their local prevention worker, for example, based on the idea of: Suppose
we make some concessions now, then we already have a foot in the door for maybe the next edition, that
we can work a bit more integrated or something like that.” (citation 11, respondent NL-13, female,
prevention or harm reduction worker)
In this context, it is interesting to capture the initiators of the different prevention and harm reduction interventions
at music festivals in the first place. According to some stakeholders (n=3), circumstances are not always perfect when
festival organizers are imposed to implement prevention or harm reduction actions due to (local) policies (e.g., to
obtain their license) (extrinsic motivation), compared to actions actively requested by a festival organization who
fully supports the approach (intrinsic motivation). Most of the prevention and harm reduction workers (n=4)
previously experienced difficulties between expectations/actions of the festival organization on the one hand and
expectations/actions inherent to their own field on the other.
Finally, harm reduction approaches and related actions were food for thought during the interviews. Some of the
participants (n=3) referred to legislation, which makes a distinction between legal and illegal substances. Within this
legal framework, harm reduction initiatives operate towards their target group (i.e., people who use illegal
substances) by offering them information and tools (on how) to use these substances in a less risky way. Several
26 Quality Nights is a charter which promotes a safe and healthy nightlife. Belgian clubs and event organizers who
want to engage themselves to be part of the Quality Nights charter, must offer a minimum of six health services –
such as free water, breath alcohol tests, training bar personnel, health information, etc.
27 Safe ’n Sound is a peer support- and harm reduction project in the nightlife setting. Through an info stand
staffed by peers, they are offering information and harm reduction materials specifically for PWUD.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 76
stakeholders (n=3) described that this particular way of working is not always perceived as taken for granted by
others, such as police officers, (local) policy makers/representatives, and festival organizers.
“You can sit together with a lot of services and organizations, and municipal services, as well as the police,
and everyone can be convinced of the same idea that harm reduction is perhaps the most appropriate form.
But to sign it as a political governance and as police, that's a completely different story." (citation 12,
respondent NL-24, male, prevention or harm reduction worker)
Harm reduction is not yet established as a well-known concept, according to some prevention and harm reduction
workers (n=2). Moreover, one of the stakeholders mentioned that certain people who use illegal substances were
questioning how a strict zero tolerance policy – which is often implemented at festivals – and a harm reduction
approach fit together at one and the same festival. Another stakeholder stated that it is difficult to work within the
current legal framework.
“People always ask themselves questions like: 'Yes, I just got in. Actually, I had to hand off everything, and
now I'm in and now you're actually giving me information about how we can actually reduce our health risks
when using alcohol or other drugs.” That is a bit paradoxical, but then we always try to place it.” (citation
13, respondent NL-15, female, prevention or harm reduction worker)
Furthermore, implementation of a drug testing service was recommended by some of the prevention and harm
reduction workers (n=3). It was even stated that this specific harm reduction action could potentially consist of one
of the most effective strategies to reduce health problems for people who use illegal substances in recreational
settings. In addition, one of the harm reduction workers explained that drug testing consists of more than just
analyzing substances; it also creates the possibility to interact with the target group in a more profound way.
“Respondent: The fact we are still not allowed to do drug checking anno 2021, I also think that is a huge
lack. And that is twofold, both analyzing the products, and two, more importantly, that you have people in
front of you, where harm reduction messages directly […], you have them with you, the attention is there,
and there is so much space and so much potential and so much… there's so much power in there to get
messages across and educate people that we're missing right now.
Interviewer: Yes. Is it much more than drug testing on its own?
Respondent: Absolutely.” (citation 14, respondent NL-18, female, prevention or harm reduction worker)
4.3.3.2 Perception & experience among other festival stakeholders
Although prevention and harm reduction are not exactly the same, these concepts overlap. Often, stakeholders
mixed both concepts when prevention and harm reduction strategies were discussed during the interviews. At a
certain point, the concept of prevention was used as an umbrella term for all preventive and harm reduction
initiatives. In what follows, the results are written with both concepts in mind. Unless it is clearly indicated, the
findings are targeting either prevention or harm reduction in particular.
First of all, prevention and harm reduction focus both on legal and illegal substance use. Harm reduction initiatives
specifically target predominantly people who use illegal substances by reducing consumption-related risks. From the
perspective of legislation (i.e., as PWUD are in fact committing an illegal act), this specific situation creates certain
difficulties according to several festival stakeholders (n=7). On the one hand, authorities are used to tackle the
problem of illegal substance use at festivals from a law enforcement approach. In this context, the perception arises
that law enforcement and harm reduction are difficult to match. Some stakeholders (n=3) even indicated that (in
the past) they were skeptical concerning harm reduction initiatives. Another stakeholder mentioned that in the past
years, a mentality switch occurred in the nightlife scene. On the other hand, festival organizers addressed specific

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 77
concerns regarding the implementation of harm reduction actions due to the prevailing legislation. Afterall, they
must meet the expectations of local authorities regarding appropriate methods to deal with substance use at their
own festival. Furthermore, a lack of a legal framework and clear regulations wasmentioned regarding the
implementation of harm reduction interventions, in particular for drug testing services (n=7).
“Today we have to deal with what the law imposes on us and that is also a continuous exercise and
discussion point. Today uh, the police say: it has to be like this, yes, you have to promote zero tolerance, we
have to do that. […] Yes, we have to deal with it and we don't want to bury our heads in the sand, but it is
constantly, isn't it? I don't want to go to court tomorrow because I'm the facilitator of uh, drug use.” (citation
15, respondent NL-02, male, festival organizer)
Moreover, festival organizers addressed another difficulty linked to the implementation of harm reduction actions
at festivals. Some of them (n=3) stated that the implementation of such actions might be seen as acknowledging
that illegal substance use is a problem at their festival, which could create reputational damage. Additionally, it was
mentioned that this could negatively impact the organizer’s relationship with local authorities. Moreover, festival
organizers highlighted their overall caution regarding illegal substances towards the public opinion and put forward
the potency of media to further intensify this negative image.
“[…] we um said, yes, if we allow that [harm reduction organization] at the festival for example, with a stand
about drug prevention, then that will automatically be a bit of an admission of, yes, here is drugs used. If
we're realistic, that's just always the case. Eh, there is also a lot of politics involved, so yes, then they will
also be a bit surprised like yes, uh, why is there is a drug prevention stand here?" (citation 16, respondent
NL-06, male, festival organizer)
Another aspect concerns stakeholders’ familiarity with the notions of prevention and harm reduction and how they
perceive the impact of these specific drug-related actions. Some stakeholders (n=3) recognized that they were hardly
familiar (or simply unfamiliar) with the concept of harm reduction in particular. In addition, especially festival
organizers notified that it is not easy to find your way in the landscape of prevention and harm reduction.
Furthermore, several festival stakeholders (n=6) were questioning the impact, effectiveness, accessibility, and
attractiveness of such actions, as well as their effectiveness to reach their target group.
“And indeed, that communication [about a safer nightlife]. Yes, ... somehow we should also measure it, to
what extent, how that comes in. How many people see it, read it, that there … effectively absorb it.” (citation
17, respondent NL-08, male, festival organizer)
Others listed specific features which they perceive as crucial for prevention and harm reduction initiatives. Similar
as for the festival organizers (n=7), accessibility and communication tailored to the target group, were regarded as
key features. More specifically, a low threshold (n=2) was perceived as important in terms of accessibility of these
type of drug-related actions at music festivals. According to one of the festival stakeholders, state-of-the-art target
group-tailored communication is sometimes missing. In this context, peer support or peer education was a few times
suggested as an effective way to communicate with the target group (e.g., Safe ‘n Sound). However, other festival
stakeholders were doubting the potency of employing experts by experience to inform PWUD. Some festival
stakeholders (n=2) suggested to make use of the expertise of festival organizers in order to communicate towards
festival attendees. Possibly, this can also be valuable in terms of visibility, as some stakeholders (n=5) indicated that
there is work to be done in terms of visibility for prevention or harm reduction actions at music festivals, in particular
regarding Safe ‘n Sound. However, prevention and harm reduction initiatives could also be positioned more in the
spotlights, rather than being assigned a location somewhere in the background of the festival area.
“That [prevention or harm reduction info stand] was very different from the, uh, professional stands of Coca-
Cola and Maes and interim offices. They were like: what kind of dodgy place is that?! It did not match. They
were standing there… distributing those kinds of flyers instead of, I don’t know, yes, working with a sexy app
[…]” (citation 18, respondent NL-04, male, festival organizer)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 78
“For example, you noticed that the Safe 'n Sound stand wasn't ... The intention was to place it very, very
centrally at the festival, so it was also very clearly present. No, that didn't work out. It was somewhere, uh,
pretty in the back.” (citation 19, respondent NL-22, female, law enforcement)
Finally, some festival stakeholders (n=3) highlighted the role of police within a prevention strategy.
4.3.4 PERCEPTION & EXPERIENCE OF REPRESSIVE ACTIONS AT MUSIC FESTIVALS
4.3.4.1 Perception & experience among stakeholders of law enforcement strategies
Most stakeholders in the field of law enforcement (n=5) agreed about the main drug-related purpose of the
implementation of repressive actions at music festivals, namely, to send out the clear message to the festival
audience that illegal drugs are not allowed. By no means, the assumption is to execute a manhunt by searching every
single festival visitor or to stop all illegal use of substances.
“Like I already said, that's, well yeah… that's not a manhunt. If we want [laughs], we can… The more efforts
on that [OMS Fest], the more money you get. And that is certainly not the intention. The intention is simply
to show that presence, those checks, well, to show: We are here […] It is not allowed. Giving a signal, that's
what it's about.” (citation 20, respondent NL-22, female, law enforcement)
In this context, several stakeholders in the field of law enforcement questioned the impact and efficiency of their
own repressive actions, in particular the police officers. First of all, they referred to the festival attendees’
anticipation how to avoid drug controls at the festival entrance and how to adapt their means to deal with drug
searches. In this sense, stakeholders clarified that not all illegal substance use can be blocked through repressive
action. Furthermore, some acknowledged the difficulty of measuring the impact of the applied interventions.
“Ho, I must honestly say, yes, that is not scientifically examined, is it. Moreover, I do not dare to say: Ho,
have we now ensured that, for example, a reduction of 100 people who end up at the Red Cross service or
not. I dare, ho, I really don’t dare to say that ... Substances are used at the festival site. […] Uh indeed, we
do get a lot out of it, but I think that is, yes ... But, I cannot substantiate it scientifically, but ... it's a fraction
of what is present and used at the terrain." (citation 21, respondent NL-16, male, law enforcement)
After all, avoiding drug-related mortality was mentioned as another important focus for law enforcement actions by
some involved in the implementation of repressive actions (n=3).
In terms of the specific drug-related actions, drug searches are an important part of the repressive approach, which
is mainly conducted at the entrance of a music festival. A specific procedure, the so-called ‘wasstraat’28, was
developed to efficiently execute drug searches. Sniffer dogs (or detection dogs) are deployed to optimize this
process. Moreover, OMS Fest29 was created with the intention to reduce law enforcement entities’ administrative
work during these searches. PWUD in the possession of a certain quantity of illegal drugs are required to pay an OMS
when caught. In general, most stakeholders in the field of law enforcement (n=5) positively assessed the
implementation of the OMS Fest procedure at festivals. Most importantly, these stakeholders recognized a
reduction of administration work due to its implementation. Nevertheless, some stakeholders (n=3) also articulated
a critical remark. For instance, some doubts were expressed concerning the extent of the fine. The question was
raised whether the currently applied amounts are sufficiently large and whether they could be generalized (as they
generally differ from district to district, or even from festival to festival).
28 Concerns a specialized and fully equipped location, mostly at the festival entrance, which enables police to search for illegal
drugs in an efficient and profound way when festival attendees are suspected of the possession of illegal drugs.
29 The implementation of an ‘Onmiddellijke Minnelijke Schikking’ (OMS) or ‘règlement à l’amiable immédiat’ in the context of
music festivals.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 79
In general, law enforcement stakeholders experienced different reactions from festival attendees when they were
caught during drug searches at the festival entrance. This ranged from feedback indicating that festival attendees
perceived the drug searches as inconvenient, to accounts of festival attendees reacting in a more comprehensive
way, accepting the consequences as a calculated risk. However, some of them (n=3) linked these different ways to
respond with the way repressive actions were set up. If extra efforts were put in a more personal approach using a
non-judgmental mindset, the atmosphere was more relaxed. In that case, stakeholders articulated that there was
more peace of mind among the festival attendees.
“You also saw that this indeed provided more peace of mind for the festivalgoers. Yes, and that's kind of the
principle of, uh, action-reaction, and the way you approach people. Eh, and how you position yourself, that
certainly has an impact on the attitude of the festivalgoers. So you also saw there, yes, that people ... many
know that: Ok yes, it is not allowed, so yes, if you catch me, yes, then I was unlucky. But the fact that we no
longer pick out the audience like robocops, very ostentatiously, visible to everyone ... that made them feel
less directly targeted. And generally, we actually have, hoo, one or two, uh, people that we caught on [illegal
drugs], who were being checked by us, who were freaking out.” (citation 22, respondent NL-12, male, law
enforcement)
In addition, an evolution towards low profile policing was mentioned by some stakeholders (n=4), in the sense of
less ostentatious police presence. However, they also pointed out that this new approach might involves some
friction among police officers. Police interventions at the festival have evolved towards this lower profile of policing.
At the current stage, plainclothes police are deployed to primarily catch drug dealers, rather than PWUD, at the
festival area. Moreover, most of the stakeholders (n=6) involved in the implementation of repressive actions
mentioned that the focus on drug dealers was an important drug-related objective.
“I've always focused on the big dealers. Those who really want to make money and who don't really look at
the consequences for people." (citation 23, respondent NL-19, female, law enforcement)
Moreover, collaborations between police and security staff were mentioned (n=2), with security teams observing
the festival area, detecting problems, and subsequently reporting the problems to the relevant stakeholder (e.g.,
the detection of drug dealing at the festival area).
Other feedback was mainly attributed towards festival organizers. On the one hand, these stakeholders (n=3)
mentioned negative feedback from festival organizers who did not appreciate the repressive approach at their
festival, in the sense of ‘feeling targeted’. In this context, even favoritism was mentioned occasionally, with reference
to interference of the local policy makers in favor of the festival organization. On the other hand, some stakeholders
(n=2) also indicated to have received positive feedback from festival organizers. This was generally embedded in a
year-long, professional collaboration between the stakeholders.
In addition, some (n=2) discussed their relationship with media and related public opinion. The impression was
created that these parties generally perceived the different law enforcement strategies at music festivals and beyond
in a rather negative way.
“If you have a [drug] death, you haven't checked enough. And if you don't have a [drug] death, you've
checked too much." (citation 24, respondent NL-19, female, law enforcement)
Finally, a specific concern was raised in the context of security staff actions. From a legal point of view, security staff
is not allowed to specifically search for illegal drugs at the festival entrance. In the event of illegal drug discovery
during a superficial safety check (e.g., weapon or other prohibited items search), security staff members need to
notify the police, as they are not allowed to confiscate these substances. Yet in reality, illegal drugs are retrieved on
a regular base by security staff at music festivals. Nevertheless, this is not translated into legislation, which is
perceived as problematic through the eyes of security staff (n=2).

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 80
“The [festival] organization wants zero tolerance on drugs. Security is seeing that: Yes, ok, we have to check
for drugs. Yes, but the law says: We are not allowed to search for drugs. So, we're always going to find that
by chance. Uh, so the finality of the superficial scan at the entrance fades to: We're looking for drugs."
(citation 25, respondent NL-23, male, law enforcement)
4.3.4.2 Perception & experience among other festival stakeholders
Many festival stakeholders (n=7) focused on the importance of collaboration and the need for clear arrangements
between law enforcement and other drug-related stakeholders. Different points of interest were relating to a need
for coordination and collaboration. More specifically, they recommended to organize meetings focusing on alcohol
and other drugs, especially at the music festival itself. Such meetings could bring different stakeholders, involved in
the implementation of drug-related interventions at festivals, together and facilitate the exchange of information
between relevant partners as well as enable monitoring of the situation. Consequently, this could enable the
different stakeholders to finetune or adjust their drug-related actions according to the circumstances actually
occurring at the festival.
Furthermore, several stakeholders (n=5) appealed for a balanced drug policy at festivals, where prevention and harm
reduction are regarded as equivalent to repression. Often, this claim was based on a so called ‘zero harm policy’,
which refers to the guidelines for a balanced alcohol- and drug policy at festivals30 (Van Damme & Schrooten, 2020).
However, not all of these stakeholders necessarily referred to the VAD-guidelines for a balanced alcohol- and drug
policy at festivals in particular. Still, the key element of a balanced drug policy remains the coexistence of both
preventive and repressive actions at music festivals. While repressive interventions aim to discourage the use of
illegal substances, prevention or harm reduction initiatives aim to inform PWUD in order to reduce harms related to
substance use.
“We must inform, discourage. If you want to do it anyway, inform yourself how. I think that is the role of
festivals: to discourage use. But if people – well, that's the rational choice theory, is it – if people have made
the decision to use anyway, we won't be able to stop them from doing so either.” (citation 26, respondent
NL-07, female, festival organizer)
Nonetheless, festival stakeholders discussed issues regarding the implementation of a (more) balanced drug policy
at festivals. Several stakeholders (n=4) noted contradictory effects of confrontation with repressive measures and
harm reduction initiatives. Additionally, some festival organizers (n=3) considered such a balance as difficult to
obtain, for example when required to meet expectations of local authorities and thus being not entirely in control
of the design/implementation of the policy regarding drug use at the festival.
Many festival stakeholders (n=11) reflected on a zero tolerance policy at festivals, generally referred to as ‘a
repressive approach’, in a rather negative way. Some (n=3) mentioned its limited impact, while others (n=4) were
summing up the different strategies festival attendees employ to avoid police controls or security checks. Although
one festival stakeholder supported the zero tolerance policy at his/her festival, another stated that they simply have
to follow the law.
Furthermore, several festival stakeholders (n=6) linked a repressive approach with its potential negative impact
impact it could potentially cause, especially in terms of riskier substance use. In this context, festival stakeholders
alerted that certain festival attendees tend to take their substances all at once when, for instance, being confronted
with extensive police control (cf. police intervention with sniffer dogs).
30 This roadmap offers guidelines how to implement an alcohol- and drug policy at music festivals. Such an alcohol- and drug
policy is a coherent set of agreements how to deal with substance use, in terms of law enforcement, prevention, harm
reduction and (health)care. The guidelines are published by VAD in 2020.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 81
“For example, what I noticed as an organizer , the first two years of [NAME FESTIVAL]. Then the city council
and the police weren't really dealing with our festival yet. […] We weren't really in their sights yet. And uh,
that drug use was undoubtedly already there, but that did not lead to people who ended up at the first aid.
That all went well. But what we did notice, from the moment the police arrived in year 3 and really very
harshly implemented zero tolerance with dogs and with wasstraten uh etcetera, then suddenly we had every
day 4-5 people in our first aid who had taken too much. Uh, which somehow shows that people come under
a certain pressure and then somehow start to take everything at once or, uh, spreading less. They feel a bit
hunted, uh bad decisions are made. Maybe more is also bought from dealers they don't know and so, yes,
quantities they don't know about, like what do I actually have here. Uh, so we immediately saw a spectacular
increase of people who ended up at the first aid. And I found those numbers so striking that I could not help
but link it to the fact that suddenly very repressive actions were taken at the entrance. The first thing you
saw there were 10 police officers in a row and I can imagine that you are like: Wow, what is this here and so
stupid decisions are made.” (citation 27, respondent NL-11, male, festival organizers)
Other stakeholders (n=3) indicated that a repressive approach could refrain PWUD from visiting first aid services and
also linked such an approach with illegal substance trade at the festival area. Individuals who decided to use illegal
substances at the festival, were indicated to buy more quickly from unknown dealers at the festival site when a
repressive approach was implemented. This entails increased risk, as the user is usually unaware of the reputation
of the vendor as well as the quality of the products. Finally, a few stakeholders (n=2) claimed that drug searches –
which are recently being organized more frequently – have a stigmatizing effect on festival attendees. In this context,
they specifically referred to repressive actions with sniffer dogs and so-called ‘wasstraten’ where naked body
searches were occurring.
Notwithstanding the overall negative assessment of repressive approaches, many of the stakeholders were still
convinced of the necessity of such actions at music festivals. Some specific drug-related actions were acknowledged,
which were regarded as essential in the context of a repressive approach. First of all, law enforcement was perceived
as key in the light of drug dealing at the festival (n=4). Secondly, a repressive approach was regarded as essential for
targeting driving under influence (n=4), especially in the hours and day(s) after the festival had finished. Some even
indicated to intend to increase their focus on this specific topic, particularly since its impact extends the mere festival
context.
“That was actually nice to see that people appreciate it [the preventive alcohol breath test action] in the
first place. Well, sometimes there's also alcohol involved, and suddenly you're best friends and it's all fun.
Also, sober people showed a lot of appreciation. And that is not surprising, because I once experienced a
very large one in [CITY NAME] during a repressive control action. And there you notice also that many people
actually appreciate that there is a control action. So that is indeed, well yes, potentially with fines and such
things - which was not the case with us now.” (citation 28, respondent NL-24, male, prevention or harm
reduction worker)
Stakeholders (n=2) also stressed the importance of clear communication towards the festival audience regarding the
festival’s drug policy. Finally, some (n=3) made suggestions in the context of low-profile policing, which implies that
police interventions are organized in a less visible way (e.g., deployment of plainclothes police at the festival area)
or police actions are executed more discreetly (e.g., installation of a separate zone to check festival visitors when
organizing a police intervention with sniffer dogs and body searches). These recommendations were mainly made
in the context of a strict repressive policy, which is generally perceived as stigmatizing towards the PWUD.
Furthermore, several festival stakeholders (n=9) experienced the collaboration with parties from the law
enforcement field as overall positive. However, some festival stakeholders (n=4) claimed the nature of this
experience somewhat depends on the municipality where the festival is located, which has an impact on both
policing and judicial level. For example, different strategies are used in different police zones or police levels (local

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 82
versus federal). It was even mentioned that the quality of the collaboration with other stakeholders can depend on
the particular individual executing the job.
4.3.5 TOWARDS A BETTER IMPLEMENTATION OF DRUG RELATED STRATEGIES AT FESTIVALS: BARRIERS & FACILITATORS
4.3.5.1 Specific barriers & facilitators of the festival organization
From a festival organizer’s perspective, the festival image is of crucial importance. By consequence, festival
organizers potentially have a reticent attitude towards drug-related interventions at their festival. Fear of a bad
reputation regarding the public opinion or in media terms must be taken into consideration.
Lack of knowledge and skills in the context of drug-related approaches at music festivals was considered as another
barrier. More specifically, festival organizers are not fully aware of the potential of prevention and harm reduction
strategies. Furthermore, legislation is not always perceived as optimal. How does a harm reduction strategy fit into
a contemporary drug policy at music festivals, for example? And what can be expected from the festival organization
in terms of a drug policy? In this context, (local) policy actors and the judiciary play an important role. On the one
hand, festival organizers did not always feel heard and claimed not having any voice in this matter, while on the
other, festival organizers sometimes experienced fear of being prosecuted. Therefore, they strongly valued
transparent communication between different stakeholders and argued for more mutual understanding.
Personal factors proved to play a role as well. Firstly, how festival organizers perceive their own role in order to deal
with substance use-related issues is crucial. Secondly, their perceptions regarding the need for a drug-related
approach at their festival is of great importance. Additionally, festival organizers always have to navigate between
hedonistic aspects of freedom and pleasure and safety aspects. A music festival with too many rules and interference
was not perceived as desirable. Furthermore, the intrinsic motivation of a festival organizer is another key element.
How do they look at the aspect of substance use? And how responsible do they feel? Finally, a lack of resources
(especially of time and financial means) is often experienced as a barrier.
4.3.5.2 Specific barriers & facilitators of health care strategies
A trend towards a more medicalized first aid service at festivals has been initiated. An increase of patients related
to substance misuse on the one hand, and an active demand for professional medical support by festival organizers
on the other, can be seen as triggers. Thus, further professionalization of first aid services at music festivals is key.
From the perspective of a first aid organization, there is a need for better alignment between the professional and
volunteer section of a first aid service at festivals.
Furthermore, the lack of an open attitude regarding substance use can be seen as a specific barrier to provide
adequate health care. Therefore, confidentiality is essential. Moreover, repressive actions are often considered as
obstacle impeding the accessibility of first aid services.
4.3.5.3 Specific barriers & facilitators of prevention and harm reduction strategies
The broad prevention landscape – and especially harm reduction – is often uncharted ground. This can result in a
distorted image of prevention and harm reduction services. Moreover, the impact of prevention and harm reduction
actions is often hard or even impossible to measure. In this context, also the question of efficiency was raised.
On the perspective of legislation, harm reduction initiatives are perceived as being in a difficult position, precisely
because of the fact that they approach the use of illegal substances in a different way. This (potentially) restrains

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 83
festival stakeholders – such as festival organizers or local policy – from implementing harm reduction interventions
at their event.
During the implementation of prevention or harm reduction actions (cf. Safe ‘n Sound), more attention needs to go
towards the integration of such a drug-related service within the broader context of the festival. This implies that
the prevention or harm reduction strategy should be considered as part of the implemented drug policy.
Additionally, more specific measures could be taken in order to approve the visibility and potential of these actions.
In this context, both prevention and harm reduction actors as well as other stakeholders, such as the festival
organization, should play their part. For example, harm reduction initiatives can build on the expertise and
communication skills of festival organizations (e.g., to spread early warning messages, to move info stands to better
locations or to indicate their location on the festival map).
Finally, there was an appeal for more prevention or harm reduction initiatives as well as better and more resources
for these initiatives. For example, harm reduction initiatives are more recently unable to respond on all requests in
a positive way due to a lack of time and staff. Moreover, the implementation of drug testing services was suggested
to optimize the possibilities of a harm reduction strategy at festivals.
4.3.5.4 Specific barriers & facilitators of law enforcement strategies
In general, a zero tolerance policy was perceived as unrealistic in the meaning of stopping all illegal substance use at
festivals. Notwithstanding, according to most stakeholders from the law enforcement field, the main purpose of
repressive actions is to send out a clear message that illegal drugs are not allowed at festivals. Moreover, the
question of efficiency was raised. In this sense, the impact or outcome of repressive interventions was perceived as
difficult to measure, yet the assumption was made that (at least to some extent) festival attendees did anticipate
the police controls.
Overall, law enforcement was generally perceived in a rather negative way. This was manifested through organizers’
reluctance to deploy large police forces or negative media reports. Additionally, repressive actions were believed to
negatively impact the health aspect, according to different festival stakeholders.
As such, suggestions were made to work in a less repressive manner. In this context, low profile policing was
recommended (e.g., no highly visible police interventions with sniffer dogs at the festival entrance). Rather than
being interpreted as a call to phase out police interventions at festivals, this should be seen as claim for a more
human approach of law enforcement strategies. The OMS Fest procedure could be regarded as exemplary, mainly
from the perspective of law enforcement actors. Furthermore, there was often suggested to focus (more) on drug
dealing in particular.
From a legal point of view, security personnel has no clear mandate to focus on illegal substance use, according to
the interviewed security guards. Nonetheless, they are confronted with these illegal practices at music festivals.
Overall, collaborations and clear arrangements between law enforcement and other drug-related stakeholders are
key. The implementation of drug-related coordination may enhance, for example, an exchange of information
between different actors, which enables to better monitor the situation. Ideally, this improves drug-related actions
and decreases potential risks and harm.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 84
4.4 RESULTS OF THE FRENCH SPEAKING FESTIVAL STAKEHOLDERS
4.4.1 PERCEPTION OF DRUG USE AT FESTIVALS BY DIFFERENT FESTIVAL STAKEHOLDERS
4.4.1.1 Consumption of substances
If not all, at least the vast majority of our 18 respondents, whatever their status, function, or activity, considered
that festivals are undeniably a place where psychotropic drugs are consumed: alcohol, cannabis, and stimulants
(speed, MDMA, ecstasy) or psychedelics (LSD). Depending on the type of music played, the use of this or that product
was dominant. Alcohol remained the basic psychotropic drug, the most common and widespread, as well as the
most sold “including by the organizers themselves, in fact”, as SK9, head of a Brussels club, reminded us. In the same
vein, SK2, who was responsible for a relax-zone at a large festival in Wallonia, said:
“Alcohol is part of the festival, part of the festival culture, because it is sold”. (citation 1, respondent SK2,
male, harm reduction worker)
At festivals with a more “electro”-oriented program, the use of stimulants or psychedelics substances was more
prevalent. This was the view of SK14, a deputy public prosecutor in Wallonia. In his opinion …
“electro music is the ambassador of hard, strong, drugs with a disintegration effect (LSD stamps) and
energizing alcoholic drinks; strong drugs made more accessible by the mafias”. (citation 2, respondent SK14,
male, law enforcement)
According to SK14, electro festivals offer a kind of [euphoric] “package: strong drugs, repetitive music”.
According to SK17, First Aid nurse:
“The deeper you go into the techno underground, the harder the drugs are: the techno festivals are the
“must attend” events. For example, there are many more crises and hospitalizations at a big annual techno
festival in Brussels than at any other festival that lasts three long days. On the last night of this techno
festival, 13 patients were intubated in one night. Which is a huge number”. (citation 3, respondent SK17,
male, first aid worker)
Furthermore, putting these remarks into perspective, SK1 said, about the consumption within the festival of which
he is the central coordinator, which had a varied program (electro and urban music (Hip-Hop)), and whose average
age of the attendees was 17/26 years:
“I think we're not doing badly with MDMA and Ecstasy. Cocaine? I would say that in our event a little less
compared to other places in Brussels. Perhaps because it is a slightly younger age group. And so sometimes
for some it may be the first time. I also think that for some 16-17 year olds, [the festival] is their first big
party outside France or other cities. They come to Brussels to party. So, I think they are more focused, yes,
on drugs like ecstasy”. (citation 4, respondent SK1, male, festival organizer)
4.4.1.2 Alcohol and hypocrisy
However, some psychotropic drugs like stimulants or hallucinogens, are not necessarily the ones that pose the most
problems for our stakeholder respondents. In this sense, SK9 confided to us that he encounters the highest incidence
rate of violence or aggression in his club with alcohol consumers. According to another respondent, SK17, a First Aid
nurse “in Belgium there is a particular relationship with alcohol. Alcohol is as common as water. Unlike France.”
SK 13, who was responsible for security at several festivals in Brussels, said:
“We have to stop the hypocrisy of legal and illegal products. There was never any discussion about reducing
the sale of alcohol, for example, at any of the events I attended! There was never any discussion about that.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 85
We don't worry about this, we just worry about how to limit the damage ... but that's all”. (citation 5,
respondent SK13, male, security)
According to SK13, there is no discussion about festival organizers reducing alcohol consumption because the sale
of alcohol is “clearly part of the organizers’ profit”. This is not the case for other, illegal products.
This respondent also recognized that in some respects alcohol is less risky than illegal drugs. This is because it is
easier to ascertain the quality of alcohol because it is legal to sell. This is not the case for drugs sold illegally. Because
it is legal, the source of officially sold alcohol can be traced more easily than for illegal psychotropic drugs, in the
case of adulteration of an alcohol product sold at festivals. In accordance with this logic, according to which a legal
product is more controllable than an illegal one, and in agreement with the actors of harm reduction initiatives,
SK13, in his capacity as a festival security officer, pleaded - particularly in the face of the notion of “law enforcement”
- for the decriminalization of all psychotropic drugs.
4.4.1.3 Universal need to disconnect
The “decriminalization” point of view goes hand in hand with the idea, shared by the vast majority of our stakeholder
respondents, harm reduction actors, security or first aid actors, that, irrespective of its specific culture, each human
community has an irrepressible need for moments of “de-inhibition”, “modified consciousness” or “disconnection”,
before, as SK1, organizer of a big festival in Brussels, stated:
“returning to the concrete part of life” (citation 6, respondent SK1, male, festival organizer)
… and its various daily duties and stresses. SK1331 even want as far as to say that there is a …
“universal need for moments of letting go, of delayed consciousness: which can be acceptable and also
dangerous”. (citation 7, respondent SK13, male, security)
According to SK13, it is therefore necessary to think about the conditions under which people can safely let loose in
a festive environment.
SK15 concurs with SK13. But he also noted, after 30 years of experience in organizing concerts and festive evenings,
that:
“while the party can be magical, it also contains the risk of catastrophically damaging your life. You only
need to take the wrong product, at the wrong time, etc.”. (citation 8, respondent SK15, male, festival
organizer)
Based on this observation, SK15 stressed the need to regulate the party and also the consumption that may go with
it, and even want so far as to talk about the need to design a “social security system for nightlife or parties”.
4.4.1.4 Trivialization of hard consumption
SK14, the public prosecutor, also recognized this universal human need to experience moments of disconnection,
but he said that he had noticed, with concern, that young people tend to …
31 We quote this respondent several times because, given his position as head of a security team, his view, which is very close to
the philosophy of harm reduction actors, on the “need to let go” may seem surprising (more surprising than when this type of
view is expressed by a harm reduction actor). This shows that the harm reduction philosophy seems to have circulated well
outside the scope of these official actors.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 86
“consume more and more quickly and more heavily, even alcohol, which they drink quickly outside to save
the high price of alcoholic drinks inside parties or festivals”. (citation 9, respondent SK14, male, law
enforcement)
This was also noted by SK18, who was in charge of a large harm reduction association. She talked about “binge
drinking”, a term that refers to the act of “drinking a large amount of alcohol in a very short time”. According to
SK18, who had 30 years of experience in harm reduction, this contemporary trend towards binge drinking goes hand
in hand with what she described as a “trivialization of consumption, particularly among young people”, including the
use of stimulants or psychedelics with rapid and powerful effects32; this trivialization can result in consumption that
is too dense and that involves mixing different products. In response to the fact that the use of drugs (which is never
free of risks) is becoming commonplace, SK18 reiterated the harm reduction paradigm:
“Well-being, not abstinence. Therefore, harm reduction is part of a health promotion approach”. (citation
10, respondent SK18, female, harm reduction worker)
Thus, in the same vein as SK15, who, as we saw, mentioned the need to design a “social security system for partying”,
SK18 called, in addition to the work of prevention, for conscious support to be provided for partying and the risks
related to the consumption of psychotropic drugs, given that this is inevitable. This is also the position of the vast
majority of the different stakeholders we interviewed, despite the specifics of each stakeholder's experiences,
perspectives, and views. In each interview, each participant quickly came to talk less about control and repression
than about consumer support and complementarity between the various stakeholders.
4.4.2 FESTIVAL STAKEHOLDERS' PERCEPTION OF THE DIFFERENT DRUG-RELATED INTERVENTIONS AT MUSIC FESTIVALS
4.4.2.1 Perception of law enforcement actions: Police, Security, Public Authorities.
Police
Without denying the fact that the work of the men under his command also sometimes consists of “hunting” (the
dealers33), SK11, a police officer in charge of a large police zone in Wallonia, when he talked about his work during
the festival taking place in his region – and hosting more than 200,000 over 5 days –generally favored and used a
complex and more open vocabulary than that linked to mere law enforcement work: “deterrence”, “preservation of
things and people”, “keeping the public safe” rather than repression, or “negotiated management of the public
space”. With what he called a “new police culture”, SK11 even acknowledged during the interview that:
“The harm reduction and medical actors can help us in the management of a person in crisis on psychotropic
drugs”. (citation 11, respondent SK11, male, law enforcement)
He also talked about the benefits for his men in having followed a training course on psychotropic drugs given by
harm reduction associations before the festival. At the same time, and perhaps surprisingly, this police officer came
to recognize a certain complementarity between his actions and those of associations (linked to harm reduction and
sometimes described – by other stakeholders – as “consumers looking after consumers” (SK4)) quite officially
employing consumers on temporary jobs on their stands at festivals, to help care for festival attendees in crisis or
experiencing a bad trip.
Nevertheless, the position of the police officer we interviewed, SK11, was not, according to the harm reduction actor
SK18, representative of all police and judicial officers. For example, SK18 recalled the aggressive intervention, a few
years earlier, of a public prosecutor supported by a police chief during a major festival in Wallonia. For example,
32 SK18 points out that cannabis, particularly when ingested, can also be dangerous and generate powerful bad trips, which she
has observed and supported at several festivals.
33 At least the dealers carrying too much product, thus outside what SK14 calls a “mutualist deal”, i.e., small quantities, whose
aim is ultimately less to make a profit than to consume for free.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 87
outraged to discover that there were psychotropic drugs34 in the harm reduction stand run by SK18, the public
prosecutor told SK18 that what her team was doing was “nonsense” and that he should “teach them what to do”.
But in general, the majority of our respondents believed that the police have a role to play in festivals.
“Not only for drug use, but also in relation to violence, to attacks on women, which can be linked to drug
use, but not always,” (citation 12, respondent SK8, male, harm reduction worker)
As long as the police can act as a complement to the various initiatives to accompany festival attendees and not in
opposition or by showing an assertive posture (SK18). What should be done, as SK12, 37, a nurse working with harm
reduction teams, told us, is to ensure that the harm reduction stand is not next to the police stand:
“It happened that the police stand was next to ours,” she says. “And the festival attendees didn't dare to
come to us for information. It was a real barrier for the festival attendees. The police and us should not be
side by side”. (citation 13, respondent SK12, female, harm reduction worker & first aid worker)
This last statement sums up the logic of interaction between the different categories of stakeholders quite well: this
oscillates, beyond the ideas that each category has of the others, between the desire to create the conditions for
necessary complementarity, while being aware that this requires a clear understanding of the specifics and the area
of action of each category.
Security
Speaking for themselves, the two stakeholders in charge of security during the festivals, SK13 and SK16, whom we
interviewed, were quick to point out during the interviews how, despite obvious complementarity, their functions
diverge from those of the police. They can search the public, spot dealers, ask them to leave but they cannot arrest
them. This last prerogative is reserved for the police. As SK13 reminded us:
“A guard cannot constrain a person against their will in a manual way, I would say. Only the police can do
that”. (citation 14, respondent SK13, male, security)
So, if a security guard finds a festivalgoer with, for example, a packet of cocaine “he has to call the police”. But from
the beginning of their interview, our two security respondents insisted on a more complex dimension of security
than the one linked to the action of surveillance and repression. Thus SK16, another security coordinator and, in
addition, an emergency nurse, mentioned the impossibility of:
“preventing people from using drugs. I mean, I have no illusions, even if a body search were to be carried
out. But we don't do that. If we said: “OK! This year we are not allowing anything in”. We couldn't do it. It's
not possible... We're not going to prevent it, but we're not going to make it easier, either! ...Because I think
that without this filter it would be even worse”. (citation 15, respondent SK16, male, security & first aid
worker)
According to SK13, colleague of SK16, the important thing is:
34 The consumption of PWUD working temporarily in harm reduction is authorized outside their working hours and officially
declared by the harm reduction structure that SK18 manages. Thus, SK18 states during the interview: “The prosecutor was
outraged to see that there were psychotropic drugs on our stand, although it was known that the PWUD who temporarily work
in harm reduction use them (not during their working hours but during their break). They are paid 150 euros for the festival with
the option to attend any festival. They come with their own tents and sleep in the festival campsite. But they are fed by us. We
ask them, however, to party away from the harm reduction stand and to be clean for working hours”.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 88
“to be able to manage this as well as possible without the security and prevention person being
uncomfortable and without the person who is in that state being uncomfortable and without both of them
becoming dysfunctional, that was my approach”. (citation 16, respondent SK13, male, security)
SK13 in fact regularly referred to what seemed to him to be the central function of security: “The protection of the
person”. And from there, he was at ease talking about the training provided by the harm reduction and prevention
associations. While he reported that the men and women who work under him know how to deal with drunk people
fairly well, he acknowledged that this is more difficult with people who have taken stimulant or psychedelic drugs.
According to our respondent, knowing more about the effect of this or that product (which is made possible by the
harm reduction training courses), helps to improve the ability to ensure …
“the protection of the person. Because if there is a danger to the person it is obviously important to be able
to recognize it as soon as possible. But we also need to know how to act towards a person who is behaving
strangely. And that's what stood out for me. It was the weird behavior, not necessarily dangerous but really
weird. And to be able to manage this as well as possible without the security and prevention person being
uncomfortable and without the person who is in that state being uncomfortable and without both of them
becoming dysfunctional, that was my approach”. (citation 17, respondent SK13, male, security)
The perception of the actions of the security teams by the other stakeholders was, in the end, quite similar to that
of the security managers we questioned: although the latter recognized that their teams do not often have a good
knowledge of the effects of stimulants or psychedelics, the situation is evolving and training courses are being
organized. And, in the end, behaviors are also changing. Thus, several first aid and harm reduction actors noted that
in recent years, security teams have increasingly called on the first aid or harm reduction services to take care of a
festivalgoer who is probably in a state of crisis related to their consumption. In the light of the interviews conducted,
it appears that the role of the security teams lies between maintaining order, enforcing the law, ensuring health –
both physical and psychological – and, ultimately, ensuring the well-being of festival attendees. As an example, SK17,
a first aid actor, reminded us during our interview with him that today:
“Security can play a caring role: they bring in people in distress and spot them. They are the first link in the
care chain”. (citation 18, respondent SK17, male, first aid worker)
Public authorities
When talking about his actions related to festival consumption, the prosecutor we interviewed, SK14, first
mentioned the repressive dimension of his work and the “circular applied” by his prosecutor's office in 2018:
“A circular to reduce the entry of drugs into festivals. In any case, we only had the opportunity to implement
it once, given the pandemic: at two festivals, one techno and the other also quite electro-oriented and where
there had already been a judicial and police presence for quite a few years. ... This circular actually makes it
possible to better supervise the work of the police. And its main purpose is to immediately collect a sum of
money [règlement à l’amiable immédiat], a fine according to the quantities found on people and the type of
products. And so, in fact, it also aims to remind all the people who attend these festivals of the law, so that
they don't think that the festival is a lawless place where the law on drugs does not apply at all. ... The
national circulars continue to be applied in any case. There is one from 2015 which concerns ordinary
possessors. Here, it is a simplified ticket for less than three grams of cannabis or other. So, there is always a
tolerance that exists too. The police are therefore required to be able to collect the money immediately or
to propose payment by bank transfer. And so, our subsequent role is to follow this up. That is, we will see
whether the person has paid or not. And then we will assess whether prosecution is appropriate. Non-
payment does not necessarily mean prosecution”. (citation 19, respondent SK14, male, law enforcement)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 89
In defining the logic of the circulars mentioned, SK14 spoke of negotiated repression. The aim is certainly not to
avoid applying the law but to put the repressive dimension of its application into perspective. In particular, the fine
mentioned by our respondent serves, according to him, to avoid police custody. However, he did state:
“Of course, we differentiate between the products. Obviously, as soon as it comes to heroin or cocaine, we
no longer apply the fine and we react in the conventional way: a more in-depth investigation”. Then he
added: “Deprivation of liberty only occurs very exceptionally if the person is really found in possession of a
number of products and in large quantities”. (citation 20, respondent SK14, male, law enforcement)
However, quite soon, apart from the actions related to law enforcement, SK14 mentioned his contacts and
partnerships with different prevention actors in his region:
“In fact, we see each other on a regular basis, a little less because of COVID but within the framework of the
drug users' prevention workshop. I was able to bring the police back into the picture and they are also
becoming aware that prevention is as important as repression. So, I think that dialogue has been re-
established at that level too. During the festival, there was a good discussion between the police and the
prevention services so that one would not interfere with the work of the other. And finally, I want to say that
the police stand is not located too close to the prevention stand because obviously the people who could be
beneficiaries would tend to say: “I'm not going there ... the police will see that I want to go there”. So, there
you have it, it was really well coordinated”. (citation 21, respondent SK14, male, law enforcement)
SK14 therefore ended up describing his festival work as needing to be coordinated with harm reduction. Once
situations that are considered off-limits – i.e., dealing, transporting, or possessing too much drugs – were
neutralized, SK14 made sure that the police presence did not constitute a hindrance for tolerated users and did not
prevent them from assessing harm reduction services. Beyond or alongside the repression of the "non-mutualist
deal”35 (according to the respondent, a-non mutualist deal refers to a deal for profit, whereas a non-mutualist deal
refers to a deal that allow the dealer to pay for his or her own consumption), SK14 relied on a policy that interweaves
care and mediation of the judicial system:
“We act on the supply side but we also try to act on the demand side. If we reduce the number of consumers
both through the mediation of the judicial system and the offer of care that the police can also propose
after a hearing, we think that if there is less demand, the supply will also decrease. I believe that we must
act on these two levers”. (citation 22, respondent SK14, male, law enforcement)
SK14 thus described his role as a prosecutor as oscillating, at least as far as the issue of illegal psychotropic drug use
is concerned, between law enforcement and public health.
The other stakeholders (harm reduction, first aid, organizers) did not, at first sight, have much to say about the
impact of the role of the justice system’s representatives on festival consumption. The vast majority of them, when
they talked about the work of the justice system and their interaction with it, noted that everything depends, in the
end, as with the link with the police, on the personality of the justice official with whom they are dealing, his or her
ability to listen, and his or her capacity to move away from the paradigm of repression or law enforcement. In
conclusion, the quality of the complementarity and of the relationship between the various stakeholders and the
judicial officers still depends, to a large extent, on the good will of the latter. It is neither a given nor is it structurally
ingrained.
4.4.2.2 Perception of first aid actions
Talking about their role in the festival, the first aid actors first of all mentioned the predominantly medical nature of
their actions: taking blood pressure, intubation, possibly medication, etc. As SK17 put it, not without a certain
35 According to the respondent, the term "mutualist deal" seems to designate a drug deal resulting from a group purchase of a
product which makes it possible to resell part of it and consume the rest free or much cheaper.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 90
amount of humor: “We know the molecules, the harm reduction teams know how they are used”. And beforehand,
according to SK17, “it is a question of anticipating, depending on the festival where we intervene, what we should
expect and what we should anticipate that we will need medically”. Further on, he detailed:
“Our role is to set up the actual medical structure. So that means monitoring, resuscitation equipment, if
necessary, intubation in order to evacuate to a hospital if we cannot stabilize on the spot. That is to say, we
can take care of patients who are not too neurologically affected, who do not require intubation. They can
be kept in place, given rehydration treatment, kept warm, and generally this is 50% of the cases. At the end
of the evening, they can return to the party or to their homes. In more serious cases, patients who are highly
intoxicated and whose airways are compromised by the use of drugs, or who are extremely agitated by drugs
and become dangerous to themselves and others, they should obviously be admitted to hospital and
stabilization measures have to be taken on the spot. Whether it's an intubation or the injection of a drug, a
sedative. These are the two things we work on the most. We stabilize, we send to the hospital. Our role in
any case on the spot is not to absorb day-to-day demand for emergency medical aid”. (citation 23,
respondent SK17, male, first aid worker)
SK17's vocabulary was quite significant for the way he perceived his role: he called the festival attendees he receives
“patients”, a term that was never used by the harm reduction actors or the police or security services. SK16, when
talking about his work as a festival First Aid nurse, also used the term “patient” to refer to the people he has to care
of.
SK12, 37 years old, an emergency nurse at the SIAMU, who sometimes works at festivals in the areas dedicated to
harm reduction, and sometimes in those dedicated to First Aid, told us:
“If the person deteriorates or there is a problem, we will give them first aid. ... For example, at a festival in
Brussels where I worked with the first aid services, there were several intubations because people had
consumed so much that they could not breathe!”. (citation 24a, respondent SK12, female, harm reduction
worker & first aid worker)
Then this same respondent specified that:
“if there is a wound, if there is something traumatic, something medical, people are more likely to go to the
first aid services. Now when it's something related to drug use, as it's sometimes a bit taboo, as there is
sometimes illegal drug use, as there are minors, as at the First Aid center you have to give your identity card,
I know that some people prefer, if they don't feel well, to come to the relax zone. That's why it's also
important [for first aid] to be able to make this relax zone known, hence the fact of on-site preventive
measures”. (citation 24b, respondent SK12, female, harm reduction worker & first aid worker)
Quite quickly, in the various interviews conducted with first aid actors, they spontaneously explained their role by
putting it in perspective with that of the harm reduction services. So SK17 told us:
“We wear a rather strict uniform, and this sometimes puts off the festival attendees. The first aid outfit is
divisive. It represents an authority... It is also true that a few years ago, the firstaAid services could behave
rather authoritatively at times... The actors of an association providing harm reduction services know what
the consumers are going through and are dressed in civilian clothes. This creates a closer relationship with
them”. (citation 25, respondent SK17, male, first aid worker)
On the subject of first aid, the other stakeholders essentially and firstly said that their presence remains
indispensable. Firstly, when they are the only consumer support team, as is the case in the club SK9 was involved in:
“We don't have the resources to call on another service as well. First aid is already an unavoidable but
significant cost”. (citation 26, respondent SK9, male, festival organizer)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 91
Secondly, when at a festival, next to the first aid services, there is a harm reduction team. If first aid actors situate
and define themselves using harm reduction actors as a point of comparison, the same is true in reverse. The harm
reduction actors easily explained their function, especially as they mentioned that of first aid, whose presence is
considered by all harm reduction actors to be completely complementary to their actions. And this, despite the
sometimes ironic or disdainful way in which various first aid actors have looked at harm reduction, especially in the
past. Thus SK4, a prevention and harm reduction actor, said, among other harm reduction actors, that:
“In the eyes of the first aid services, we were initially perceived as a group of drug addicts who worked with
other drug addicts”. (citation 27, respondent SK4, female, prevention & harm reduction worker)
A certain critical view is therefore not totally absent from the comments made by various harm reduction actors
concerning first aid, although their presence is considered inevitable. Thus, SK4, a 38-year-old harm reduction
worker, told us about their actions:
“I think the person is not seen as a whole [by first aid actors]. They will manage the person in relation to the
symptom. Is she dehydrated? We're going to give her water in a drip. She is anxious, we'll give her a relaxant,
a sedative. That's it! She has such and such symptom and we manage it. However, the cause of the symptom,
its consequences and what to do next to calm the anxiety or psychological distress is not their thing. They
are there to keep the person alive”. (citation 28, respondent SK4, female, prevention & harm reduction
worker)
By way of comparison, SK4 made a point of avoiding, as much as possible, the treatment of a psychotropic drug crisis
by the administration of another psychotropic drug, even if it is called a medication and prescribed by a doctor.
4.4.2.3 Perception of prevention and harm reduction services
Prevention
SK18, head of an association concerned with harm reduction, made her point explicit:
“Prevention is not done at the time of consumption but beforehand. Harm reduction must be linked to care
and prevention. Prevention exists before the festival. The opposition between prevention and harm
reduction is outdated. If the basic paradigm is abstinence, then you will say that harm reduction is “tertiary
prevention”. I find it a bit cynical. As I said, the paradigm of harm reduction is well-being, and this makes
harm reduction part of health promotion”. (citation 29, respondent SK18, female, harm reduction worker)
For this respondent, harm reduction seems to encompass prevention, and not the other way around. And from this
perspective, according to SK18:
“Prevention sometimes really makes sense. For example, succeeding in postponing the age of the first drink,
in my opinion, is good: it is better not to experience this during adolescence when the body is in the midst of
a process of change and construction”. (citation 30a, respondent SK18, female, harm reduction worker)
According to SK18, again, by trying to raise the age of first use of psychotropic drugs, for example, or by helping …
“certain young people not to give in to consumption and to resist the group effect – I want to do what my
friends are doing – prevention actors are also acting in the direction of health promotion” (citation 30b,
respondent SK18, female, harm reduction worker)
This is the central aim of harm reduction, in her opinion.
For some harm reduction actors (whose official title is sometimes “prevention actor”), too, the boundaries between
prevention and harm reduction remain blurred in practice, at least from the point of view of the structures that

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 92
define themselves primarily as harm reduction. According to the majority of our respondents in the field of harm
reduction, prevention is only really meaningful through its interaction with harm reduction initiatives and the
recognition of the unavoidable necessity of harm reduction.
Harm reduction. Philosophy and actions
In the eyes of all the prevention and harm reduction actors we interviewed, the principles of harm reduction were
the central reference point for their initiatives. Summarizing the harm reduction philosophy, SK18 said:
“harm reduction is about accompanying people where they are. And if people consume, and at the moment
they do consume, it is necessary to support them in their consumption”. (citation 31a, respondent SK18,
female, harm reduction worker)
Then she added:
“And, at the meta-level, harm reduction is about enabling a society that is inclusive of people who use
drugs”. (citation 31b, respondent SK18, female, harm reduction worker)
According to another respondent, SK 10, a doctor working in harm reduction teams at festivals:
“harm reduction is a continuum between prevention, care, and support. A continuum also between different
paradigms: prevention, prohibition measures and care or health in the biological, psychological, and social
sense”. (citation 32, respondent SK10, male, first aid worker & harm reduction worker)
In concrete terms, shaping an inclusive policy for consumers and accompanying their consumption – and therefore
their social or psychological health – involves a number of actions, as SK12 reminded us:
“Support means reassuring people about what they have consumed. And so, it's really: we go from the part
where we will talk to where sometimes people just go to sleep. They need to rest in a quiet place, not in their
tent where it is hot, for example. Really a quiet place where they can get some air, where they have water
and space. If someone is vomiting or really unwell, we will take them to first aid.” (citation 33, respondent
SK12, female, harm reduction worker & first aid worker)
In the same sense, the presence of a doctor and/or a nurse in the harm reduction areas is intended to ensure that
consumers are in the right place at the harm reduction services and that their condition does not require medical
attention. SK10 said that only on very rare occasions they have prescribed medication to a consumer in crisis.
Furthermore, most of our harm reduction respondents explained that one of their important actions consists of
supporting festival attendees in a bad trip situation, an anxiety crisis or a loss of bearings that could put them in
danger. But “bad trip” is the phrase that came up most often. For example, SK8, a harm reduction actor, said that
he feels quite comfortable in supporting people suffering bad trips after taking stimulants. Bad trips due to over
drinking were more difficult for him. The same applied to those related to the use of hallucinogens:
“Not especially difficult to manage but more difficult to experience. I mean the big bad trips on LSD or things
like that, where you really feel that people are terrified inside. I find that hard for them. But then it's always
difficult. You see, if I say too much, there's a risk I might panic them even more. Am I being too intrusive, or
not intrusive enough? How can I get on the same wavelength?” (citation 34, respondent SK8, male, harm
reduction worker)
Describing his work in great detail and what happens in the relax zones held by the harm reduction teams, SK8 tells
us:

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 93
“It can be very, very quiet or it can be crazy. It depends. So, the relax zone is really about receiving people
who are on a bad trip. We have a dozen beds at one festival, twenty at another. And it's about listening to
the person, seeing in what state they are in and what they want. Do they just need to talk, do they want a
hug? Do they want a bed to lie down and fall asleep in? Do they need a container to puke all their guts out
and a hair clip to keep them from getting hair in their mouth? Offer tea, coffee, manage the situation with
the Red Cross. That's it. So, in the relax zone, there are also medical staff all the time”. (citation 35,
respondent SK8, male, harm reduction worker)
In another interview, SK4 gave us a detailed description of the actions she is able to perform and the experience and
knowledge that underlies them:
“Four and a half years ago, for example, I did reassurance with a person who was very, very anxious while
the drug took effect, a young girl, it was not easy. And so, I offer the girl a syrup with water. So here I am,
the girl is sitting. So, I'm below her. I'm on my knees so that she doesn't have to lift her head, which is
something very... like an adult talking to a child. When you're under the effect of a drug, it's already
something that causes a certain amount of tension. So, I'm going to put myself lower than her so that she
looks down, so that she doesn't feel dominated. So, I ask if she prefers grenadine or mint or lemon. Well,
something like that. This seems to me a basic approach, because the aim of many people is also to give them
water to hydrate them”. (citation 36, respondent SK4, female, prevention & harm reduction worker)
According to SK4, the interpersonal connection is the very foundation of the work of harm reduction actors. This
was also confirmed by other actors. SK3, for example, told us concerning his work with consumers that:
“it's the relationship, how they are received. A non-judgmental reception, the interpersonal relationship. The
fact that we are a source of strength rather than having a negative preconception. Our attitude is more “you
are somebody”, “you are a good person”, “you are somebody who is valuable”, “you are somebody who is
worthy and worthwhile”. And we'll try to make it as good as possible for you in the state you're in now.”
(citation 37, respondent SK3, female, prevention & harm reduction worker)
Beyond the key words of “connection” and “relationship” is therefore that of “strength”, involving a series of
welcoming actions and words capable of helping the person going through a difficult period of consumption to get
back their self-confidence.
In addition to working on the connection with consumers and helping them to feel stronger, some harm reduction
actors also mentioned that it is important to have local knowledge of the places where they intervene. Thus, as SK6
explained, concerning where he worked in the Walloon countryside:
“There is something that I think is really essential. ... the link which is extremely important, and I believe that
it is essential, really essential, is that with people on the ground, local people. You have to know the reality
of the territory in which you are working. My territory is a rural area, a town in the countryside. It's not
Brussels. It requires specific actions”. (citation 38, respondent SK6, male, harm reduction worker)
According to SK6, these actions should be carried out in consultation with, for example, the harm reduction
associations from Brussels, which cannot offer actions without working with local people who are aware of the
realities and particularities of each area of intervention where the issue of consumption and harm reduction may
arise.
Other stakeholders' views on harm reduction
As we have seen before, whether they are police officers, security services, first aid actors, or organizers, the view
of the various stakeholders on the dynamics and philosophy of harm reduction is undeniably positive and receptive.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 94
It even seems that, to some extent, the harm reduction philosophy has trickled down into the imagination or
paradigms of the different services, related to emergency care, security, or law enforcement. During the interviews,
they all mentioned either the usefulness of the training provided by the harm reduction associations, the relevance
of most of their actions in the field, or the complementarity between their own actions and those of harm reduction.
This is how SK5, a young woman organizing a festival in Wallonia, summed up the impact of harm reduction on
festivals and even on the authorities:
“I think it's necessary in the sense that there haven't been all these (harm reduction) things in festivals for a
very long time and it's a very good idea. I can see that every time I pass the harm reduction stand at my
festival, people stop to ask about it. And I think there is a demand from the authorities and a curiosity from
the festival attendees as well”. (citation 39, respondent SK5, female, festival organizer)
In addition, the need for complementarity between each initiative was mentioned by each category of stakeholder,
especially by first aid and security actors and festival and party organizers. According to SK1, SK5, SK9 and SK15, the
complementarity between the harm reduction, first aid and security services is essential for the health and well-
being of festival attendees. Party and festival organizers also affirmed the importance for them of being able to
follow training courses on harm reduction, where they learn about the specific nature of each product, the
appropriate action to take for each type of discomfort, and the strategies to be deployed to treat and regulate the
consumption. These training courses were also considered as pivotal by the security team leaders and even by the
police officer we interviewed.
However, the complementarity between the different drug interventions is far from a foregone conclusion. Even
today, SK18 sometimes feels that the harm reduction actors are looked at by other services “as weirdos”. In this
sense, SK16 said:
“I feel more complementary and in tune with the harm reduction services as a security coordinator than as
a First Aid actor”. (citation 40, respondent SK16, male, security & first aid worker)
On how to receive people and what to do in the case of a consumer in crisis or discomfort, the first aid and the harm
reduction paradigms can still sometimes clash. But things have certainly changed a lot, at least according to our
interviewees. Thus, SK17, a first aid nurse, noted that:
“The clichés about the harm reduction teams have been fading in recent years. We can now see what they
are talking about thanks to their expertise.” (citation 41, respondent SK17, male, first aid worker)
He also recognized that the fact that some harm reduction actors have used drugs themselves in their lives may
ultimately represent a “plus”, a valuable experience to support consumers. Later on, the same SK17 finally admitted,
not without amusement, that:
“harm reduction is really a plus for me today, whereas the first time I was told about it, to be honest, I said:
“Who are these guys? I hear there are former consumers. Do they encourage substance use?”.” (citation 42,
respondent SK17, male, first aid worker)
4.4.2.4 Perception of the initiatives taken by the festival organizers
The initiatives taken by the interviewed organizers reflect the circulation of the harm reduction philosophy. As
mentioned above, the key word has become “complementarity” between services; a complementarity laying the
ground for, firstly, the reduction of drug-related harms, and, secondly, what is stated by various harm reduction
actors as the central paradigm and objective of harm reduction: well-being and health promotion.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 95
According to SK15, the proper management of nightlife – as mentioned above – requires a “social security system
for nightlife” to ensure well-being and promote health in a festive context. In the same sense, this festival organizer
talked about the need to learn more about drugs and the evolution of consumption through regular training on the
subject:
“I think it is necessary to update the training on drugs and new developments in terms of consumption every
two months”. (citation 43, respondent SK15, male, festival organizer)
This point of view is very close to the philosophy of the harm reduction associations.
For his part, SK9, manager of a large Brussels club and, like SK15, aware of the consumption at his parties, mentioned
the benefits for his team of following the training provided by the harm reduction associations:
“The staff have been trained for 'Quality Nights'. There you have it. We just wanted the responsible people
in the project [the team] to have the training. That way, if there's ever something to deal with at an event,
the person knows what to do and is not panicking. Because it is often the first few minutes that are the most
important when something happens. We wanted the bar manager to know how to intervene, we wanted
the cashiers to know how to intervene. We wanted the person who we call the “maid manager”, who runs
the parties for us, to know how to intervene, as well. So, we followed this training course”. (citation 44,
respondent SK9, male, festival organizer)
In addition, in his parties, which can accommodate between 500 and 800 people each weekend, SK9 and his team
have created a quiet area where you can lie down and only hear the music being played in the background. Finally,
SK9 organized a kind of relax zone in his club. Although SK9 does not always call on the harm reduction and
prevention teams at each party, due to a lack of resources, he has finally ensured that his team adopted the harm
reduction approach and that those in it became harm reduction actors.
4.4.3 CONCLUSION
The 18 interviews with stakeholders revealed that:
- interviewees have in common what we will call a certain philosophy of celebration perceived and stated as
a universal human need for disconnection, disinhibition and a break with the everyday.
- harm reduction actors were initially – and to some extent still are – perceived by the other festival teams
as “eccentrics”, “weirdos”, “oddballs”, “drug addicts dealing with drug addicts”, “ex-drug addicts dealing
with drug addicts”, and even “people who encourage consumption”. However, it is clear that the paradigm,
or what we might call the harm reduction culture – to provide support and not repress or merely prevent
consumption – now seems to influence the majority of the stakeholders we interviewed, to the point of
sometimes becoming the central and primary reference point.
- the central watchword used by the various teams is that of complementarity, within which harm reduction
plays a central role (it makes it possible, among other things, to relieve the pressure on the first aid services,
to calm a consumer in crisis instead of repressing or hindering him/her, to differentiate the role of the
security and police teams, and to orientate and make consumption safer with advice and testing).
In order to make this complementarity possible, and to optimize it – noted and claimed by almost all of our
stakeholder respondents – perhaps the funds allocated to the different actors involved in targeting the substance
use at festivals, should be more equitably distributed according to the factual importance of the role of each type of
intervention (see recommendations).
The anthropologist Emmanuelle Lallement (2018) reminds us in her text “Que la fête s’éclate” (“Let the party go
wild”): “Although anthropologists have defined the festival, or the festive phenomenon, as a universal category of

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 96
excess, temporal rupture and inversion of the customary order, it is also legitimate to think of the festival in its
institutionalized, professionalized and even industrialized forms”.
Beyond that, the party should also be thought of as defined by the stakeholders we met: as a time of disinhibition,
relaxation and social redress and, finally, also as a place, it seems, capable of providing support to “excess” and
ensuring the safety and health of those who sometimes use substances, if the resources are provided.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 97
5. LIMITATIONS
Our research, like any other, has its limitations. Experiences were key in terms of the ESM-study and the
questionnaires were operationalized within this rationale. Nevertheless, a low level of experience with certain drug-
related interventions were found among participants, which has consequences in terms of the generalizability of the
findings. Moreover, the ESM-study is based on self-reported data. Meanwhile, this study only gives an insight on the
perceived impact on substance use and related behavior.
In terms of the recruitment of festival attendees, both for the ESM-study and the interviews, our study reached a
substantial proportion of individuals experienced with illegal substance use. Seen the focus of this project and the
related research questions, the purpose was to specifically target this audience. Our samples were not designed to
be representative of the general population of festival attendees. Rather, they were intended to be information-rich
(Mortelmans, 2013) as the experiences of festival attendees who use illicit drugs were considered of special
relevance to our research. Moreover, a majority of our sample indicated to have achieved a level of higher education
and a vast majority of the participants specified to be a full time worker or student. Concerning the selection of
festival stakeholders, harm reduction workers and festival organizers are overrepresented. By consequence, less
stakeholders from the law enforcement field participated in our study, especially in the French-speaking sample.
Most likely, this entails that our study reached festival stakeholders with an overall progressive attitude towards the
topic of substance use and drug related interventions.
Our study focused on a broad range of drug-related interventions. By consequence, it wasn’t feasible to study each
intervention in-depth. In this sense, an important implication regarding drug testing services is that different types
of such services were not taken into consideration, despite the fact these differences could prove to be crucial seen
the different outcomes of each type of testing. However, recent studies show that the implementation of drug
testing services at music festivals most probably positively impact PWUD’s health and potentially may discourage
individuals from using contaminated substances (Measham & Turnbull, 2021; Valente et al., 2019; Measham, 2019;
Mema et al., 2018).

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 98
6. CONCLUSION
The objective of the POPHARS-project was to obtain insight into the perception of drug-related interventions and
substance use (norms) at music festivals, both of festival attendees and festival stakeholders. Therefore, a mixed-
method study was conducted between 2019 and 2021, combining a quantitative online survey and qualitative
interviews. In total, 320 festival attendees and 44 stakeholders participated in our research and 15 drug-related
interventions spanning the four pillars of the Belgian drug policy (i.e., prevention, harm reduction, health care, and
repression) were surveyed.
The quantitative study was conducted using experience sampling methodology (ESM), which is based on data
collection in a real-world environment (i.e., music festivals). Respondents were asked to complete a short survey at
different times related to their music festival visit. In total, 305 attendees completed the pre-festival questionnaire
(T1), of which 187 also completed the questionnaire during (T2) and after (T3) their festival visit. The sample
consisted of participants with a high prevalence rate in terms of (illegal) substance use. Most of them perceived a(n)
(omni)presence of substance use during their festival visit, although at varying degrees and depending on the
substance (i.e., alcohol, cannabis, or other illegal drugs).
Previous to their festival visit (T1), the majority of the participants did not believe drug-related interventions would
have an impact on substance use as such. Similar perceptions were expressed after encountering such interventions
(T3). However, both before attending, as well as after obtaining experience with these interventions at the festival,
a different pattern was found concerning participants’ perception of drug-related interventions’ impact on drug-
related risks. Harm reduction actions were clearly believed to result in less risky use. This is in strong contrast to
repressive interventions, which a substantial part of the participants believed to (slightly) increase substance-use
related risks.
Similar beliefs were expressed regarding the perceived impact of drug-related interventions on personal substance
use after having interacted with these interventions. However, some of these actions were only encountered by a
limited number of participants (e.g., drug testing service). According to our sample, in general, drug-related
interventions did not (strongly) impact illegal substance use, purchasing from unknown dealers, drinking alcohol
instead, or switching to other drugs. The perceived impact of most harm reduction interventions, however, resulted
in less risky use and/or more awareness of illegal substance use and associated risks. This contrasts with policing
strategies (police in uniform and plainclothes police), which might increase substance use-related risks, according to
a substantial part of the participants.
The qualitative study consisted of 40 interviews with festival attendees (most of whom participated in the ESM-
study) and 44 interviews with festival stakeholders. Most of the festival attendees were experienced with (illegal)
substance use, and most festival stakeholders had a background as a festival organizer or harm reduction worker.
Both groups regarded substance use as a part of the festival culture, often referring to its hedonistic aspect. Despite
or because of the perceived prevalence of drug use at festivals, it seemed key to many of the festival stakeholders
to focus on safety and health. Moreover, substance use norms at festivals were perceived to depend on different
aspects, such as the characteristics of the festival (e.g., music style) and the type of substances used, with certain
music genres even being commonly associated with specific substances. Among festival attendees and festival
stakeholders, the attitude towards substance use highlighted the difference between responsible (recreational) use
and problematic use, rather than the distinction between legal and illegal substances, which was perceived of minor
importance. As a matter of fact, some participants even challenged the relevance of this distinction. Further, several
participants specifically acknowledged the presence of problematic use of alcohol at the festival.
At first sight, the presence of health care services created a feeling of safety among the festival attendees. First aid
services were considered as working mainly from a medical perspective, whereas harm reduction initiatives, such as
relax zones, were afforded a more specialized role in terms of substance use and a more supportive role towards

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 99
PWUD. Although health care interventions were mainly perceived in a positive way, specific barriers were
experienced, such as fear of being judged by the medical staff or inhibition to ask for help or communicate crucial
health information to the medical staff (e.g., due to repressive actions).
In general, a positive attitude was found among the festival attendees regarding the harm reduction approach,
however, not all festival attendees were familiar with the concept or confused specific harm reduction services with
other ones. Both festival attendees and festival stakeholders advocated for more prevention and harm reduction
initiatives, in particular drug testing services, although some festival stakeholders questioned legal aspects of such
services. Harm reduction was not always taken for granted in the past, but an evolution was noticed by different
stakeholders, as it is increasingly more often being implemented at festivals and proved to be complementary to the
other drug-related strategies. In line, it was advocated to regard prevention and harm reduction initiatives as part
of an integrated drug-related approach at festivals.
Repressive interventions were evaluated from two different perspectives by festival attendees and festival
stakeholders. On the one hand, repressive strategies were perceived as a necessity (e.g., law enforcement was
considered to be in the best position to ensure the general safety). According to several stakeholders, the main
purpose of repressive interventions is to send out a clear message that the use of illegal drugs is not allowed within
the confines of the festival. In this context, several festival attendees considered these interventions as having a
deterrent effect on some PWUD or dealers. On the other hand, overall, the impact of repressive interventions was
considered to be weak, mainly because PWUD were anticipating the repressive interventions, for instance by hiding
their drugs from the police. Moreover, repressive interventions were commonly believed to have a negative impact
on the way festival attendees were using (e.g., taking more substances at once, fear of asking for substance related
information at harm reduction stands). Finally, a discrepancy was found, inhibiting the actions of security staff;
although they are confronted with substance use during their line of work, legislation does not allow them to search
for illicit drugs.
Furthermore, festival stakeholders generally stressed the importance of an adequate collaboration between
different drug-related strategies. More specifically, clear arrangements and a mutual understanding of the role of
different actors were believed to be crucial (e.g., no police presence at the first aid or harm reduction services). In
this context, a balanced drug policy was suggested, where different drug use-related strategies are treated on an
equal footing. Furthermore, some stakeholders found it difficult to measure the impact of the implemented actions.
Finally, collaboration between the different actors, the implementation of an integrated drug policy, and a resolute
festival organization were considered necessary ingredients for maximizing the potential of drug-related
interventions.
Overall, both in the quantitative and qualitative studies, similar patterns were found concerning the perceived
impact of drug related interventions at music festivals. For instance, none of the 15 interventions under study were
believed to have a straightforward impact on substance use frequency. However, festival attendees seem to employ
certain strategies to cope with repressive actions. In addition, harm reduction actions were believed to reduce
substance use-related risks, while repressive actions were presumed to lead to riskier use. These main findings
correspond with recent Belgian research on substance use and drug policy at festivals (Schrooten & Van Damme,
2019), showing no influence of policy specifics on attendees’ intention to use. On the contrary, detrimental effects
of certain repressive measures were demonstrated potentially negatively impacting PWUD’s health. Moreover, our
interviews supported the notion of the third-person effect, as festival attendees were generally more strongly
convinced of the potential of drug-related interventions to impact substance use of others, rather than impacting
their personal use and related behavior.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 100
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our mixed-methods research, we formulate the following recommendations, aiming to
improve the synergy between drug-related interventions at festivals and their general efficacy as well as to better
address the issue of legal and illegal substance use at music festivals in Belgium (and beyond).
• Implementation of an integrated and balanced drug policy at each festival, treating the four pillars – prevention,
harm reduction, treatment, and repression – on an equal footing. Thus, safety and health aspects should receive
a similar weight. The following should be considered:
o An integrated policy is not only about promoting interdisciplinarity. It is also about strengthening each
pillar. For instance, the efficacy of first aid or harm reduction services most probably depends on clear
arrangements with other partners (e.g., law enforcement).
o A balanced drug policy at festivals could allow law enforcement to focus more on drug dealing.
o In the context of a balanced drug policy, a stronger emphasis could be put either on prevention or
harm reduction, depending on the specific needs of the festival.
• Set-up of a coordination committee at each festival, including strong involvement of the festival organization,
taking into account the following:
o A coordination committee could take several forms. Minimally, coordination meetings should be held
on a regular basis – before, during (i.e., daily), and after the festival – in order to monitor the situation
on the aspect of substance use, on the one hand, and on the other, to evaluate the joint approach and
related interventions. Consequently, drug-related interventions can be adapted according to the
specific context.
o A coordination committee should include representatives of the festival organization and local policy,
as well as of each of the above-mentioned pillars. It takes collective decisions concerning drug-related,
but also other health-related, issues (e.g., sexual health).
o To facilitate the implementation of an integrated policy, a professional (intermediary) could be
appointed to assess the requirements of each festival and to assist festival organizers in drug policy
implementation. This professional could also be in charge of assembling the coordination committee.
o The expertise of festival organizers should be fully deployed in order to facilitate drug-related
interventions (e.g., to spread EWS messages all over the festival, to mark the location of first aid
services or relax zones on the festival map, …).
• Design of a clear legal framework in order to implement and improve drug-related interventions. The following
should be taken into consideration:
o The implementation of drug checking services at festivals should be fostered alongside other harm
reduction interventions. This entails taking several intermediary steps, such as adapting federal drug
legislation in order to facilitate the removal of drug checking from the grey zone in which it is presently
relegated (neither outlawed nor legal). Inspiration could be found in the recently developed, world’s
first government drug checking licensing scheme in New Zealand (Ministry of Health, 2021).
o More clarity concerning the actions of security staff in the context of illegal substances at festivals, and
in nightlife settings in general, should be facilitated. At the same time, other actors should be better
informed on the mandate of security agents with regard to illegal substances.
o Drug policies should be harmonized or, in other words, coherent policies should be developed both
horizontally (i.e., between pillars) and vertically (i.e., between regional and federal levels), in order to
avoid the coexistence of conflicting approaches (e.g., festival organizers having to implement a
different drug policy depending on the festival location of each particular festival).
• Organization of specialized training on how to deal with substance use at festivals for actors of drug-related
interventions, taking the following into account:

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 101
o A non-judgmental attitude among actors who come in contact, and/or work, with PWUD at festivals
(e.g., medical and security staff) should be maintained.
o Prevention and harm reduction trainings for actors who come into contact, and/or work, with PWUD
at festivals (e.g., first aid workers, security staff, law enforcement personnel) should be rolled-out, since
several stakeholders highlighted their potency in fostering cooperation between the different actors.
• Evaluation of drug-related interventions, bearing the in mind the following:
o Drug-related interventions at festivals (like in any other setting) should be evidence-based and
evidence-producing. Ideally, evaluation should be conducted by an external party, adopting a
longitudinal perspective (i.e., with measures taken before and after implementation of adaptations to
drug-related interventions or drug policies at festivals) and including behavioral measures (e.g., going
beyond mere self-reports). Here, inspiration could be found in attempts made at Australian festivals
(e.g., Olsen, Wong, & McDonald, 2019). Such evaluations could not only enable the improvement of
drug policies at festivals but might also fill the knowledge gap regarding the actual impact of drug-
related interventions. Moreover, it might fulfil the need expressed by some harm reduction and law
enforcement stakeholders to have better insights into the outcomes of their interventions.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 102
8. REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2),
179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
ALAMA (2019). ALAMA baseline survey. The Belgian sample. Brussels, Belgium: HOGENT university of applied
sciences and arts.
Barratt, M. J., Bruno, R., Ezard, N., & Ritter, A. (2018). Pill testing or drug checking in Australia: Acceptability of
service design features. Drug and Alcohol Review, 37(2), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12576
Batel, P. (2017). Des drogues? Lesquelles et à quels risques? Après-Demain, 4(44), 16–18.
https://doi.org/10.3917/apdem.044.0016
Begley, P. (2015, 5 December). 'Deny deny deny': man charged over dealing 'Snapchat' drugs before Stereosonic
death. Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/deny-deny-deny-man-charged-over-
dealing-snapchat-drugs-before-stereosonic-death-20151204-glfv9s.html
Borlagdan, J., Freeman, T., Duvnjak, A., Bywood, P. T., & Roche, A. M. (2010). From ideal to reality: Cultural
contradictions and young people’s drinking. Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for Education and Training on
Addiction (NCETA).
Bullock, M., Ranse, J., & Hutton, A. (2018). Impact of patients presenting with alcohol and/or drug intoxication on
in-event health care services at mass-gathering events: An integrative literature review. Prehospital and
Disaster Medicine, 33(5), 539–542. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X1800078X
Calafat, A., Juan, M., & Duch, M. (2009). Preventive interventions in nightlife: A review. Adicciones, 21(4), 387414.
https://www.adicciones.es/index.php/adicciones/article/view/226
Charitonidi, E., Studer, J., Gaume, J., Gmel, G., Daeppen, J. B., & Bertholet, N. (2016). Socioeconomic status and
substance use among Swiss young men: A population-based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 16, 333.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2949-5
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (2014). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. In Flow and
the Foundations of Positive Psychology (pp. 35–54). Dordrecht, Germany: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_3
Day, N., Criss, J., Griffiths, B., Gujral, S. K., John-Leader, F., Johnston, J., & Pit, S. (2018). Music festival attendees’
illicit drug use, knowledge and practices regarding drug content and purity: A cross-sectional survey. Harm
Reduction Journal, 15, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-017-0205-7
De Brennan, S. (2020). Dancing away from reform: The inquest into the death of six patrons of NSW music
festivals. Journal of Law and Medicine, 27(3) 693–706.
Degenhardt, L., Charlson, F., Ferrari, F., Santomauro, D., Erskine, H., Mantilla-Herrara, A., …, & Vos, T. (2018). The
global burden of disease attributable to alcohol and drug use in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: A
systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(12), 987–1012.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30337-7
Dilkes-Frayne, E. (2014). Tracing the ‘‘event’’ of drug use: ‘‘Context’’ and the coproduction of a night out on
MDMA. Contemporary Drug Problems, 41(3), 445–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/009145091404100308
Dilkes-Frayne, E. (2016) Drugs at the campsite: Socio-spatial relations and drug use at music festivals. International
Journal of Drug Policy, 33, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.10.004

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 103
Dray, A., Perez, P., Moore, D., Dietze, P., Bammer, G., Jenkinson, …, & Maher, L. (2012). Are drug detection dogs
and mass-media campaigns likely to be effective policy responses to psychostimulant use and related harm?
Results from an agent-based simulation model. The International Journal on Drug Policy, 23(2), 148–153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.05.018
Duff, C. (2005). Party drugs and party people: Examining the ‘normalization’ of recreational drug use in Melbourne,
Australia. International Journal of Drug Policy, 16(3), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2005.02.001
EMCDDA (2006). Annual report 2006. Selected issue 3: Developments in drug use within the recreational settings.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/6284/3/EMCDDA_Selected_issue_2006_recreational.pdf
Giacomini M. K., Cook D. J. (2000). Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XXIII. Qualitative Research in Health
Care: A. Are the Results of the Study Valid? JAMA, 284, 3, 357–362. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.3.357
Grigg, J., Barratt, M. J., & Lenton, S. (2018). Drug detection dogs at Australian outdoor music festivals: Deterrent,
detection and iatrogenic effects. International Journal of Drug Policy, 60, 89–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.08.002
Groves, A. (2018). ‘Worth the test?’ Pragmatism, pill testing and drug policy in Australia. Harm Reduction Journal,
15, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-018-0216-z
Hagen, J. (1998). Handleiding voor het maken van historische interviews. Utrecht: Nederlands Centrum voor
Volkscultuur.
Hesse, M., & Tutenges, S. (2012). Music and substance preferences among festival attendants. Drugs and Alcohol
Today, 12(2), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/17459261211235100
Hickey, S., McIlwraith, F., Bruno, R., Matthews, A., & Alati, R. (2012). Drug detection dogs in Australia: More bark
than bite? Drug and Alcohol Review, 31(6), 778–883. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2012.00431.x
Hughes, C. E., Moxham-Hall, V., Ritter, A., Weatherburn, D., & MacCoun, R. (2017). The deterrent effects of
Australian street-level drug law enforcement on illicit drug offending at outdoor music festivals. International
Journal on Drug Policy, 41, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.12.018
Hutton, A., Ranse, J., Verdonk, N., Ullah, S., & Arbon, P. (2014). Understanding the characteristics of patient
presentations of young people at outdoor music festivals. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 29(2), 160–166.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X14000156
Janghorban, R., Roudsari, R. L., & Taghipour, A. (2014) Skype interviewing: The new generation of online synchronous
interview in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 9(1),
24152. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.24152
Lallement, E. (2018). Que la fête s’éclate. Socio-anthropologie, 38, 9–17. https://doi.org/10.4000/socio-
anthropologie.3552
Lenton, S., & Single, E. (1998). The definition of harm reduction. Drug and Alcohol Review, 17(2), 213–219.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09595239800187011
Libois, B., Hogge, M., Boudoux, A., Lonfils, C., & Van der Linden, N. (2019). Carnet du Risque n°50. 20+ ans
d’analyse de produits psychotropes en Belgique francophone. Brussels, Belgium: Modus Vivendi.
http://www.modusvivendi-be.org/IMG/pdf/cr_no50-_20_ans_de_testing.pdf

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 104
Lim, M. S., Hellard, M. E., Hocking, J. S., & Aitken, C. K. (2008). A cross-sectional survey of young people attending a
music festival: Associations between drug use and musical preference. Drug and Alcohol Review, 27, 439–441.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09595230802089719
Lim, M. S., Hellard, M. E., Hocking, J. S., Spelman, T. D., & Aitken, C. K. (2010). Surveillance of drug use among
young people attending a music festival in Australia, 2005–2008. Drug and Alcohol Review, 29, 150–156.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00090.x
Luckman, S. (2003). Going bush and finding one’s ‘tribe’: Raving, escape and the bush doof. Continuum: Journal of
Media & Cultural Studies, 17(3), 315–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310302729
Malins P. (2019). Drug dog affects: Accounting for the broad social, emotional and health impacts of general drug
detection dog operations in Australia. The InternationalJjournal on Drug Policy, 67, 63–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.03.004
Mangeot, P. (2000). Penser, classer, exclure. Vacarme, 3(13), 96–99. https://vacarme.org/article1026.html
Martins, D., Barratt, M. J., Pires, C. V., Carvalho, H., Vilamala, M. V., Espinosa, I. F., & Valente, H. (2017). The
detection and prevention of unintentional consumption of DOx and 25x-NBOMe at Portugal's Boom Festival.
Human Psychopharmacology, 32(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/hup.2608
Martinus, T., McAlaney, J., McLaughlin, L. J., & Smith, H. (2010). Outdoor music festivals: Cacophonous
consumption or melodious moderation? Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy, 17(6), 795–807.
https://doi.org/10.3109/09687630903357692
McCarthy, B. (2013). The landscape of music festivals in Australia. In P. Tschmuck, P. L. Pearce, & S. Campbell
(Eds.), Music business and the experience economy: The Australasian case (pp. 119–134). Berlin, Germany:
Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27898-3
McCrae, K., Tobias, S., Tupper, K., Arredondo, J., Henry, B., Mema, S., ..., & Ti, L. (2019). Drug checking services at
music festivals and events in a Canadian setting. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 205, 107589.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107589
Measham, F. C. (2019). Drug safety testing, disposals and dealing in an English field: Exploring the operational and
behavioural outcomes of the UK’s first onsite ‘drug checking’ service. International Journal of Drug Policy, 67,
102–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.11.001
Measham, F. C., & Turnbull, G. (2021). Intentions, actions and outcomes: A follow up survey on harm reduction
practices after using an English festival drug checking service. International Journal of Drug Policy, 103270.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103270
Measham, F. C., Parker, H., & Aldridge, J. (1998). The teenage transition: From adolescent recreational drug use to
the young adult dance culture in Britain in the MID-1990s. Journal of Drug Issues, 28(1), 9–32.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002204269802800102
Mema, S. C., Sage, C., Xu, Y. Tupper, K. W., Ziemianowicz, D., McCrae, K., …, & Corneil, T. (2018). Drug checking at
an electronic dance music festival during the public health overdose emergency in British Columbia. Canadian
Journal of Public Health, 109(5–6), 740–744. https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-018-0126-6
Ministry of Health. (2021, May 24). Drug checking. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/regulation-health-and-
disability-system/drug-checking
Modus Vivendi ASBL (2020). Rapport d'activités Janvier – décembre 2019. Brussels, Belgium: Modus Vivendi ASBL.
Mortelmans, D. (2013). Handboek kwalitatieve onderzoeksmethoden. Leuven, Belgium: Acco.

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 105
Mrazek, P. J., & Haggerty, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for preventive
intervention research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/2139
Munn, M. B., Lund, A., Golby, R., & Turris, S. A. (2016). Observed benefits to on-site medical services during an
annual 5-day electronic dance music event with harm reduction services. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine,
31(2), 228–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X16000054
Noijen, J., van Bakkum, F., Jamin, J., Visser, G., & Schippers, G.M. (2006). Peer-educatie over alcohol- en
drugsgebruik in de dancescene. Verslaving, 2(3), 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03075365
NSW Government. (2011, December 15). Mythbuster: Reports on the record failure of NSWPF drug detection dogs
are false and misleading. https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/for_the_record/for_the_record/2011
Nutt, D. J., King, L. A., & Phillips, L. D. (2010). Drug harms in the UK: A multicriteria decision analysis. The Lancet,
376(9752), 1558–1565. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61462-6
Olsen, A., Wong, G., & McDonald, D. (2019). ACT Pill Testing Trial 2019: Program evaluation. Canberra, Australia:
Australian National University.
https://medicalschool.anu.edu.au/files/ACT%20Pill%20Testing%20Evaluation%20report.pdf
Palamar, J. J., Acosta, P., Sherman, S., Ompad, D. C., & Cleland, C. M. (2016). Self-reported use of novel
psychoactive substances among attendees of electronic dance music venues. The American Journal of Drug and
Alcohol Abuse, 42(6), 624–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990.2016.1181179
Patrick, M. E., Wightman, P., Schoeni, R. F., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2012). Socioeconomic status and substance use
among young adults: A comparison across constructs and drugs. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(5),
772–782. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2012.73.772
Rosiers, J. (2019). Uitgaansonderzoek 2018. Brussels, Belgium: VAD.
https://www.vad.be/assets/uitgaansonderzoek_2018
Ruane, D. (2018). Field experiments: Psychonauts’ efforts to reduce the harm of old and new drugs at music
festivals. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 25(4), 337–344.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2017.1418836
Schrooten, J., & Van Damme, J. (2019). Waarom een zerotolerancedrugbeleid voor festivals niet (goed) werkt.
Cahiers Politiestudies, 3, 93–113.
Spaas, L., Rutten, J., & Dereeper, P. (2019). Het (strafrechtelijk) drugbeleid van parket en politie op de festivals
Tomorrowland en Rock Werchter. Cahiers Politiestudies, 3, 71–80.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded
theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
Valente, H., Martins, D., Carvalho, H., Pires, C.V., Carvalho, M.C., Pinto, M., & Barratt, M.J. (2019). Evaluation of a
drug checking service at a large scale electronic music festival in Portugal. International Journal of Drug Policy,
73, 88-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.07.007
Van Damme, J., & Schrooten, J. (2020). Leidraad voor een evenwichtig alcohol- en drugbeleid voor festivals.
Brussels, Belgium: VAD. https://www.vad.be/assets/leidraad_voor_festivals_web_download
Van Havere, T. (2012). Prevalence and prevention of substance use in nightlife. Ghent, Belgium: Ghent University.
https://lib.ugent.be/nl/catalog/rug01:001902675?i=1&q=%22Tina+Van+Havere%22&search_field=author

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 106
Van Havere, T., Vanderplasschen, W., Lammertyn, J., Broekaert, E., & Bellis, M. (2011). Drug use and nightlife:
More than just dance music. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 6, 18.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-6-18
Vander Laenen, F., De Ruyver, B., Christiaens, J., & Lievens, D. (2011). Drugs in cijfers III: Onderzoek naar de
overheidsuitgaven voor het drugsbeleid in België. Wetenschap en maatschappij. Ghent, Belgium: Academia
Press. http://www.belspo.be/belspo/organisation/publ/pub_ostc/Drug/rDR57_AcadPress_nl.pdf
Waters, J. (2015) Snowball sampling: a cautionary tale involving a study of older drug users. International Journal
of Social Research Methodology, 18,4, 367-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.953316
Wilson, H., Bryant, J., Holt, M., & Treloar, C. (2010). Normalisation of recreational drug use among young people:
Evidence about accessibility, use and contact with other drug users. Health Sociology Review, 19(2), 164–175.
https://doi.org/10.5172/hesr.2010.19.2.164
Winstock, A. R., Wolff, K., & Ramsey, J. (2001). Ecstasy pill testing: Harm minimization gone too far? Addiction,
96(8), 1139–1148. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.96811397.x

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 107
9. ATTACHMENTS
9.1 ATTACHMENT A: INTERVIEW GUIDELINE FOR FESTIVAL ATTENDEES
Themes
Subthemes
Questions
Substance use
Attitude regarding
substance use
1. How do you look at the use of alcohol and other drugs at festivals?
SUBQUESTIONS
o Is there, according to you, a distinction between the use of
legal (alcohol) and illegal substances?
 What differences? Please specify.
 Why these differences?
o Is your perception regarding substance use different towards
other settings? (e.g., using at home, at private parties, …)
 Please specify these differences
 Why makes this so different according to you?
Substance use
norms at festivals
1. Do you think alcohol- and other drug use at festivals is common or
not nowadays?
SUBQUESTIONS
o How do you perceive the use of alcohol and other drugs at
festivals?
o Why or why not?
o How do you notice this? / Where do you notice drug use in
particular? (at the camping site, at the festival area, …)
2. Is alcohol- and other drug use among your friends a common thing
or not?
SUBQUESTIONS
o How?
Personal
substance use
1. Do you have experience with the use of alcohol and other drugs?
SUBQUESTIONS
o Which substances did you use already?
o Do you use these substances often?
o When do you use them? (the setting, e.g., nightlife?)
o Do you use multiple substances at the same time?
o Do you consider yourself as an experienced user?
o Do you consider your own use as safe?
o Do you consider yourself as a problematic user?
2. a) Which substances do you take during your festival visit?
b) Was it your intention in beforehand to use drugs at the festival?
SUBQUESTIONS

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 108
o If yes: How did you prepare for it? (e.g., Did you buy your drugs
in advance?)
o If not: What makes you to use anyway?
DRUG RELATED
INTERVENTIONS
AT FESTIVALS
I. Experience with
prevention and
harm reduction
services at
festivals
1. Are you familiar with this kind of actions?
(Examples: Safe ‘n Sound info stand, information banners,
mobile outreach team, pill testing service, free water
service, non-medical care service (e.g.,
bad trip
management))
2. A) What kind of prevention / harm reduction services did you
encounter at the festival you attended?
B) Did you make use of these services at the festival?
o
If not: Should you make use of these services if you
experienced a drug related problem? (e.g. feeling unwell,
consumed too much alcohol, …)
SUBQUESTIONS
o If yes: Which services? Why these services in particular?
o If not: What is the reason behind the fact you don’t want to
make use of these kind of services?
o Do you have previous experiences with these kinds of services
(at other festivals)?
[In case the respondent has experience with prevention and/or harm
reduction services]
3. What is your experience with these services?
SUBQUESTIONS
o How did you make use of it? (Did you take the first step, or
did they take the first step, …)
o How satisfied are you about these services?
o Should you make use of these services again in the future?
 If not: What is for you an obstruction to make use
of these services (again)?
[For all respondents]
4.
What is the impact of this intervention on the behavior of
substance users according to you?
SUBQUESTIONS
o Positive or negative consequences?
 More or less use of illegal substances?
 Drug use on a more or less risky way?
o Why? Explain …
Impact of
prevention and
harm reduction
interventions on
personal
substance use
1. Do you experience an impact on your own use of alcohol and other
drugs?
A) Have these drug related services an impact on your personal
use of legal substances?
B) Have these drug related services an impact on your personal
use of illegal substances?
SUBQUESTIONS

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 109
o How does it have an influence on your personal use?
 On a positive or negative way? More or less
use? More or less risky use?
 Specify why…
II. Experience with
care services at
festivals
1. Are you familiar with this kind of actions?
(Examples: first aid, emergency services)
2. A) What kind of care services did you encounter at the festival you
attended?
B) Did you make use of these services at the festival?
o
If not: Should you make use of these services if you
experienced a drug related problem? (e.g. feeling unwell,
consumed too much alcohol, …)
SUBQUESTIONS
o If yes: Which services? Why these services in particular?
o If not: What is the reason behind the fact you don’t want to
make use of these kind of services?
o Do you have previous experiences with these kinds of services
(at other festivals)?
[In case the respondent has experience with care services]
3. What is your experience with these services?
SUBQUESTIONS
o How did you make use of it? (Did you take the first step, or
did they take the first step, …)
o How satisfied are you about these services?
o Should you make use of these services again in the future?
 If not: What is for you an obstruction to make use
of these services (again)?
[For all respondents]
4.
What is the impact of this intervention on the behavior of
substance users according to you?
SUBQUESTIONS
o Positive or negative consequences?
 More or less use of illegal substances?
 Drug use on a more or less risky way?
o Why? Explain …
Impact of care
services on
personal
substance use
1. Do you experience an impact on your own use of alcohol and other
drugs?
A) Have these drug related services an impact on your personal
use of legal substances?
B) Have these drug related services an impact on your personal
use of illegal substances?
SUBQUESTIONS
o How does it have an influence on your personal use?
 On a positive or negative way? More or less
use? More or less risky use?

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 110

Specify why…
III. Experience
with repressive
actions at festivals
1. Are you familiar with this kind of actions?
(control at the entrance by security staff, police actions with sniffer
dogs, police in plainclothes, police in uniform, amnesty bin/mercy bin,
OMS, clear rules of the house (drug policy in force at the festival))
2. A) What kind of repressive interventions did you encounter at the
festival you attended?
B) How do you experience these kinds of interventions?
3.
What is the impact of this intervention on the behavior of
substance users according to you?
SUBQUESTIONS
o Positive or negative consequences?
 More or less use of illegal substances?
 Drug use on a more or less risky way?
 Why? Explain …
Impact of
repressive
interventions on
personal
substance use
1. Do you experience an impact on your own use of alcohol and other
drugs?
A)
Have these drug related interventions an impact on your
personal use of legal substances?
B)
Have these drug related interventions an impact on your
personal use of illegal substances?
SUBQUESTIONS
o How does it have an influence on your personal use?
 On a positive or negative way? More or less
use? More or less risky use?
 Specify why …
IV. Drug related
interventions at
festivals in
general
1. Do you experience similar drug related actions at other festivals in
Belgium (or abroad)?
o If not: What makes it different? A better approach or not?
2. Are there any drug related services you like to make use of, but who
are missing at (other) festivals in Belgium?

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 111
9.2 ATTACHMENT B: INTERVIEW GUIDELINE FOR FESTIVAL STAKEHOLDERS
A. SUBSTANCE USE NORMS AT FESTIVALS
THEMES
SUBTHEMES
QUESTIONS
INTRODUCTION
ROLE AND EXPERIENCE
WITH FESTIVALS
Can you tell me about the work you do, especially your role regarding
festivals?
 How long have you been working at festivals?
 Which festivals do you work at?
SUBSTANCE USE
NORMS AT
FESTIVALS
PERCEPTION OF
SUBSTANCE USE
NORMS PRESENT AT
FESTIVALS IN BELGIUM
How do you perceive the use of alcohol and other drugs at festivals
in Belgium?
POSSIBLE SUBQUESTION
 Can you tell me something more about the use of alcohol and
other drugs at festivals in Belgium?
 Is there, according to you, a distinction between the use of
legal (alcohol) and illegal substances?
o What differences? Please specify.
o Why these differences?
 Is your perception regarding substance use different towards
other settings? (e.g., using at home, at private parties, …)
o Please specify these differences
o Why makes this so different according to you?
How do you perceive drug use norms and possible trends at festivals
in Belgium?
POSSIBLE SUBQUESTION
 Do you think drug use is common or not common? Please
explain.
 Do you think drug use is accepted or not accepted? Please
explain.
 Do you notice any changes regarding substance use through
the years? Can you tell me something more about that?
 Did you see any evolution in substance use among festival
attendees? Can you tell me something more about that?
PERSONAL ATTITUDE
REGARDING
SUBSTANCE USE
How would you describe your vision on substance use at festivals?
 What do you personally think of the use of alcohol and other
drugs at festivals?
 Do you experience a certain
discrepancy between your
personal vision and professional role? Please explain.
 Do you think your opinion is different than the one of your
colleagues?
B. PERCEPTION ABOUT DRUG RELATED INTERVENTIONS AT FESTIVALS
THEMES
SUBTHEMES
QUESTIONS
PERCEPTION &
EXPERIENCE
CONCERNING THE
GENERAL PERCEPTION
& EXPERIENCE
How do you perceive your presence and actions at music festivals
(from a drug related point of view)?

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 112
OWN DRUG
RELATED ACTIONS
AT MUSIC
FESTIVALS

Are there differences between your official role and the
reality on the field? How do you cope with it?
 Did you experience an evolution in the way of working and
intervening throughout the year? Please explain.
Do you perceive a possible impact of your presence and work in terms
of health- and drug related measures? Please explain.
 Do you perceive a possible impact on substance use among
festival attendees?
 Do you perceive a possible impact on drug related incidents?

Do you perceive a possible impact on drug related risk
perception among festival attendees?
 Are these impacts the ones that you aim for?
DIFFERENT AREAS: substance use at festivals –
less drug
related incidents – drug related risk perception of festival
attendees – …
Are you satisfied with your actions and interventions at festivals?
Please explain.
POSSIBLE SUBQUESTION
 Do you think you should be implementing more drug related
actions?
Do you think your opinion is different than the one of your
colleagues? Why (not)?
FEEDBACK
Can you tell me something more about the feedback you get about
your actions at festivals?
a) From festival attendees?
b) From other festival stakeholder (police, prevention worker, first aid
staff, festival organizer, ...)
 Do you think that your actions are understood correctly by
festival attendees and other stakeholders?
 Are your actions visible enough?
 Do you have a way of evaluating the impact of your work?
BARRIERS AND
FACILITATORS
Do you perceive any barriers concerning the implementation of your
drug related actions at festivals?
(regulations, public opinion, …)
 Please explain.
Is there a possibility to improve your way of working?
 If yes, how?
KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS
How do you perceive your knowledge concerning substance use at
festivals?

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 113
POSSIBLE SUBQUESTION
 To what extent do you feel specialized in the topic of
substance use?
 Would you like to increase your knowledge about substance
use at festivals?
How do you feel about your own
skills and ability concerning
substance use at festivals?
POSSIBLE SUBQUESTION
 How to cope with persons who use drugs?
How do you perceive your knowledge concerning the different
(other) drug related interventions possible at festivals?
 Are you familiar with the different types of drug related
strategies possible at music festivals?
DIFFERENT AREAS: prevention – harm reduction – care –
repression
PERCEPTION &
EXPERIENCE
CONCERNING
OTHER DRUG
RELATED ACTIONS
AT MUSIC
FESTIVALS
GENERAL PERCEPTION
& EXPERIENCE
How do you perceive the presence and actions of other drug related
interventions at music festivals?
DIFFERENT AREAS: prevention – harm reduction – care –
repression
 Are there specific types of drug related actions who are
working well?
 Do you miss certain drug related strategies at festivals?
Do you perceive a possible impact in terms of health-
and drug
related measures concerning the other drug related interventions?
Please explain.
DIFFERENT AREAS: substance use at festivals –
less drug
related incidents – drug related risk perception of festival
attendees – …
COLLABORATION &
COMMUNICATION
How do you perceive the collaboration and communication with
other stakeholders at festivals?
DIFFERENT AREAS: e.g., prevention, harm reduction, first aid,
emergency service, police, local government, festival
organization, security staff, …
 How do you look at the collaboration with other stakeholders
in particular? Is there place for improvement in your way of
working with the other stakeholders? If so, in what way?

Do you consider your actions as complementary with the
other drug related interventions?
Why (not)? Please explain …
KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 114
How do you perceive the knowledge of the other stakeholders
concerning substance use at festivals?
How do you feel about the skills and ability of the other stakeholders
concerning substance use at festivals?
POSSIBLE SUBQUESTION
 How do they cope with persons who use drugs?
How do you perceive the knowledge of other stakeholders
concerning the different drug related interventions possible at
festivals?
DIFFERENT AREAS: prevention – harm reduction – care – repression
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
What do you recommend in terms of drug related interventions at
music festivals?
POSSIBLE SUBQUESTION
 Are there drug related actions in particular missing at festivals
in Belgium?
 Is there space for improvements concerning the current offer
of drug related interventions at festivals in Belgium? If yes,
how?

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 115
9.3 ATTACHMENT C: ORIGINAL CITATIO NS OF THE DUTCH SPEAKING PARTICIPANTS
C1. Original citations of the festival attendees
 Citation 1: “Als ik op een festival bijvoorbeeld, euh, ecstasy gebruik, dan let ik wel op dat ik nooit teveel neem.
Euh, dat ik genoeg water drink, dat ik kan afkoelen. Ik ben mij bewust van de risico's en ook van de manier
waarop ik met risico's kan verminderen, laten we zeggen. […] Ja, maar natuurlijk is het nooit 100% risicovrij, ben
ik me van bewust.” (respondent NL-18, male, 24 years)
 Citation 2: “Ik ben vrij rationeel en ik heb dat op voorhand ook allemaal opgezocht wat ik allemaal moest doen.
Euh, wat voor effecten dat kon hebben, wat euh, wat ik kon doen om het… als het te erg werd wat dat ik… Allé,
genoeg raad ook ingewonnen bij mensen die dat wel vaker hebben gedaan. Nooit te veel pakken. Altijd zo in,
euh, in kwartjes bijpakken in plaats van ineens een halve [pil] ofzo dus… Ik, euh… ik beschouw mezelf wel als
veilige gebruiker of zo [lacht].” (respondent NL-16, female, 24 years)
 Citation 3: “Euh, en eigenlijk altijd op een relatief gemodereerde manier eigenlijk. Niet teveel hé. Euh, in kleine
beetjes. Euh, éh een pilleke. Nu vandaag de dag, een pilleke, euh, ecstasy verdeel ik dat in 8 stukken. Euh, ik
neem iedere keer een … achtste om de twee uur en op het einde van de avond heb ik misschien één derde van
een pil genomen dus… Dat valt allemaal wel goed mee. Het is ook omdat ik een paar keer… het is voldoende dat
je een paar keer overdrijft en voelt hoe hard dat, euh, diene comedown is.” (respondent NL-15, male, 36 years)
 Citation 4: “Ik heb altijd mijn eigen dingen mee. Het zou heel sporadisch zelfs dat ik iets koop op een festival of
in het uitgaansleven, maar zelden tot nooit. Euh, ik heb daar éénmaal een slechte ervaring mee gehad. Dus
sindsdien, euh ja, pak ik mijn eigen gerief gewoon altijd mee. Dat is het veiligst. […] En ja, uiteindelijk niet hé...
daar heb ik nog geen slechte ervaring mee gehad. Je weet ook niet 100% wat erin zit, … maar ik denk toch wel
dat de kwaliteit van waar ik het haal, een stuk hoger ligt dan de gemiddelde kwaliteit op festivals of zo [wanneer
een middel wordt aangekocht op een festival].” (respondent NL-19, male, 22 years)
 Citation 5: “Het is moeilijk te definiëren wat een veilige situatie is natuurlijk. Maar euh, mensen om mij heen. Er
zijn altijd meerdere mensen die op de hoogte zijn van wat ik consumeer en hoeveel ik ongeveer wel consumeer,
zijn er altijd wel minstens één iemand die ervan op de hoogte is, euh, die zelf eventueel ook veel minder of zelfs
niet gebruikt. Maar dat die iets meer controle zou kunnen hebben indien de situatie fout zou aflopen.”
(respondent NL-13, male, 27 years)
 Citation 6: “Vroeger had ik daar een duidelijke grens tussen getrokken. Euh, dat illegale middelen, dat ik daar
absoluut tegen was. Maar euh, ja, aangezien dat ik zelf ook vind dat alcohol ook al een redelijk zwaar iets is, heb
ik dat, is dat [grens tussen legaal en illegaal] eigenlijk iets minder van belang… Want, ja, dat hangt allemaal van
de situatie af hoe je ermee omgaat. Sowieso. Het kan zijn dat je bijvoorbeeld iets illegaal gebruikt, maar dat je
er meer verantwoord mee omgaat dan bijvoorbeeld met alcoholgebruik. Dus het is een beetje het totaalplaatje.”
(respondent NL-06, female, 23 years)
 Citation 7: “Dus, en alcohol is legaal en… Voor mij maakt dat niet zo, nee. Dat is eigenlijk gene grens voor mij.
Voor mij is eerder de grens wat ik er zelf over denk en […] op wat dat ik zelf heb ervaren. […] Dan ga ik daar wel
over oordelen. Maar als ik daar iets ergens lees omdat de overheid zegt van: Ja, wiet is slecht, alcohol dat mag.
Voor mij is het omgekeerd.” (respondent NL-17, female, 27 years)
 Citation 8: “Laat ons zeggen na mijn 18 jaar heb ik toch gemerkt dat cannabis toch euh… heel euh… frequenter
aanwezig is bij euh een veel breder publiek, ja.” (respondent NL-10, male, 37 years)
 Citation 9: “[…] mijn eerste echt festivalletje was ik 16 [jaar] en, euh, ben ik met een maat van mij die wat hippie
was meegegaan naar [NAAM FESTIVAL]. […] Maar toen ’s nachts op die [electronic dance music stage] keek ik
zo rond mij, ik weet dat moment nog heel goed. En echt iedereen rond mij was iets aan het gebruiken. Er was
iemand een lijntje aan het kappen op het scherm van zijn gsm, er was iemand, euh, een pil aan het innemen, er
was iemand… Ja, die nacht… […] Dat was voor mij wel efkes zo een moment van: Oké dus zo zit het [lacht].”
(respondent NL-12, male, 21 years)
 Citation 10: “Wat dat enorm frappant is op techno festivals is dat iedereen het weet van elkaar. Euh, dat merk
ik enorm. Mensen die het gewoon vragen van: Heb je iets?, Heb je nog bollen? [ecstasy pillen], Verkoop je iets?
Euh, of sjieken [kauwgum] komen vragen of zo tegen dan het kauwen [kaakschaatsen wegens het gebruik van

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 116
oppeppende middelen]. Euh, en de hoeveelheid watertjes die dan gedronken worden. Allé, ge merkt dan wel dat
iedereen daar toch wel door heeft wat er aan de hand is. En dat daar toch eigenlijk onderling ook wel zeer open
over wordt gecommuniceerd. […] En dat is wel meer op de techno festivals of de elektronische muziekfestivals
dan op andere festivals. Op andere festivals merk ik dat niet zo.” (respondent NL-20, male, 24 years)
 Citation 11: “Gho ja, ik denk een festival […] Ik denk dat je daar niemand ziet rondlopen zonder een pintje, bijna.
[…] Dat dat echt wel genormaliseerd is.” (respondent NL-09, female, 25 years)
 Citation 12: “Ik zal veel sneller met iemand onder invloed van alcohol naar de EHBO, dan onder invloed van een
illegale substantie. Want het is veel meer, ja, aanvaard of minder fout om te zeggen van ... Ze gaan misschien
zeggen van: "Allé, ge hebt hem te zat laten worden" of "Wat heeft hij nu gedaan?", maar het zal daar bij blijven.
Euh, er gaat niemand de politie bellen of ge gaat niet van het festivalterrein gesmeten worden. Terwijl dat ge
dat toch niet weet, euh, met andere substanties.” (respondent NL-20, male, 24 years)
 Citation 13: “Dat was, ja, toevallig één van onze buren en die kon echt niet meer op haar benen staan en dan
hebben we die daar [EHBO-post] naartoe gebracht en die mensen waren… Allé, ik dacht eerst zo van, ja, die gaan
haar misschien zo wat scheef bekijken want, ja, die was echt ladderzat... Maar die waren echt super lief en die
vroegen gewoon gegevens en ze zeiden van: We houden jullie op de hoogte en deden daar ook, ja, vrij los nu
niet, die namen dat wel serieus … Maar je voelde u niet zo beoordeeld ofzo.” (respondent NL-04, female, 21
years)
 Citation 14: “Euh ja, beetje gênant. Euh… waren mijn lippen open van erop te bijten. Dus ik ben daar [EHBO-post]
naartoe geweest om, euh … maar ze konden mij niet helpen [lacht]. […] Dat was wat aan het ontsteken. Dus ik
euh… dus ik mij dan een beetje over mijn gêne gezet. Daar naartoe gegaan. Lang moeten aanschuiven. Op
voorhand gevraagd van: Ga je mij kunnen helpen? Ja, jaja. Als t aan mij was: Ah ja, nee, we hebben niks voor uw
mond te desinfecteren, ga maar terug.” (respondent NL-16, female, 24 years)
 Citation 15: “Nee, ik houd daar niet echt rekening mee. Euh, ik ben wel aware van het feit dat ze [EHBO-
medewerkers] er zijn of niet, maar het is niet in functie van dat of ik meer of minder zou nemen.” (respondent
NL-07, male, 26 years)
 Citation 16: “Ik denk dat het moeilijk is om te zeggen dat niemand gaat gebruiken, want dat is volgens mij
onmogelijk om te vermijden […] Euh, als er dan gebruik, ja, voorkomt, dan is het denk ik beter om toch ervoor te
zorgen dat je festivalgangers dan veilig gebruiken, dat er geen slachtoffers vallen. En, ik weet niet, ik denk dat
dat veel positiever is dan gewoon, allé, niets van informatie te geven.” (respondent NL-R06, female, 23 years)
 Citation 17: “Ik ben wel eens gaan kijken naar het standje van Safe 'n Sound, maar de informatie die ik wou dat
had ik op voorhand eigenlijk al opgezocht. […] Wel goed dat ze er waren natuurlijk.” (respondent NL-08, female,
28 years)
 Citation 18: “Er zijn wel mensen die gemakkelijk de stap zetten om naar zo'n standje te gaan, maar dat zijn
meestal de mensen dat er al veel van weten dat naar zo'n standje zullen gaan. Ik denk dat er redelijk veel mensen
die daar zo, ja, zo een beetje zich over schamen of toch niet goed er kunnen over babbelen, of toch misschien
allemaal niet goed weten op te zoeken, die gaan niet zo snel naar een standje gaan.” (respondent NL-08, female,
28 years)
 Citation 19: “Natuurlijk, voor de mensen die dan niet zo iemand [trip sitter] hebben of die echt heel hard aan het
trippen, dan kan dat [relax zone] inderdaad wel een, euh, oplossing bieden. […] Ik denk dat het vooral belangrijk
is dat er iemand bij is die ze rustig kan helpen, iemand die er iets van af weet. […] Ja, zeker ook bij psychedelica,
want als ge naar de dokter zou gaan, euh, en ge zijt onder de invloed van psychedelica, die gaat u waarschijnlijk
een, euh, benzo of zo geven voor te kalmeren. Voor de trip wat te verminderen. Maar die weten niet wat dat gij
doormaakt op die moment. Dus wat dat hij zegt tegen u denk ik ook niet dat dat veel gaat uithalen, dus ja. Op
die moment staat gij onder invloed van psychedelica en wat die dokter zegt tegen u. Ik denk niet dat dat ... Ik
denk dat het eerder beangstigend kan zijn.” (respondent NL-19, male, 22 years)
 Citation 20: “Ja, zeker en vooral als het dan op festivals […], ze merken van die bepaalde pil is gevaarlijk, ja, laat
dat dan circuleren op die beelden dat ik zei aan het podia van: opgepast, deze pillen zijn in omloop, euh, met die
bepaalde stof en die misschien het risico of het effect veroorzaakt, en dat is een effect dat je niet wilt ... Allé, stel
dat ze zeggen van: deze chemische stof zit erin, euh, vermijd die pillen, pas er mee op, laat ze testen etc. Ja, dat

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 117
lijkt, allé, dat lijkt me wel een stap in de goede richting. Dat zorgt ook voor bewustwording en qua sensibilisering
en harm reduction ook weer. Omdat dat een ... dat is toch harm reduction zou ik zeggen.” (respondent NL-18,
male, 24 years)
 Citation 21: “Ik moet zeggen: ik heb ook, allé, gesproken met de mensen van Modus Vivendi en, allé ik heb ook,
één van mijn vragen die ik toen ook stelde – want toen was ik nog wat aan het zoeken – van kijk, ik vind dit leuk
maar ik weet niet echt hoe vaak ik het kan doen of wil doen enzo. En ze hebben ook wel goede tips gegeven van
kijk, euh, als ge vindt het is leuker op feestjes euh… als ge elk weekend een feestje doet, dan zijn het eigenlijk
geen feestjes meer, dan is het gewoon een routine en dan is er niks speciaals meer aan en dat was wel heel,
euh… dat was wel heel, euh, krachtig vind ik, dat bericht. […] Ik heb echt van, kijk, ik vind iets leuk, ik moet het
niet absoluut gaan maximaliseren en ik kan het gewoon houden voor speciale gelegenheden, euh, zodat niet,
euh, zodat het leuk blijft en veilig blijft.” (respondent NL-07, male, 26 years)
 Citation 22: “Ik denk dat dat heel hard afhangt van wat er juist opstaat [lacht]. De manier waarop de boodschap
wordt gebracht. […] Ik denk gewoon al iets kort, en niet te belerend. Zoals die van Safe ‘n Sound, die zijn kort en
daar staat een prentje bij. En daar zit zo een kinkslag in, die een beetje grappig is.” (respondent NL-14, female,
31 years)
 Citation 23: “Op hun website [van de festivalorganisatie] staat bijvoorbeeld niet meer van drugs wordt … Allé,
vroeger staat er, en ik denk dat dat bij bijna op alle sites van clubs en festivals staat van: euh, drugs zijn verboden,
zijn niet getolereerd. Als ge gepakt wordt, vliegt ge buiten. Euh, het is niet oké. Doe het niet. En nu staat er van:
oké, euh… het is verboden, we tolereren het niet, maar we willen u wel deze tips geven: als ge u slecht voelt, en
dat staat er ook expliciet bij van als ge u slecht voelt, ga naar de EHBO en wees eerlijk, want wij zijn verbonden
door het medisch [beroeps]geheim.” (respondent NL-07, male, 26 years)
 Citation 24: “Wel gratis water en dat is… het ene bij het andere festival. Bij sommige [festivals] is dat heel
duidelijk. Bij andere is dat precies goed weggestopt. Euh, maar ik heb ook altijd het gevoel gehad dat dat meer
was voor de warmte dan voor, euh, druggebruik.” (respondent NL-17, female, 27 years)
 Citation 25: “Ik denk niet dat mensen het minder gaan gebruiken daardoor, want als die willen gebruiken, dan
gebruiken die toch. Maar als je zo die relax zones en die infostanden hebt, dat die het wel op een veiligere manier
kunnen doen” (respondent NL-17, female, 27 years)
 Citation 26: “[…] Stel dat ze zeggen: ho, vorige week was te veel, en mijn lichaam heeft daar van afgezien. Ik zou
eigenlijk wel willen minderen maar dan, ja, we spreken af bij die en dan gaan we daar naartoe en dan is dat
moeilijk zo, met die sociale druk, om dan niet mee te doen. Maar als ze dan zo een bord zien dan gaan ze
misschien wel denken van: ja, ja, ja, ik ga mij daar toch aan houden. Vanaf nu ga ik niets meer bijnemen want …
Allé, zo ergens een beetje een reminder of toch zoiets van, allé ja, dat is het teken voor mij om nu te stoppen. En
er voor te zorgen dat ik nu, dat ik volgende week wel een goeie week heb. Want vorige week was niet goed, want
ik heb overdreven in het weekend.” (respondent NL-05, female, 50 years)
 Citation 27: “Ik denk misschien bij, euh, beginnende gebruikers of mensen die niet echt veel ervaring hebben dat
dat [harm reduction initiatieven zoals een infostand en een drug testing service] wel heel hard invloed kan
hebben op hun eerste keer dat ze dat proberen, hoeveel dat ze nemen en de dosis en zo, zal ik zeggen.”
(respondent NL-11, male, 22 years)
 Citation 28: “Euh, ik zeg wat dat vooral opvalt op festivals, vind ik vooral dat mensen voorbereid komen. Dus
mensen die willen gebruiken, die gaan gebruiken. Als ge daar dan een euh, wat meer informatie over kunt geven,
dat beter kunt kaderen, een aantal tips meegeven, denk ik dat dat een positieve uitwerking heeft op mensen die
toch al sowieso weliswaar nog iets gingen gebruiken.” (respondent NL-15, male, 36 years)
 Citation 29: “Ik ben naar die standjes geweest. Maar, euh, vrienden van mij die harddrugs gebruiken of euh –
geen legale middelen zal ik maar zeggen – veel van hen passeren dat gewoon. Dus ben ik eigenlijk degene die
met de boekjes zo wat rondloopt en dat wat aan het lezen ben, waardoor dat zij dat wel wat oppikken uiteindelijk
maar… het is dus niet dat iedereen daar even vatbaar voor is.” (respondent NL-03, male, 24 years)
 Citation 30: “Je kan je wel informeren op voorhand, en ook zo, komaan, op het einde weet je nog altijd niet
helemaal zeker wat je neemt. […] Maar je weet dan dat er iets inzit dat er niet moet inzitten, of dat het heel

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 118
zwaar gedoseerd is of heel zuiver. Dan kan je je dosis ook al wat aanpassen, aan hetgeen dat je hebt. Waardoor
je minder gemakkelijk een overdosis hebt of andere negatieve effecten.” (respondent NL-14, female, 31 years)
 Citation 31: “Ik was wel geïnformeerd, maar dat was sowieso een beetje uit mezelf […]. Maar niet met die
standjes. Allé, misschien in de toekomst dat dat wel zo zou zijn, maar allé, door die standjes zelf ben ik persoonlijk
daar niet, allé, heeft dat niet echt een grote invloed gehad.” (respondent NL-06, female, 23 years)
 Citation 32: “Ook zo een heel specifiek voorbeeld dat ik van de standjes heb geleerd is dat, ja, bij middelen die je
moet snuiven dat je dan eerder euh … Veel mensen gebruiken een sleutel of een biljet, maar daar kan je ook
hepatitis door krijgen terwijl, ja, veel mensen weten dat niet en doen het gewoon. Dat is jammer.” (respondent
NL-03, male, 24 years)
 Citation 33: “Ja, natuurlijk afhankelijk van het resultaat van mijn pil zou ik dan misschien wel mijn gebruik bij
stellen. […] Allé, het is gewoon iets anders dan MDMA. Het is gewoon een andere stof. Dus euh, die vermijd ik
dan liever dan een risico te nemen.” (respondent NL-18, male, 24 years)
 Citation 34: “De omstaanders, de buitenmensen die er niet echt mee te maken hebben. Die vinden de politie wel
goed. Maar dat is ook het meest zichtbare he. Dat is zo: we hebben iets gedaan, we hebben daar politie gezet,
we hebben honden, we doen iets tegen drugs. Maar dat is dus niet he.” (respondent NL-05, female, 50 years)
 Citation 35: “Ik ben meer voorstander van te informeren en te zorgen dat mensen op een veilige manier drugs
kunnen gebruiken, want druggebruik is al… dat gaat al mee vanaf dat de dancingscène bestaat en dat gaat nog
blijven gaan, hoe repressief ze ook zijn en hoe hard ze ook schreeuwen dat het illegaal is.” (respondent NL-16,
female, 24 years)
 Citation 36: “Ik heb dat al meermaals gezien, ja. Euh, maar eerlijk gezegd ik heb daar nog nooit in gedeponeerd.
Euh, ja ik snap het principe sowieso. Euh ... Maar ik denk dat de perceptie van de festivalgangers van: Ok, ik ben
nu al zó dicht bij de ingang van het festival […]. Ik weet eigenlijk niet of het heel veel gebruikt wordt. Euh, ik heb
er nog nooit van gehoord dat vrienden van mij het zouden gebruikt hebben. Euh, ik denk als mensen het
meenemen naar een festival dan ... euh, dan doen ze dat met voorbedachte rade [mompelt even]. Ze nemen het
risico tóch om ermee binnen te komen, dus waarom zou ge dan inderdaad waar zo'n ton staat van mening
veranderen?” (respondent NL-18, male, 24 years)
 Citation 37: “Het zal misschien een kleine impact hebben van hoeveel dat mensen meenemen maar ik zeg het:
iedereen die het wilt doen, neemt het wel mee of doet het dan op de camping of zo dus … Ja, ik denk dat dat op
zich niet zo gigantisch veel impact heeft. Als een festivalganger drugs wilt gebruiken gaat die het op één of
andere manier toch doen met of zonder die controles.” (respondent NL-16, female, 24 years)
 Citation 38: “Dat ge op een onveiligere manier ermee omgaat omdat ge het stiekemer doet of een grotere dosis
in één keer omdat ge weet van, ja, misschien krijg ik het niet allemaal binnen [het festivalterrein] en dan kan ik
niet meer bij doseren naarmate dat het festival vordert. Euh, en dat ge algemeen ook meer schrik hebt dat de
politie betrokken wordt moest ge bij een andere hulpverlener of steward terechtkomen waardoor dat de drempel
voor alle andere hulpverlening ook hoger ligt.” (respondent NL-20, male, 24 years)
 Citation 39: “Ho, ik denk voor, zeg maar beginnende wel… Allé, want als ik nu wat naar mezelf kijk, ik zou daar
echt schrik voor hebben. Dat je zo gepakt wordt. Maar ik denk eens dat je doorhebt dat er zoveel mensen mee
weggeraken en da lukt bij u ook een keer. Da je dat gewoon eigenlijk quasi ga negeren. […] Dat je u gewoon
trucjes leert om euh daardoor te glippen.” (respondent NL-04, female, 21 years)
 Citation 40: “Respondent: Maar ik doe wat dat ik doe. Ik vind politie nuttig maar ook wel bijzonder on-metal en
euh… ik vind dat ze daar staan euh… ja oké die mensen doen gewoon hun werk maar ik ben daar op mijn plek
en zij niet. […] Dan heb ik zoiets van: ow fuck. En dan moet je wat creatiever zijn.
Interviewer: Ja. Dus eigenlijk zoek je dan een oplossing om het toch mee binnen te krijgen?
Respondent: Ja tuurlijk. Allé, ik val ook niemand lastig met wat dat ik doe eh. Euh, stel dat ik, euh, op de één of
andere manier betrapt wordt en ze willen mij een boete geven, ja, dan zal ik die moeten betalen.” (respondent
NL-02, male, 34 years)
 Citation 41: “Mijn gebruik is geminderd de laatste jaren wel, maar dat heeft absoluut niets met de repressieve
maatregelen te maken. Dat heeft te maken met mijn eigen zoektocht naar informatie. Mijn eigen beter leren
kennen, ouder worden.” (respondent NL-01, female, 32 years)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 119
C2. Original citations of the festival stakeholders
 Citation 1: “ […] als ik het vergelijk natuurlijk met in de jaren '90, is er wel een taboe doorbroken. Het is in de
mainstream gekropen.” (respondent NL-18, female, prevention or harm reduction worker)
 Citation 2: “Ik weet niet of dat mensen het nu meer aanvaarden, maar ik denk wel dat mensen meer bewust zijn,
dat het er gewoon is. Dat geloof ik wel. Gewoon omdat het ook in de media, in alles, in heel onze leefwereld,
komt drugs veel meer ter sprake […]” (respondent NL-24, male, prevention or harm reduction worker)
 Citation 3: “De verdovende middelen zijn wel meestal gerelateerd toch aan een aantal, allé, typischere
evenementen” (respondent NL-16, male, law enforcement)
 Citation 4: “De gemiddelde leeftijd was op [NAAM FESTIVAL] 28 jaar. Euh, wat wil zeggen dat er, allé, iedereen
die 30+ is, die staat al anders in het leven. Die heeft die experimentele fase niet meer en die kan daar euh, al
goed, heel goed mee omgaan. Er zijn veel mensen die ik ken … zijn mensen (lacht), die 30, 40, 50 jaar zijn, die
drie keer per jaar weggaan en die dan drie keer per jaar een pilletje nemen. Dat zijn zo’n mensen, dat zijn
recreatieve gebruikers, die vroeger misschien elke week uitgingen en elke week een pilletje pakten, maar nu dat
zo nog een keer vol feesten. Euh, en [NAAM FESTIVAL] heeft als voordeel dat er veel van die type mensen zijn die
geen euh, die weinig overlast creëren, die voor zichzelf al veilig hebben leren uitgaan.” (respondent NL-02, male,
festival organizer)
 Citation 5: “Wij moeten als festival daar [recreatief versus problematisch gebruik] eigenlijk geen onderscheid in
maken hé, maar we willen wel dat de mensen, euh, die recreatief gebruiken, gewaarschuwd worden voor de
gevaren hé. En we willen de mensen die problematisch gebruiken ook wel het aanbod geven van kijk, je kan er
ook uit geraken hé, je kan ook geholpen worden. Dus, dat is een onderscheid, daar hebben we specifiek voor
gekozen op het festival om te kijken van, ja, gewoon ook een beetje een vervolgtraject, de nazorg aan te bieden
hé.” (respondent NL-07, female, festival organizer)
 Citation 6: “Dus die veiligheid moet ... die garanties en, ja, dat is een vertrouwensband dat ge opbouwt over
jaren met festivalgangers. Euh, want ja, als het dan een keer misloopt, dan gaat dat gelijk een lopend vuurtje.”
(respondent NL-25, male, first aid services)
 Citation 7: “We hebben eigenlijk een urgentiearts euh op het terrein, op zaterdag en op zondag. En in het
verleden was dat eigenlijk puur de EHBO met het Rode Kruis, die mensen ja, van zodra dat er eigenlijk iemand
eventjes buiten westen gaat dan euh, bellen ze de ambulance, staat de ambulance klaar. […] op negen van de
tien gevallen is dat niet nodig hé. Dus dat is hetgeen dat een arts natuurlijk wel kan inschatten van oké ja,
eventjes rusten, wat water drinken of een baxter of whatever.” (respondent NL-08, male, festival organizer)
 Citation 8: “[…] dat vond ik ook wel een goed initiatief. Euh, minderjarigen die krijgen geen OMS he. Op [NAAM
FESTIVAL] hebt ge natuurlijk heel veel minderjarigen. Euh, en daar was het zo, dat er een vaste huisarts
beschikbaar was gedurende het hele festival, die een telefoongesprek had met die minderjarige die dan, euh ja,
betrapt werd met drugs. Dat was een luchtig gesprek, maar dat was wel een gesprek met he: dit zijn de gevolgen
van, denk daar goed bij na. Euh, dus vaak een beetje de medische insteek, dan werd meegegeven. […] Ik denk
dat dat niet slecht is. Vooral dat gesprek met die huisarts is iets waar dat ik zeker en vast wel achter sta, omdat
dat de juiste figuur is.” (respondent NL-22; female; law enforcement)
 Citation 9: “ […] maar we proberen dat toch allemaal zo een beetje, ja, politie weg te houden van, van het
gebeuren. Bijvoorbeeld euh, de medische post en de politiepost uit mekaar trekken. Vroeger stond dat vaak naast
mekaar. Maar dat is een drempel voor de mensen om naar de medische post te gaan. Ik vind die mensenlevens
belangrijk, dus ze moeten naar de medische post gaan. Dus OK, we zetten ons een beetje verder, dat ze ons niet
zien, zodanig dat ze daar geen schrik van hebben.” (respondent NL-19, female, law enforcement)
 Citation 10: “Wat dat ik ook wel een belangrijke vind, is zo het medisch personeel, dat die ook wel opgeleid zijn
in hoe omgaan met illegale middelen en weten wat dat ge bij wat wel of niet kunt doen. […] Ik voel dat dat ook

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 120
nog niet altijd er zo in zit. Of dat ze er zelfs gewoon, er niet naar vragen eigenlijk ook [refererend naar het vragen
naar het middelengebruik bij de patiënt].” (respondent NL-13, female, prevention or harm reduction worker)
 Citation 11: “Het is heel vaak zo dat festivals in hun organisaties vooral fan zijn van zo die meer 'one shots', euh,
acties en interventies, waarvan dat wij eigenlijk weten dat da niet echt veel doet. Euh, maar dan kunnen ze wel
zeggen dat ze aan drugspreventie gedaan hebben natuurlijk. Dus dat is vaak wel een beetje een afweging van
... Soms doen we da wel of ondersteunen we daar bijvoorbeeld hun lokale preventiewerker in, een beetje vanuit
het idee van: Stel dat we nu wat toegevingen doen, dan hebben we al een voet binnen voor misschien de
volgende editie, dat we wat integraler kunnen werken of zo.” (respondent NL-13, female, prevention or harm
reduction worker)
 Citation 12: “Ge kunt met heel veel diensten en organisaties en stedelijke diensten ook, en ook politie, aan tafel
zitten en iedereen kan overtuigd zijn van hetzelfde idee dat harm reduction misschien wel de meest aangewezen
vorm is. Maar om dat dan te gaan ondertekenen als politiek bestuur en als politie, dat is een heel ander verhaal
hé.” (respondent NL-24, male, prevention or harm reduction worker)
 Citation 13: “De mensen stellen zich dan wel altijd vragen van: “Ja, ik ben net binnen. Eigenlijk moest ik alles
afgeven, en nu ben ik binnen en nu zijt ge mij eigenlijk informatie aan het geven over hoe dat we eigenlijk onze
gezondheidsrisico's kunnen beperken bij het gebruiken van alcohol of andere drugs”. Dat is een beetje
paradoxaal, maar dan proberen we dat ook altijd te plaatsen.” (respondent NL-15, female, prevention or harm
reduction worker)
 Citation 14: “Respondent: Dat wij nog altijd anno 2021 geen drug checking mogen doen, dat vind ik ook een
enorm gemis. En dat is tweeledig, zowel het analyseren van de producten, als twee, wat nog belangrijker is, dat
ge mensen bij u aan de tafel hebt waar dat ge harm reduction boodschappen rechtstreeks al zittend […], ge hebt
ze bij u, de aandacht is er, en er is zovéél ruimte en zoveel potentieel en zoveel ... daar zit zoveel kracht in, om
daar boodschappen over te brengen en mensen in te lichten die wij nu missen.
Interviewer: Ja. Het is veel meer dan die drug testing op zich?
Respondent: Absoluut.” (respondent NL-18, female, prevention or harm reduction worker)
 Citation 15: “Vandaag moeten we omgaan wat de wet ons verplicht en dat is ook een constante oefening en
discussie hé. Vandaag euh, politie zegt: het moet zo, ja, je moet zero tolerance promoten, dat moeten we doen.
[…] Ja, we moeten er mee omgaan en we willen ons hoofd niet in het zand steken, maar het is wel constant hé.
Ik wil morgen niet naar de rechtbank moeten gaan omdat ik de facilitator ben van euh, drugsgebruik.”
(respondent NL-02, male, festival organizer)
 Citation 16: “[…] we hebben euh gezegd van, ja, als we die [harm reduction organization] gaan toelaten dan op
het festival bijvoorbeeld met een standje over preventie van drugs, dan gaat dat automatisch een beetje een
toegeving zijn van, ja, hier wordt drugs gebruikt hé. Als we realistisch zijn, is dat ook wel gewoon altijd zo. Euh,
er komt ook een hele hoop politiek kijken, dus ja, dan gaan die ook een beetje verbaasd zijn van ja, euh, hoe
komt dat hier een drugspreventie standje staat?” (respondent NL-06, male, festival organizer)
 Citation 17: “En inderdaad die communicatie [omtrent veiliger uitgaan]. Ja, ... we zouden dat ook eens een keer
moeten meten, in welke mate, hoe dat dat binnenkomt. Hoeveel mensen dat zien, dat lezen, dat daar, dat
effectief absorberen.” (respondent NL-08, male, festival organizer)
 Citation 18: “Dat [prevention or harm reduction info stand] stak heel erg tegen af ten opzichte van de, euh,
professionele standen van Coca-Cola en Maes en interimkantoren. Ze hadden dan zoiets van: wat voor een dodgy
tentje is dat?! Dat stak dan heel erg tegen af. Die stonden daar … allez dat soort flyers uit te delen in plaats van
weet ik veel, ja, met een sexy app te werken […]” (respondent NL-04, male, festival organizer)
 Citation 19: “Bijvoorbeeld, ge merkt dat de Safe 'n Sound stand niet ... De bedoeling was om die heel, heel
centraal op het festival te plaatsen, dat die ook heel duidelijk aanwezig was. Nee, dat is niet gelukt. Die stond
ergens, euh, redelijk achterin.” (respondent NL-22, female, law enforcement)
 Citation 20: “Zoals ik al zei: dat is, allé ja … dat is geen klopjacht. Als wij willen [lacht], kunnen wij daar ... Hoe
meer ge daar [OMS Fest] op inzet, hoe meer geld dat ge binnen haalt. En dat is zeker en vast niet de bedoeling.
De bedoeling is gewoon om die aanwezigheid te tonen, om die controles, he, om te tonen: Wij staan hier wel

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 121
[…] Het is niet toegelaten. Een signaal te geven, daar gaat het over.” (respondent NL-22, female, law
enforcement)
 Citation 21: “Ho, ik moet eerlijk zeggen van, ja, dat wordt ook niet wetenschappelijk onderzocht hé. Ik durf ook
niet zeggen van: Ho, hebben wij nu ervoor gezorgd dat er bijvoorbeeld 100 mensen minder komen in de Rode
Kruis post of niet. Ik durf dat, ho, ik durf dat echt niet zeggen van ... Er worden middelen gebruikt op het
festivalterrein. […] Euh, we halen er inderdaad heel wat uit, maar volgens mij is dat, ja ... Maar, ik kan het
wetenschappelijk niet onderbouwen, maar ... het is een fractie van wat dat er aanwezig is en gebruikt wordt op
het terrein.” (respondent NL-16, male, law enforcement)
 Citation 22: “Ge zag ook wel dat dat inderdaad voor meer gemoedsrust bij de festivalgangers zorgde. Ja, en dat
is zo een beetje het principe van, euh, actie-reactie, en de manier waarop dat ge mensen benadert. Euh, en hoe
dat ge uzelf opstelt, dat heeft toch wel een impact op de attitude van de festivalgangers. Dus ge zag ook daar,
ja, dat mensen ... heel veel weten dat van: Ok ja, het mag niet, dus ja, als je mij betrapt, ja, dan heb ik pech
gehad. Maar het feit dat wij niet meer zoals robocopkes, heel ostentatief, voor iedereen zichtbaar uit het publiek
plukten ... dat zorgde ervoor van... ze voelden zich eigenlijk minder direct geviseerd. En we hebben eigenlijk al
bij al, hoo, eens één of twee, euh, mensen die wij betrapt hebben op [illegale middelen], die wij gecontroleerd
hebben, die door het lint zijn gegaan.” (respondent NL-12, male, law enforcement)
 Citation 23: “Ik heb ook altijd gefocust op de grote dealers. Diegene die echt willen geld verdienen en die eigenlijk
niet kijken naar de gevolgen voor de mensen.” (respondent NL-19, female, law enforcement)
 Citation 24: “Als je een [drugs]dode hebt, hebt ge niet genoeg gecontroleerd. En als ge geen [drugs]dode hebt,
dan hebt ge teveel gecontroleerd.” (respondent NL-19, female, law enforcement)
 Citation 25: “De [festival]organisatie wilt nul tolerantie op drugs. De bewaking ziet dat: Aja, Ok, wij moeten
controleren op drugs. Ja, maar de wetgeving zegt: Wij mogen niet zoeken achter drugs. Dus we gaan dat altijd
toevallig aantreffen. Euh, dus de finaliteit van de oppervlakkige aftasting aan de inkom vervaagt naar: We gaan
op zoek naar drugs he.” (respondent NL-23, male, law enforcement)
 Citation 26: “We moeten informeren, ontraden. Als je het toch wil doen, informeren hoe. Dat is denk ik de rol
van festivals: het gebruik ontraden. Maar als mensen – allé, dat is de rationele keuzetheorie hé – als mensen de
beslissing hebben gemaakt om toch te gebruiken, gaan we die daar ook niet van kunnen tegenhouden.”
(respondent NL-07, female, festival organizer)
 Citation 27: “Wat dat ik bijvoorbeeld als organisator heb gemerkt, de eerste twee jaar van [NAAM FESTIVAL].
Dan waren stadsbestuur en politie nog niet echt bezig met ons festival. […] Er werd nog niet echt naar ons
gekeken. En euh, dat drugsgebruik was er toen ongetwijfeld ook al, maar dat leidde niet tot mensen die op de
EHBO belandden. Dat viel allemaal wel mee. Maar wat dat wij wel merkten, vanaf dat er in jaar 3 de politie erbij
kwam en echt zeer hardhandig zero tolerance kwam toepassen met honden en met wasstraten euh enzovoort
enzoverder, dan zaten wij plots toch elke dag met 4-5 mensen in onze EHBO die te veel hadden genomen. Euh,
wat dat ergens wel toont dat mensen onder een bepaalde druk komen en dan al wat sneller alles gaan innemen
of euh ja, minder gaan spreiden. Ze voelen zich wat opgejaagd, er worden euh slechte beslissingen genomen.
Misschien wordt er ook wel meer gekocht bij dealers die ze niet kennen en dus, hoeveelheden, ja waar dat ze
niet van weten, van wat heb ik hier nu eigenlijk vast. Euh, dus wij zagen wel direct een zotte toename van mensen
die in de EHBO belandden. En ik vond die cijfers wel zo frappant dat ik niet anders kon dan dat een beetje linken
aan het feit dat er plots heel repressief werd opgetreden aan de entree. Het eerste wat je daar zag waren 10
politiemensen op een rij en ik kan mij wel voorstellen dat je dan zoiets hebt van: Wow, wat is dat hier en dat er
dan domme beslissingen vallen.” (respondent NL-11, male, festival organizers)
 Citation 28: “Dat was eigenlijk wel leuk om te zien dat mensen ten eerste appreciatie voor [de preventieve alcohol
ademtest actie] hebben. Nu, soms is er ook drank mee gemoeid hé en zijt ge beste maat plots en is het allemaal
leuk. Ook bij nuchtere mensen heel veel appreciatie. En dat is niet vreemd, want bij repressieve controles heb ik
ook al een keer een hele grote meegemaakt in [NAAM STAD]. En ook daar merk je dat er veel mensen eigenlijk
het appreciëren dat er controle is. Dus dat is wel, hé ja, mogelijks met boetes en zo - wat bij ons nu niet het geval
was.” (respondent NL-24, male, prevention or harm reduction worker)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 122
9.4 ATTACHMENT D: ORIGINAL CITAT IONS OF THE FRENCH SPEAKING PARTICIPANTS
D1. Original citations of the festival attendees
 Citation 1: « Moi je ne fais pas de différences [entre drogues légales et illegals]. L’alcool, c’est la drogue la plus
dangereuse au monde, la plus addictive, et c’est la seule drogue qui, quand tu l’arrêtes du jour au lendemain, tu
peux en mourir. Sur l’échelle des drogues, l’alcool, il est tout en haut avec le crack et l’héroïne. Et puis je connais
des tonnes de gens alcooliques, des tonnes de parents de mes amis alcooliques. L’alcool fait des ravages sur le
corps, autant que la drogue. Selon moi » (respondent F15, female, 19 years)
 Citation 2: « LSD, champignons, enfin tout ce qui est psychotrope [il n’emploie pas « psychotrope » pour l’alcool].
J’aime assez bien, mais je fais ça, je dirais une fois par mois au grand maximum. Et sinon là j’ai bien calmé, mais
il y a une période où tout ce qui était amphétamines, donc speed, MDMA et ecstasy : allez, une fois par semaine,
une fois toutes les deux semaines. Mais j’ai bien calmé, parce que le moment des descentes était de plus en plus
fort » (respondent F3, male, 25 years)
 Citation 3: « du LSD, je pense le premier jour. Et ça a duré pendant trois jours parce que j’ai continué le trip. Et
sinon, j’ai pas consommé d’alcool puisque c’est pas mon truc… J’ai pris de la Ké [ketamine], de la Coke et puis le
dernier jour j’ai pris du speed pour tenir. Et voilà. En globalité c’était ça. Je sais pas si c’est assez explicite »
(respondent F4, female, 20 years)
 Citation 4: « organiser sa consommation en festival » et « ramener la drogue en festival cachée » dans ses «
soutiens gorges » ou ses « tampons » (respondent F14, female, 24 years)
 Citation 5: « En festival j’ai commencé fort. C’était directement ecsta, MDMA, et cannabis (mais ça je ne sais pas
si c’est vraiment le sujet principal). Donc, c’était principalement ecsta et oui après ça a évolué vers le speed,
cocaïne, Kétamine » (respondent F13, male, 22 years)
 Citation 6: « J’ai jamais voulu tester les médicaments. Heu, j’ai pris une fois du tramadol mais c’est parce que ma
copine en avait en prescription. Du coup, ben voilà. Mais sinon, j’ai jamais pris de xanax ou des choses comme
ça. Moi, je suis quelqu’un d’hyperactive, j’ai pas du tout envie de prendre des drogues qui risquent de me ralentir
» (respondent F15, female, 19 years)
 Citation 7: « La MDMA ! Mais ça c’est pas souvent. L’Ecstasy, ça c’est on va dire une fois par mois maximum. La
Kétamine ça c’est une fois par semaine voire deux. Le 2CB pour le moment aussi, ça c’est une fois tous les deux
mois ou une fois par mois ça dépend. Et le speed aussi ça c’est juste quand je suis fatigué et que je sens vraiment
que j’ai besoin » (respondent F18, male, 21 years)
 Citation 8: « Avant je consommais beaucoup d’amphétamines donc principalement du speed. Au tout début
quand j’allais en festival, j’ai rien consommé pendant un an et demi, puis après j’ai recommencé la
consommation avec des pilules, puis j’ai continué avec des amphétamines donc beaucoup de speed et de la
MDMA. Et puis j’ai arrêté la MDMA et j’ai continué avec le speed. Puis j’ai arrêté le speed et je suis passé à la
cocaïne » (respondent F9, male, 22 years)
 Citation 9: « Positive. Parce que j’ai pas eu de Bad. J’ai passé que des bons moments donc voilà quoi donc ».
Puis, il précise : « Enfin par contre les jours après, là ça se passe pas bien » (respondent F14, female, 24 years)
 Citation 10: « A l’époque, je savais pas trop ce que ça voulait dire dépasser les limites, dépasser les doses, parce
que j’avais l’impression que j’allais jamais pouvoir aller trop loin. Je pensais que tout allait bien se passer. Et, le
dernier jour, à 8h. du matin, j’suis tombée. Ben j’ai fait une overdose [F15 a pris différentes drogues chaque
jour, alcool, speed, ecstasy]. Je suis tombée par terre. J’suis par morte. Hein ! J’suis là donc tout va bien. Mais
ça m’a servi de leçon. Mais on a pas vu les hôpitaux, ni rien […] Je me suis juste réveillée un peu plus tard. On
m’a mis dans un train. Et j’suis rentrée chez moi et pendant une semaine, ça a été l’enfer, ça a été la redescente,
et, après ça, j’ai vraiment fait hyper gaffe et j’ai plus du tout consommé comme j’avais fait à ce festival »
(respondent F15, female, 19 years)
 Citation 11: « Ah oui, je pense que c’est répandu et je pense que tout le monde le sait. Je pense que c’est même
parfois une image qu’on se fait du festival. En tout cas, ce festival depuis que j’y vais, je sais que... Allez, quand
on pense à lui, même pour les parents, c’est drogues et alcool quoi ! » (respondent F3, male, 25 years)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 123
 Citation 12: « On a commencé le festival comme ça avec une prise de speed. Après on trouvait des marchands
partout. On était dans le camping festif et on marchait juste cinq minutes et on rencontrait quelqu’un qui nous
disait « Voilà, là tu peux trouver ça. Et là-bas tu peux trouver ça, etc. Si t’es plus intéressée par « ça », c’est plus
là-bas ». Et nous, on était en mode : où est-ce qu’on est, quoi ? C’est pire que … le festival de X .., quoi ! J’ai déjà
entendu des avis sur X.., et des témoignages, mais c’est vrai que là, moi, j’ai eu l’expérience avec un autre festival
que X » (respondent F15, female, 19 years)
 Citation 13: « Tout ce qui est police ou agents de sécurité c’est indispensable. Il y a rien à faire. Il y a beaucoup
de gens. Enfin voilà, il y a des gens qui boivent, qui se droguent etc. Et puis voilà, il y a parfois même des gens
juste agressifs comme ça. Ça peut arriver donc c’est indispensable ». Pourtant, F1 nous dit par ailleurs penser
que l’intervention d’autres « acteurs intermédiaires » du type « éducateurs ou stewards » serait pourrait être
plus efficace ou plus adaptée. (respondent F1, female, 39 years)
 Citation 14: « ...Ah oui oui çça calme les gens, ça les freine dans leur consommation. Parce que je pense que la
peur de se faire chopper est assez commune à tout le monde » (respondent F9, male, 22 years)
 Citation 15: « ça [police et sécurité] cause parfois plus de problèmes légaux à certains consommateurs » par
ailleurs, cela « ne va pas tant que ça les freiner de re-consommer » (respondent F4, female, 20 years)
 Citation 16: « Je ne vais pas te mentir, dans notre situation, souvent ça [police et sécurité] évoque les problèmes.
Enfin, on sait que c’est illégal, on sait que ça peut mener à des choses assez négatives dans nos vies. Donc ça
évoque les problèmes » (respondent F3, male, 25 years)
 Citation 17: « D’un autre côté, j’essaye de faire la part des choses et de ne pas voir tous les flics comme juste des
gens qui vont nous poser des problèmes. Je comprends leur métier, je comprends qu’on ait envie d’aider les gens
et faire respecter la loi. Je pense que ça fait partie des choses et je pense qu’en tant que consommateurs on a
besoin d’avoir conscience qu’ils ne sont pas là juste pour nous casser les couilles. Voilà, il y a un système et il faut
faire avec. Je crois que parfois ça aide les gens parce que, allez, ça empêchera peut-être un petit garçon de 15
ans de consommer un produit qu’il aurait trouvé trop facilement » (respondent F3, male, 25 years)
 Citation 18: « Je pars du principe que la drogue c’est illégal et ça restera illégal. Donc la vente c’est illégal, c’est
normal qu’il y ait des flics qui contrôlent ça. Même si je le fais et que je le fais tout le temps [transporter et passer
de la drogue]. Mais si un jour je me fais contrôler, enfin que j’ai des problèmes avec la police, je pourrais m’en
prendre qu’à moi-même. Tu vois ce que je veux dire ? Genre c’est normal que je me fasse arrêter parce que j’ai
de la drogue sur moi » (respondent F4, female, 20 years)
 Citation 19: « S’il y en a un qui tombe, qui ne va pas bien on va aller choper un vigile et lui dire » ; afin que le
vigile puisse amener la personne en état de malaise vers les services Premiers Soins ou RdR » (respondent F11,
male, 31 years)
 Citation 20: « plus il y a la police etc. etc… et on va consommer la drogue mais de manière beaucoup plus rapide
et plus souvent. […] Moins il y a de policiers, plus je me sens tranquille et je peux prendre mes stupéfiants
tranquille, sans devoir me stresser etc. etc » (respondent F9, male, 22 years)
 Citation 21: « [au grand festival auquel il a assisté], j'ai pas vu grand-chose [pas beaucoup de policiers ou de
vigils]. J’ai pas l’impression que ce soit utile [la police et la sécurité]. J'ai même tendance à dire que c'est pas utile
parce que, du coup, ils [les festivaliers consommateurs] vont acheter sur place. Et là, on est moins au courant de
la qualité de ce qu’on va trouver. Les gens qui vont dealer sur le site moi j’aurais moins tendance à leur faire
confiance » (respondent F6, male, 28 years)
 Citation 22: « il y a eu pas mal de flics qui ont ramené des gens beaucoup trop défoncés. Ils les ont pas foutu en
cellule ou si ou ça. Non ils les ont amenés aux stands premiers soins et aux stands où se trouvent les équipes de
Prévention et de Réduction des Risques » (respondent F9, male, 22 years)
 Citation 23: « On pense toujours à tel ou tel autre service de Premiers Soins connus. On voit leurs tentes qui sont
indiquées sur le site, qui sont sur tous les plans. C'est assez clair, les gens sur le festival savent où c’est, ça
fonctionne plutôt bien » (respondent F6, male, 28 years)
 Citation 24: « Je pense que ça permet d’éviter pas mal d’overdose. Mais c’est des overdoses surtout liées à la
kétamine. Je ne sais pas si vous connaissez le k-hol » (respondent F9, male, 22 years)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 124
 Citation 25: « Je crois que si jamais j’ai un Bad trip ou quoi ou – ouais - un coup de chaleur comme tu dis, je vais
d’abord aller voir les relax zones. Si jamais vraiment ça passe pas tout seul dans mon coin ou quoi. Ou avec des
potes. Et puis de là du coup, si jamais vraiment je sens qu’il y a des complications, alors je demanderai au service
Premier Soin présent à côté. Mais pour moi, les Premiers Soins, c’est un des services qui faut pas engorger tu
vois. C’est faut vraiment y aller en dernier recours » (respondent F10, male, 22 years)
 Citation 26: « En général quand je vois quelqu’un commencer à taper un malaise, je suis du genre à aller vers la
personne pour voir ce qui se passe. Ou j’appelle souvent le service Premier Soin qui se trouve là, même pour des
gens que je ne connais pas parce qu’ils sont pas bien, ils font un k-hol ou ils ont trop chaud ou comment ils ont
trop pris donc du coup, ils ont des remontés d’acide ou quoi » (respondent F9, male, 22 years)
 Citation 27: « sécuriser ses voies aériennes [de l’usager], le mettre en condition de sécurité, le laisser cuver. Veiller
à ce qui n’inhale pas son propre vomi. Prendre un peu ses constantes etc. Enfin du secourisme de base le temps
que la crise passe » (respondent F11, male, 31 years)
 Citation 28: « Si on y va pour une blessure, alors oui parce que les choses sont faites et voilà. Mais je pense que
si on y va pour un bad trip ou des trucs liés à la drogue, malheureusement, même si la déontologie des Premiers
Soins c’est de ne pas juger, il y a beaucoup trop de gens qui ne s'y connaissent pas, simplement en fait »
(respondent F5, male, 21 years)
 Citation 29: « beaucoup plus en tout cas. Mais ça déjà la relax zone on y va déjà de base. […] Rarement le soir.
J’y vais plutôt en après-midi ou des trucs comme ça. Ou voilà, on est bien défoncés pour se poser un peu quoi
effectivement » (respondent F14, female, 24 years)
 Citation 30: « Quand on arrive sur le festival, y a plein de gens qui viennent nous voir, avec des fascicules […] Et,
je veux dire, c’est des jeunes comme nous. Ils ont déjà pris ! Ils sont là, ils sont chouettes. Ils sont à l’écoute.
Simplement, les fascicules qui t’expliquent le danger des drogues, il y en avait une quinzaine différents, qui
t’expliquent plein de choses, qui t’expliquent comment réagir, quel numéro appeler : les centres anti-poisons,
etc... Et puis, y a plein de stands. En tous cas, dans le grand festival où je suis allée, c’était vraiment bien, vraiment
bien construit par rapport à ça, hyper top » (respondent F15, female, 19 years)
 Citation 31: « J’ai trouvé ça hyper hyper bien en fait. Tous les festivals devraient avoir les même dispositifs. Même
dans les écoles, il devrait y avoir quelqu’un qui passe un jour pour faire ce genre de préventions. Pour moi, c’est
vital, tout simplement. Ça a dû aider pas mal de personnes. Y a plein de gens qui passaient au stand et posaient
des questions » (respondent F15, female, 19 years)
 Citation 32: « Je sais pas s’ils peuvent franchement avoir un impact préventif en festivals. […] Si on vient
m’aborder avec un flyer qui explique les dégâts de la drogue, si je suis en festivals et que je me suis dit je vais me
mettre la tête à l’envers, je le ferai quand même ! Donc je pense que l’impact préventif il est quand même limité
» (respondent F11, male, 31 years)
 Citation 33: « ce serait de renforcer plus la prévention » à la fois « primaire » [prévention de base] et « tertiaire
aussi. Enfin voilà je pense qu’il faut pas se voiler la face, il y a des gens qui ont besoin de ça, qui consomment. Et
autant qu’ils le fassent en toute sécurité aussi » (respondent F1, female, 39 years)
 Citation 34: « La prévention primaire c’est avant que le problème n’apparaisse. Donc c’est les messages de
prévention type comme on peut voir [dans des stands uniquement liés aux logiques de prévention]. Ça s’adresse
à un public qui n’est pas consommateur. Et « tertiaire » c’est plus des gens qui sont déjà dans la consommation
de drogue. […] Dans certains festivals j’ai déjà vu que ça se faisait : ils peuvent faire tester leur pilule d’ecstasy
[…] leurs produits pour voir si les produits sont cleans. C’est pas le bon terme puisque par définition c’est des
produits chimiques (Sourire). Mais […] les produits n’entraîneront pas de risques pour leur vie. C’est pas du
curatif. C’est de la prévention tertiaire » (respondent F1, female, 39 years)
 Citation 35: « Y avait tout un stand : je sais pas si c’était un service Premiers Soins ou quoi mais c’était : si un de
tes amis fait un « bad », s’il fait une overdose, s’il ne se sent pas bien à cause d’une drogue, tu l’emmènes là-bas.
Ils te mettent sur un petit lit, avec une petite couette, un petit coussin. Tu te mets là et, paf, tu peux rester autant
de temps que tu veux. Ils t’hydratent, ils te donnent à manger, ils prennent soin de toi. Donc : incroyable.
A côté de ça, y a un stand où tu peux aller tester tes drogues. Donc, tu ramènes n’importe quoi, la personne, elle
te le rend à la fin ! Elle prend son échantillon, elle fait son test et elle te rend la drogue. Et elle va te poser aucune

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 125
question. Elle va juste te conseiller de faire ça ou ça par rapport à ton produit. Et comme ça, toi, t’as les infos. Tu
les prends, tu les prends pas, c’est ton problème.
En plus de ça, le stand avec tous les fascicules, c’était tenu, de base, par des gens qui savent, qui ont déjà pris
eux-mêmes des drogues. C’est pas juste des vieilles personnes qui n’ont aucune expérience et qui vont
commencer à te rabâcher des trucs et toi, t’es en mode « ouais, lui, il est relou ». Non, c’est vraiment des gens
qui savent ce que c’est, qui ont déjà vécu des choses… Ils vont même te raconter leur expérience. Moi j’ai adoré
cette partie-là du festival « X » où j’ai été » (respondent F15, female, 19 years)
 Citation 36: « Ben ce qui est bien, c’est que c’est des gens avec qui on peut discuter, on peut parler un peu
produits, on peut poser des questions. Mais sinon c’est aussi tout simplement pour la distribution de produits qui
peuvent aider, comme les Roule Ta Paille. Je suppose que ça porte bien son nom pour réduire les risques et éviter
le partage de paille et ce genre de choses. […] A chaque fois que je les croise, je passe un peu de temps avec eux,
Je connais assez bien une des structures RdR » (respondent F3, male, 25 years)
 Citation 37: « Premièrement, ce sera mettre une tente « chill out », donc pour permettre aux gens qui sont trop
« prodés » de se reposer dans le calme et dans un climat de confiance, puisque ce sera directement avec des
personnes assez expérimentées qui pourront éventuellement les aider à revenir correctement dans leur trip s’ils
« badtripent » ou simplement à se reposer, quoi. Eventuellement donner de l’eau et tout ça. Voilà : vraiment
donner les trucs de base pour pouvoir gérer les « bad trip » et tout ça » (respondent F5, male, 21 years)
 Citation 38: « Il y a un moment où tu [les] utilises parce que rester debout et tout c’est quand même crevant.
Donc tu te poses, je vais dire, une demi-heure. Et même, c’est un point, moi je l’utilise comme point de rendez-
vous. Dès que je trouve plus mes potes ou quoi, je sais que je vais là et j’attends un peu et il y aura pas de soucis.
On va se retrouver là parce que c’est un endroit facile où il y a pas beaucoup de monde » (respondent F18, male,
21 years)
 Citation 39: « Je crois que si jamais j’ai un « bad trip » ou quoi ou - ouais - un coup de chaleur comme tu dis, je
vais d’abord aller voir les relax zones. Si jamais vraiment ça passe pas tout seul dans mon coin ou quoi »
(respondent F10, male, 22 years)
 Citation 40: « Ça leur [aux consommateurs] permet de réaliser un peu leur consommation je trouve. Genre rien
que se poser des questions en fait là-dessus. Puisque il y a plein de gens en fait qui le font de manière
automatique. Et rien que le fait de se poser une question là-dessus de commencer même juste, à réfléchir là-
dessus, ça permet de prendre un peu de recul, un peu de distance par rapport à ça, à se dire « bon je fais quoi,
j’en prends toutes les semaines, c’est peut-être un peu dangereux ou quoi « ? Et puis je me dis « ah là il y a moyen
du coup chez Modus de prendre contact avec un psy ? » (respondent F10, male, 22 years)
 Citation 41: « Ben pourquoi pas. Après, j’ai jamais vu ces services de testing. Donc j’ai jamais fait mais
franchement : why not ? Parce que c’est vraiment important. Surtout que moi, ça m’est déjà arrivé, au grand
festival en Wallonie en 2010, chopper du NDMA avec une amie, mais un truc ! A se demander ce qu’il y avait
réellement dedans, quoi ! Donc c’est vrai que c’est intéressant de bien vérifier ton produit. Parce que des fois, y
a tellement de merdes qui sont mises dans un produit ! » (respondent F20, female, 21 years)
 Citation 42: « être sûr que les gens prennent des trucs de qualité qui sont qualitatifs et pas avoir une weed, dans
laquelle on a mis du verre pilé pour augmenter la masse sans augmenter la quantité de cannabis ». Selon cet
interlocuteur il faut pouvoir « faire en sorte que les produits que les gens consomment, vu qu’ils vont consommer,
soient qualitatifs. Moi, ça, c'est mon opinion » (respondent F6, male, 28 years)
D2. Original citations of the festival stakeholders
 Citation 1: « L’alcool fait partie du festival, de la culture du festival car on en vend » (respondent SK2, male, harm
reduction worker)
 Citation 2: « la musique electro est l’ambassadeur des drogues dures, fortes, déstructurantes (timbres LSD) et
des alcools énergisants ; drogues fortes démocratisées par les mafias ». Selon SK14, les festivals electro offrent
une sorte de « pack [euphorisant] : drogue forte, musique répétitive » (respondent SK14, male, law enforcement)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 126
 Citation 3: « Plus on monte dans l’underground techno, plus les drogues sont dures : le must c’est les festivals
techno. Par exemple on a en beaucoup plus de crises et d’hosto dans un grand festival annuel vraiment accès
techno à Bruxelles que dans un autre festival qui dure trois longues journées. A la dernière soirée de ce festival
techno, on a intubé 13 patients en une seule soirée. Ce qui est un chiffre énorme » (respondent SK17, male, first
aid worker)
 Citation 4: « Moi je pense que on n’est pas mal autour de la MDMA et l’Ecstasy. Cocaïne ? Je dirais que dans
notre événement un peu moins par rapport à d’autres endroits à Bruxelles. Peut-être parce que c’est une tranche
d’âge un peu plus jeune. Et donc parfois pour certains c’est peut-être les premières fois. Je pense aussi que pour
certains jeunes de 16-17 ans, [le festival] c’est leur première grosse fiesta un petit peu en dehors de France ou
d’autres villes. Ils viennent à Bruxelles faire la fête. Donc je crois qu’ils sont plus axés oui sur des drogues comme
l’ecstasy » (respondent SK1, male, festival organizer)
 Citation 5: « Il faut arrêter l’hypocrisie par rapport aux produits licites et illicites. Voilà il n’a jamais été question
de diminuer la vente d’alcool par exemple sur aucun des événements auquel j’ai participés ! Il n’a jamais été
question de ça. On ne se pose pas la question, on se pose la question de savoir comment limiter entre guillemets
les dégâts … mais c’est tout ». […] car la vente d’alcool fait « clairement partie des bénéfices des organisateurs
» (respondent SK13, male, security)
 Citation 6: « de retourner vers la partie concrète de la vie » (respondent SK1, male, festival organizer)
 Citation 7: « universalité des besoins d’instants de lâcher prise, de conscience différée : qui peuvent être
acceptables et dangereux aussi » (respondent SK13, male, security)
 Citation 8: « fête peut être magique, elle contient aussi le risque du destin brisé. Il suffit de prendre le mauvais
produit, au mauvais moment, etc. ». A partir de ce constat, SK15 insiste sur la nécessité d’encadrer la fête et
également les consommations qui peuvent aller avec, et va même jusqu’à parler de la nécessité de concevoir
une « sécurité sociale de la Nuit ou de la Fête » (respondent SK15, male, festival organizer)
 Citation 9: « consommer de plus en plus vite et de plus en plus fort, même l’alcool, qu’ils boivent vite à l’extérieur
pour économiser le prix élevé des boissons alcoolisés à l’intérieur des soirées ou des festivals » (respondent SK14,
male, law enforcement)
 Citation 10: Elle parlera alors de « Binge drinking », terme désignant l’acte de « boire en très peu de temps une
grande quantité d’alcool ». Cette tendance contemporaine au Binge drinking va, selon SK18, au terme de 30 ans
d’expériences en RdR, de pair avec ce qu’elle désigne comme une « banalisation, notamment chez les plus
jeunes, de la consommation » […] « Le bien-être et non l’abstinence. De ce fait la RdR s’inscrit dans une logique
de promotion de la santé » (respondent SK18, female, harm reduction worker)
 Citation 11: « dissuasion », « préservation des choses et des gens », « sécurisation du public » plus que répression,
ou encore « gestion négociée de l’espace public ». Fort de ce qu’il nomme une « nouvelle culture policière »,
SK11 en vient même à reconnaître durant l’entretien que : « Les acteurs RDR et médicaux peuvent nous aider à
la prise en charge de la personne en crise sous psychotropes » (respondent SK11, male, law enforcement)
 Citation 12: « Pas seulement pour la consommation mais aussi par rapport à la violence, aux agressions de
femmes qui peuvent être liées à la consommation mais pas toujours » (respondent SK8, male, harm reduction
worker)
 Citation 13: « C’est arrivé que le stand de la police se trouve à côté du nôtre », nous dit-elle. « Et les festivaliers
consommateurs n’osaient pas aller nous voir pour nous demander des renseignements. Ça bloquait carrément
les festivaliers. La police et nous, on ne doit pas se trouver côte à côte » (respondent SK12, female, harm
reduction worker & first aid worker)
 Citation 14: « Un agent de gardiennage ne peut pas contenir une personne contre son gré de façon manuelle j’ai
envie de dire. Il y a que la police qui peut faire ça ». Ainsi si jamais un agent de gardiennage trouve un festivalier
avec, par exemple, un paquet de cocaïne « il doit appeler la police » (respondent SK13, male, security)
 Citation 15: « d’empêcher les gens de consommer. C’est-à-dire que moi je ne me fais pas d’illusions je sais que
même si on fait de la fouille au corps. Mais on le fait pas. Si on se disait : « OK ! Cette année on fait rentrer rien
du tout. On n’y arriverait pas. C’est pas possible… On va pas empêcher mais on va pas la faciliter ! … Parce que

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 127
effectivement je pense que s’il y avait pas ce filtre-là ce serait encore pire » (respondent SK16, male, security &
first aid worker)
 Citation 16: « pouvoir gérer ça au mieux sans que la personne qui assure la sécurité et la prévention soit mal à
l’aise et sans que la personne qui est dans cet état-là soit mal à l’aise et sans que les deux ne dysfonctionnent
voilà ça c’était ma démarche » (respondent SK13, male, security)
 Citation 17: « la protection de la personne. Parce que s’il y a danger pour la personne c’est évidemment important
de pouvoir le reconnaître le plus vite possible. Mais aussi comment se comporter vis-à-vis d’une personne qui a
un comportement elle bizarre. Et c’est ça un peu qui m’a interpellé. C’étaient les comportements bizarres pas
forcément dangereux mais vraiment bizarres. Et pouvoir gérer ça au mieux sans que la personne qui assure la
sécurité et la prévention soit mal à l’aise et sans que la personne qui est dans cet état-là soit mal à l’aise et sans
que les deux ne dysfonctionnent voilà ça c’était ma démarche » (respondent SK13, male, security)
 Citation 18: « La sécurité peut jouer un rôle de soin : ils amènent les personnes en détresse et les repèrent. Ils
sont le premier maillon de la chaîne de soin » (respondent SK17, male, first aid worker)
 Citation 19: « Une circulaire qui permet de réduire l’entrée des stupéfiants à l’intérieur des festivals. On a eu
l’occasion en tout cas de la mettre en œuvre qu’une seule fois, vu la pandémie … : sur deux festival, un techno et
l’autre également assez orienté electro et où il y avait déjà une présence judiciaire et policière depuis pas mal
d’années. … Cette circulaire permet en fait d’encadrer un peu mieux le travail des policiers. Et elle a pour but
surtout de percevoir immédiatement une somme, une transaction en fonction des quantités retrouvées sur les
personnes et du type de produits. Et donc, en fait, elle a aussi pour vocation de faire un peu un rappel à la loi
pour toutes les personnes qui fréquentent ces festivals pour éviter qu’elles ne pensent que le festival est un lieu
de non droit où la loi sur les stupéfiants ne s’applique pas du tout. … On continue à appliquer de toute façon
aussi les circulaires nationales. Il y en a une qui date de 2015 et qui concerne les simples détenteurs. Là c’est un
procès-verbal simplifié pour les moins de 3 grammes de cannabis ou autres. Donc, il y a toujours une tolérance
qui existe aussi. Les policiers sont donc amenés à pouvoir percevoir immédiatement la somme ou à proposer une
transaction avec un virement. Et donc notre rôle après nous c’est en seconde ligne. C’est-à-dire que nous allons
voir si la personne a payé ou pas. Et puis on appréciera aussi l’opportunité des poursuites. Qui dit non-paiement
ne dit pas spécialement poursuites » (respondent SK14, male, law enforcement)
 Citation 20: « On fait évidemment une différence en fonction des produits. Evidemment dès qu’il s’agit d’héroïne,
cocaïne, là on n’applique plus la transaction et on applique la façon « classique » - je vais dire de réagir - : une
enquête plus de fond ». Puis il ajoute : « La privation de liberté n’intervient que de manière très exceptionnelle si
la personne est vraiment trouvée en possession d’un certain nombre de produits et en grande quantité »
(respondent SK14, male, law enforcement)
 Citation 21: « En fait, on se voit de manière régulière, un peu moins à cause du COVID mais dans le cadre de
l’atelier de prévention des usagers de la drogue. J’ai pu y ramener la police qui prend conscience aussi que la
prévention est aussi importante que la répression. Et donc je crois que le dialogue est rétabli aussi à ce niveau-
là. Dans le festival d’ailleurs, on avait bien discuté entre la police et les services de prévention pour que l’un ne
pollue pas l’autre. Et pour finir je veux dire le stand police ne se situe pas trop près du stand prévention parce
que évidemment les personnes qui pourraient être bénéficiaires auraient une tendance à dire « moi je n’y vais
pas … la police va voir que je veux aller à cet endroit-là ». Donc voilà ça s’est passé vraiment en très bonne
coordination » (respondent SK14, male, law enforcement)
 Citation 22: « On agit sur l’offre mais on essaye d’air aussi sur la demande. Si on réduit le nombre de
consommateurs par tant la médiation pénale que l’offre de soins que la police peut proposer aussi après audition,
on se dit que, s’il y a moins de demandes, l’offre baissera aussi. Je crois qu’on doit agir absolument sur ces deux
leviers-là » (respondent SK14, male, law enforcement)
 Citation 23: « Nous on connaît les molécules, les équipes RdR connaissent les usages ». Et en amont, selon SK17,
« il s’agit d’anticiper, en fonction du festival où l’on intervient à quoi on doit s’attendre et ce qu’on doit prévoir
de quoi on va avoir besoin médicalement ». Plus loin, il détaille : « Nous on met en place la structure médicale à
proprement parler. Donc c’est-à-dire du monitoring, du matériel de réanimation, d’intubation s’il faut pour
évacuer en tous cas vers un hôpital le cas échéant si on ne sait pas stabiliser sur place. C’est-à-dire qu’on peut

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 128
prendre en charge les patients qui sont pas trop atteints au niveau neurologique, qui ne nécessitent pas une
intubation. On peut les maintenir sur place, faire un traitement de réhydratation, les réchauffer et généralement
c’est 50% des cas. Ils peuvent en fin de soirée regagner la soirée ou leur domicile. Dans les cas plus graves, les
patients qui sont fortement intoxiqués dont les voies aériennes sont compromises par l’utilisation de stupéfiants
ou dans un autre cas qui sont extrêmement agités par les stupéfiants et qui deviennent dangereuses pour eux-
mêmes et les autres, on doit évidemment les hospitaliser et prendre les mesures sur place de conditionnement.
Que ça soit une intubation ou l’injection d’un médicament, un calmant. Voilà c’est les deux choses pour lesquelles
on travaille le plus. On conditionne, on envoie vers l’hôpital. Notre rôle en tous cas sur place c’est de ne pas
phagocyter des demandes de l’aide médicale urgente au quotidien » (respondent SK17, male, first aid worker)
 Citation 24: « Si jamais la personne se dégrade ou qu’il y a un problème on va passer la personne aux premiers
soins. … Par exemple, dans un festival à Bruxelles où j’ai travaillé avec les services Premiers soins, il y a eu
plusieurs intubations parce que les gens avaient consommé trop à ne plus respirer en fait ! ». Puis cette même
interlocutrice précise que « s’il y a une plaie, s’il y a quelque chose de traumatique, quelque chose de médical
les gens vont plus aller vers les services Premiers Soins. Maintenant quand c’est quelque chose lié à la
consommation comme c’est parfois un peu tabou, comme il y a parfois des consommations de drogues illégales,
qu’il y a des mineurs, vu qu’aux Premiers Soins, il faut donner sa carte d’identité, je sais qu’il y en a qui préfèrent,
si jamais ils se sentent pas bien, plutôt venir vers la relax zone. C’est pour ça que l’importance [pour les Premiers
Soins] aussi c’est de pouvoir faire connaître cette relax zone d’où le fait des préventions sur site » (respondent
SK12, female, harm reduction worker & first aid worker)
 Citation 25: « Nous portons un uniforme un peu strict et ça bloque parfois les festivaliers. La tenue Premiers Soins
est clivante. Elle représente une autorité… Il est vrai qu’il y a quelques années, en plus, les services Premiers Soins
pouvaient avoir un comportement assez autoritaire parfois… Les acteurs de telle association assurant les services
RdR savent ce que vivent les consommateurs et sont habillés en civil. Ce qui crée une plus grande proximité avec
ces derniers » (respondent SK17, male, first aid worker)
 Citation 26: « on n’a pas les moyens de faire appel à un autre service en plus. Les Premiers Soins c’est déjà un
coût incontournable mais conséquent » (respondent SK9, male, festival organizer)
 Citation 27: « aux yeux des services Premiers Soins, à la base on était perçu comme une bande de drogués qui
travaillaient avec des drogués » (respondent SK4, female, prevention & harm reduction worker)
 Citation 28: « Je pense que la personne est pas vue comme une entièreté [par les acteurs Premiers Soins]. Eux ils
vont gérer la personne par rapport au symptôme. Elle est déshydratée? On va lui filer de l’eau en perf. Elle est
angoissée, on file un relaxant, un calmant. Voilà ! Elle a tel symptôme on gère. Par contre, la cause du symptôme
et ce que ça peut donner et comment faire après pour calmer l’angoisse ou côté psychologique c’est pas leur
truc. Eux ils sont là pour que la personne elle reste vivante » (respondent SK4, female, prevention & harm
reduction worker)
 Citation 29: « On ne fait pas de prévention au moment même de la situation de consommation mais en amont.
La RdR doit s’articuler avec le soin et la prévention. La prévention existe avant le festival ». Puis, explicitant son
propos, elle ajoute : « L’opposition entre prévention et RDR est dépassée. Si le paradigme de base est
l’abstinence, alors tu vas dire que la RdR est de la « prévention tertiaire ». Je trouve ça un peu cynique. Comme
je l’ai dit, le paradigme de la RdR est le bien-être et cela inscrit la RdR dans la promotion de la santé » (respondent
SK18, female, harm reduction worker)
 Citation 30: « la prévention a parfois vraiment du sens. Par exemple, réussir à postposer l’âge de la première
conso, à mes yeux c’est bien : il vaut mieux ne pas vivre ça pas pendant l’adolescence au moment où le corps est
plein processus de changement et de construction ». Selon SK18, encore, en tentant de reculer par exemple l’âge
de la première consommation de psychotropes, ou en aidant « certains jeunes à ne pas céder à la consommation
liée à l’effet de groupe – je veux faire comme mes copains -, les acteurs de prévention agissent également dans
le sens de la promotion de la santé » (respondent SK18, female, harm reduction worker)
 Citation 31: « La RdR c’est accompagner les gens là où ils sont ». Et si les gens consomment, et puisqu’ils
consomment, nécessité est de les accompagner dans leur consommation ». Puis, elle ajoute : « Et, au niveau

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 129
méta, la RdR, c’est permettre une société qui soit inclusive au niveau des personnes qui consomment »
(respondent SK18, female, harm reduction worker)
 Citation 32: « la RdR est un continuum entre prévention, soin et accompagnement. Un continuum aussi entre
différents paradigmes : prévention, mesures d’interdits et soins ou santé au sens biologique, psychologique et
social » (respondent SK10, male, first aid worker & harm reduction worker)
 Citation 33: « L’accompagnement, c’est rassurer les gens par rapport à ce qu’ils ont consommé. Et donc voilà
c’est vraiment : on passe de la partie où on va discuter où parfois les gens vont simplement dormir. Ils ont besoin
de se reposer au calme, pas dans leur tente où il fait chaud par exemple. Vraiment un endroit calme où s’aérer
où ils ont de l’eau et de l’espace. Si quelqu’un vomit ou ne va vraiment pas bien, on va l’emmener vers les Premiers
Soins » (respondent SK12, female, harm reduction worker & first aid worker)
 Citation 34: « Pas spécialement difficiles à gérer mais qui sont plus difficiles à vivre. Je veux dire les gros Bad trip
sous LSD ou des choses comme ça, où tu sens vraiment que les gens sont terrorisés en eux. Ca je trouve que c’est
dur pour eux. Mais du coup c’est toujours difficile. Tu vois t’es entre si j’en dis trop est-ce que je vais pas là le
paniquer encore plus. Est-ce que je suis trop intrusif, pas assez. Comment bien sentir le lien ? » (respondent SK8,
male, harm reduction worker)
 Citation 35: « Ca peut être très, très calme comme ça peut être la folie. Ca dépend. Donc la relax zone c’est
vraiment accueillir les gens qui sont en Bad Trip. On a une dizaine de lits dans tel festival, une vingtaine dans tel
autre. Et c’est écouter la personne, voir dans quel état elle est ce qu’elle a envie. Est-ce qu’elle a juste besoin de
parler, est-ce qu’elle a envie d’un câlin. Est-ce qu’elle a envie d’un lit pour se poser et s’endormir. Est-ce qu’elle
a besoin d’un récipient pour vomir toutes ses tripes et d’une pince à cheveux pour ne pas qu’elle en ait plein la
gueule. Offrir du thé, du café, gérer avec La Croix Rouge. Voilà. Et donc dans la relax il y a aussi tout le temps du
personnel médical » (respondent SK8, male, harm reduction worker)
 Citation 36: « Il y a quatre cinq ans, par exemple, j’ai fait une réassurance avec une personne qui était très, très
angoissée sur une montée, une jeune fille c'était pas évident. Et du coup je propose à la jeune fille un sirop à
l’eau. Voilà donc je suis là, la jeune fille est assise. Donc moi je suis en dessous d’elle. Donc je suis à genoux pour
que du coup elle ait pas à lever la tête qui est quelque chose de très… comme un adulte qui parle à un enfant.
Quand on est sous produit, c’est quelque chose déjà qui amène une certaine crispation. Du coup, forcément je
vais me mettre plus bas qu’elle pour qu’elle, elle baisse les yeux, qu’elle soit pas en situation de se sentir
dominéeEt donc du coup je lui propose si elle préfère de la grenadine ou de la menthe ou du citron. Enfin un truc
dans le genre quoi. Ce qui moi me paraît une base parce que du coup le but de pas mal de personnes c’est aussi
leur donner de l’eau pour hydrater » (respondent SK4, female, prevention & harm reduction worker)
 Citation 37: « c’est le relationnel, l’accueil. L’accueil dans le non jugement, le relationnel. Le fait qu’on est dans
le renforcement plutôt que dans un a priori négatif. On est plus dans « tu es quelqu’un », « tu es quelqu’un de
bien », « tu es quelqu’un qui a de la valeur », « tu es quelqu’un qui est digne et qui est digne d’intérêt ». Et on va
essayer de faire ensemble en sorte que ça aille le mieux pour toi dans l’état dans lequel tu es là maintenant »
(respondent SK3, female, prevention & harm reduction worker)
 Citation 38: « Il y a quelque chose qui me paraît vraiment essentiel. ... le lien qui est hyper importante et je crois
que c’est essentiel mais vraiment essentiel que ce soit avec des gens de terrain, du cru. Il faut connaître la réalité
du territoire sur lequel on intervient. Mon territoire, c’est, voilà, une zone campagnarde, c’est une ville à la
campagne. C'est pas Bruxelles. Ça demande des actions spécifiques » (respondent SK6, male, harm reduction
worker)
 Citation 39: « Je pense que c’est nécessaire dans le sens que ça fait pas non plus super longtemps qu’il y a toutes
ces choses (RdR] dans les festivals et c’est une très bonne idée. Je vois bien à chaque fois que je passais devant
le stand RdR qu'il y avait dans mon festival, les gens s’arrêtaient quand même pour se renseigner. Et je pense
qu’il y a une demande des autorités et une curiosité de la part des festivaliers aussi » (respondent SK5, female,
festival organizer)
 Citation 40: « Je me sens plus complémentaire et en phase avec les services RdR en tant que coordinateur de
sécurité qu’en tant qu’acteur premier soin » (respondent SK16, male, security & first aid worker)

Project DR/00/85 - Drugs at the festivals : Perceptions of prevention-, harm reduction-, care-, and law enforcement strategies
Federal Research Programme on Drugs 130
 Citation 41: « Les clichés sur les équipes RdR s’estompent depuis ces dernières années. On voit maintenant de
quoi ils parlent grâce à leur expertise » (respondent SK17, male, first aid worker)
 Citation 42: « la RrR représente pour moi aujourd’hui une plus valu vraiment, alors que la première qu’on m’en
a parlé, pour être franc, j’ai dit : « C’est quoi ces gars? Il paraît qu’il y a d’anciens consommateurs. Est-ce qu’ils
incitent à la prise de substance? » (respondent SK17, male, first aid worker)
 Citation 43: « Il y a pour moi la nécessité d’updater les formations sur les drogues et les nouveautés en terme de
consommation, tous les 2 mois » (respondent SK15, male, festival organizer)
 Citation 44: « Le staff a suivi une formation pour « une nuit de qualité ». Et donc voilà. Nous on voulait juste que
les personnes responsables dans le projet [l’équipe] aient la formation. Comme ça, si jamais il y a un truc à régler
lors d’un événement, la personne sait quoi faire et elle est pas là en train de paniquer. Parce que c’est souvent
les premières minutes qui sont les plus importantes quand il se passe quelque chose. On voulait que le
responsable de bar sache comment intervenir, que, nous, on sache comment intervenir, que les personnes à la
caisse sachent comment intervenir. Que la personne qu'on appelle : « Maid manager », qui gère les soirées pour
nous sache aussi comment intervenir. Donc on a fait cette formation voilà » (respondent SK9, male, festival
organizer)