By 1975 over 36 million Americans had tried
the drug, and among the 20-24 age group over 10%were using it on
kc33 a daily basis
ntial persons with legitimacy condemn. Their objections are on
moral, not medical, grounds, although their argument will be cast in medical language.
Nonmedical drug use is, in the medical view, by definition abuse.
A linguistic category both crystallizes and influences responses to, and postures toward,
a phenomenon. The term "abuse" illustrates this axiom.
It announces that nonmedical
drug-taking is undesirable, that the benefits which the drug-using subculture proclaims for
drug use are outweighed by the hard rock of medical damage. Yet, since the weighing of
values is a moral, not a medical process, we are full-face against an ideological resolution
of the issue, yet one couched in a scientific and empirical exoskeleton. Furthermore, the
linguistic category demands verification. By labeling a phenomenon "abuse," one is willynilly
under pressure to prove that the label is valid. The term so structures our perceptions
of the phenomenon that it is possible to see only abusive aspects in drug use. Therefore,
data must be collected to discredit the beneficial claims of drug use.
(9 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3
Another strategy of disconfirming the marijuanaists' claims to legitimacy is the notion,
closely interconnected with drug use as abuse, that marijuana use is the manifestation of
medical pathology. This thrust bears two prongs: (1) the etiology of marijuana use as an
expression of, or an
moonshine moonshine
"acting out" of, a personality disturbance; and (2) the effects of the
drug as a precipitator of temporary but potent psychotic episodes. By assigning marijuana
use to the twilight world of psychic pathology, its moral and willful character has been
neutralized. The labeled behavior has been removed from the arena of free will; its
compulsive character effectively denies that it can be a viable alternative, freely chosen. A
recent discussion argues that assigning the status of medical pathology is an effective
device for neutralizing the legitimacy of a political opponent's ideology.20] An act
reduced to both symptom and cause of pathology has had its claims to moral rectitude
neutralized and discredited. As a manifestation of illness, it calls for treatment, not serious
debate. In a sense, then, physicians and psychiatrists have partially replaced policemen as
preservers of the social order, since attempts at internal controls have replaced external
sanctions. Both presume to know for the subject how he "ought" to act. Yet the new
sanctions, based on an ideology which the deviant partially believes in—scientific
treatment of a medical illness—becomes a new and more powerful form of
authoritarianism.
Generally, some sort of explanation, particularly one involving compulsion and
pathology, is needed wherever it is not rationally understandable to the observer, that is,
when it doesn't make sense.
An anomalous and bizarre form of behavior demands an
explanation. We can understand repeated dontial persons with legitimacy condemn.
Their objections are on
moral, not medical, grounds, although their argument will be cast in medical language.
Nonmedical drug use is, in the medical view, by definition abuse.
A linguistic category both crystallizes and influences responses to, and postures toward,
a phenomenon. The term "abuse" illustrates this axiom. It announces that nonmedical
drug-taking is undesirable, that the benefits which the drug-using subculture proclaims for
drug use are outweighed by the hard rock of medical damage.
Yet, since the weighing of
values is a moral, not a medical process, we are full-face against an ideological resolution
of the issue, yet one couched in a scientific and empirical exoskeleton. Furthermore, the
linguistic category demands verification. By labeling a phenomenon "abuse," one is willynilly
under pressure to prove that the label is valid. The term so structures our perceptions
of the phenomenon that it is possible to see only abusive aspects in drug use. Therefore,
data must be collected to discredit the beneficial claims of drug use.
(9 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3
Another strategy of disconfirming the marijuanaists' claims to legitimacy is the notion,
closely interconnected with drug use as abuse, that marijuana use is the manifestation of
medical pathology. This thrust bears two prongs: (1) the etiology of marijuana use as an
expression of, or an "acting out" of, a personality disturbance; and (2) the effects of the
drug as a precipitator of temporary but potent psychotic episodes. By assigning marijuana
use to the twilight world of psychic pathology, its moral and willful character has been
neutralized. The labeled behavior has been removed from the arena of free will; its
compulsive character effectively denies that it can be a viable alternative, freely chosen. A
recent discussion argues that assigning the status of medical pathology is an effective
device for neutralizing the legitimacy of a political opponent's ideology.20] An act
reduced to both symptom and cause of pathology has had its claims to moral rectitude
neutralized and discredited. As a manifestation of illness, it calls for treatment, not serious
debate. In a sense, then, physicians and psychiatrists have partially replaced policemen as
preservers of the social order, since attempts at internal controls have replaced external
sanctions. Both presume to know for the subject how he "ought" to act. Yet the new
sanctions, based on an ideology which the deviant partially believes in—scientific
treatment of a medical illness—becomes a new and more powerful form of
authoritarianism.
Generally, some sort of explanation, particularly one involving compulsion and
pathology, is needed wherever it is not rationally understandable to the observer, that is,
when it doesn't make sense. An anomalous and bizarre form of behavior demands an
explanation. We can understand repeated dontial persons with legitimacy condemn. Their objections are on
moral, not medical, grounds, although their argument will be cast in medical language.
Nonmedical drug use is, in the medical view, by definition abuse.
A linguistic category both crystallizes and influences responses to, and postures toward,
a phenomenon.
The term "abuse" illustrates this axiom. It announces that nonmedical
drug-taking is undesirable, that the benefits which the drug-using subculture proclaims for
drug use are outweighed by the hard rock of medical damage. Yet,
Seedbanks since the weighing of
values is a moral, not a medical process, we are full-face against an ideological resolution
of the issue, yet one couched in a scientific and empirical exoskeleton. Furthermore, the
linguistic category demands verification. By labeling a phenomenon "abuse," one is willynilly
under pressure to prove that the label is valid. The term so structures our perceptions
of the phenomenon that it is possible to see only abusive aspects in drug use. Therefore,
data must be collected to discredit the beneficial claims of drug use.
(9 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3
Another strategy of disconfirming the marijuanaists' claims to legitimacy is the notion,
closely interconnected with drug use as abuse, that marijuana use is the manifestation of
medical pathology. This thrust bears two prongs: (1) the etiology of marijuana use as an
expression of, or an "acting out" of, a personality disturbance; and (2) the effects of the
drug as a precipitator of temporary but potent psychotic episodes. By assigning marijuana
use to the twilight world of psychic pathology, its moral and willful character has been
neutralized. The labeled behavior has been
Jack Herer Buds removed from the arena of free will; its
compulsive character effectively denies that it can be a viable alternative, freely chosen. A
recent discussion argues that assigning the status of medical pathology is an effective
device for neutralizing the legitimacy of a political opponent's ideology.20 An act
reduced to both symptom and cause of pathology has had its claims to moral rectitude
neutralized and discredited. As a manifestation of illness, it calls for treatment, not serious
debate. In a sense, then, physicians and psychiatrists have partially replaced policemen as
preservers of the social order, since attempts at internal controls have replaced external
sanctions. Both presume to know for the subject how he "ought" to act. Yet the new
sanctions, based on an ideology which the deviant partially believes in—scientific
treatment of a medical illness—becomes a new and more powerful form of
authoritarianism.
Generally, some sort of explanation, particularly one involving compulsion and
pathology, is needed wherever it is not rationally understandable to the observer, that is,
when it doesn't make sense. An anomalous and bizarre form of behavior demands an
explanation. We can understand repeated dontial persons with legitimacy condemn. Their objections are on
moral, not medical, grounds, although their argument will be cast in medical language.
Nonmedical drug use is, in the medical view, by definition abuse.
A linguistic category both crystallizes and influences responses to, and postures toward,
a phenomenon. The term "abuse" illustrates this axiom. It announces that nonmedical
drug-taking is undesirable, that the benefits which the drug-using subculture proclaims for
drug use are outweighed by the hard rock of medical damage. Yet, since the weighing of
values is a moral, not a medical process, we are full-face against an ideological resolution
of the issue, yet one couched in a scientific and empirical exoskeleton. Furthermore, the
linguistic category demands verification. By labeling a phenomenon "abuse," one is willynilly
under pressure to prove that the label is valid. The term so structures our perceptions
of the phenomenon that it is possible to
Seedbanks see only abusive aspects in drug use. Therefore,
data must be collected to discredit the beneficial claims of drug use.
(9 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3
Another strategy of disconfirming the marijuanaists' claims to legitimacy is the notion,
closely interconnected with drug use as abuse, that marijuana use is the manifestation of
medical pathology. This
Weed Sedds.Net
thrust bears two prongs: (1) the etiology of marijuana use as an
expression of, or an "acting out" of, a personality disturbance; and (2) the effects of the
drug as a precipitator of temporary but potent psychotic episodes.
By assigning marijuana
use to the twilight world of psychic pathology, its moral and willful character has been
neutralized.
The labeled behavior has been removed from the arena of free will; its
compulsive character effectively denies that it can be a viable alternative, freely chosen. A
recent discussion argues that assigning the status of medical pathology is an effective
device for neutralizing the legitimacy of a political opponent's ideology.20 An act
reduced to both symptom and cause of pathology has had its claims to moral rectitude
neutralized and discredited.
As a manifestation of illness, it calls for treatment, not serious
debate. In a sense, then, physicians and psychiatrists have partially replaced policemen as
preservers of the social order, since attempts at internal controls have replaced external
sanctions.
Both presume to know for the subject how he "ought" to act. Yet the new
sanctions, based on an ideology which the deviant partially believes in—scientific
treatment of a medical illness—becomes a new and more powerful form of
authoritarianism.
Generally, some sort of explanation, particularly one involving compulsion and
pathology, is needed wherever it is not rationally understandable to the observer, that is,
when it doesn't make sense. An anomalous and bizarre form of behavior demands an
explanation. We can understand repeated do