How Pot Became Demonized如何盆栽成為妖魔化
The following is an excerpt from “ 以下是摘自“ Dying to Get High 垂死獲得高 ” by Wendy Chapkis and Richard J. Webb (NYU Press, 2008). “溫迪chapkis和理查德j.韋伯（紐約大學出版社， 2008年） 。 (c) 2008 NYU Press. （三） 2008年紐約大學的新聞。 Reproduced by permission of the publisher. 複製許可的出版者。
For many modern critics, the concept of “medical marijuana” is a contradiction in terms.對於許多現代批評家，概念“藥用大麻”是一個矛盾的條款。 Medicine is standardized, synthetic, and pure; marijuana involves the unrefined and promiscuous coupling of more than four hundred components rooted in the dirt.中醫藥是規範化，合成，和純;大麻涉及unrefined和濫交的耦合以上的400組件，植根於泥土。 Medicine — in its most powerful and privileged forms — rests in the hands of men, while the most potent form of marijuana is found in the female flowering plant.醫藥-在其最強大和享有特權的形式-在於在手中的男子，而最有力的形式，大麻被發現在該女的開花植物。 Medicine engages in heroic battles against death.從事中醫藥在英雄戰鬥死亡。 Marijuana claims only to enhance the quality of life.大麻的索賠，只有以提高生活質量。
Medicine presents itself as an objective science safeguarded by the ritual of the double-blind, randomized clinical trial.介紹了中醫藥本身作為一種客觀的科學保障儀式的雙盲，隨機對照臨床試驗。 The therapeutic value of marijuana relies largely on the “soft science” of subjective experience and anecdotal evidence.治療價值的大麻主要依賴對“軟科學”的主觀經驗和軼事證據。 From the perspective of its critics, then, cannabis is an effeminate interloper in the masculine world of real medicine, a dangerous drug pushed on a credulous public by illegitimate quacks.從的角度來看，其批評者，那麼，大麻是一effeminate interloper在男性世界的真正的中醫，有危險藥物罪名，推動在一個credulous市民通過非法quacks 。
But this story is too simple.但這個故事太簡單了。 The line separating regular doctors from snake oil salesmen, good drugs from bad, is as much the product of politics as it is of science.線分開，醫生經常從蛇油推銷員，良好的毒品從壞的，是多產品的政治，因為這是科學。 The dominance of politics in determining the value of marijuana as a medicine was first demonstrated in the 1930s when the federal government began to restrict the medical use of marijuana, against the recommendations of the American Medical Association (AMA).的主導權政治在確定的價值，大麻作為一個中醫藥首次表明，在20世紀30年代時，美國聯邦政府開始，以限制醫療用大麻，反對的建議，美國醫學協會（ AMA ） 。
The struggle between politics and science over the use of cannabis as a medicine continues.之間的鬥爭政治和科學超過使用大麻作為一個中醫藥繼續。 In the final decade of the twentieth century, the federal government threatened physicians with the loss of their license for recommending marijuana to patients, made criminals of patients who followed their doctor’s advice, and actively blocked scientific research into the therapeutic value of cannabis, while insisting that it was an established scientific fact that marijuana is not a medicine.在最後10年的二十世紀，美國聯邦政府的威脅，醫師與喪失其許可的建議大麻的病人，取得了犯罪分子的病人誰其次是醫生的忠告，並積極阻止科學研究納入治療價值的大麻，同時堅持，這是一個既定的科學事實，大麻是不是一個中醫藥。
During the opening of a 2004 congressional hearing on medical marijuana, this ongoing battle over cannabis was described by committee chair Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) as a critical front in the War on Drugs and consistent with the modernization of medicine:在開幕的2004年的一項國會聽證會上就醫療大麻，這種持續的爭奪，大麻是所描述的委員會主席眾議員馬克souder （ - ）作為一個重要方面在戰爭中對毒品和一致的，與現代化的醫藥：
This hearing will address a controversial topic, the use of marijuana for so-called medicinal purposes.這個聽證會的地址具爭議性的話題，使用大麻，為使所謂的藥用用途。 In recent years, a large and well-funded pro-drug movement has succeeded in convincing many Americans that marijuana is a true medicine to be used in treating a wide variety of illnesses ….近年來，在大型和資金充足的親禁毒運動已成功地在有說服力的許多美國人認為，吸食大麻是一個真正的中醫藥可用於治療多種疾病… … 。 Marijuana was once used as a folk remedy in many primitive cultures, and even in the 19th century was frequently used by some American doctors, much as alcohol, cocaine, and heroin were once used by doctors.大麻，曾經作為一個民間的補救辦法，在許多原始文化，甚至在十九世紀是經常使用的一些美國醫生，就像酒精，可卡因，海洛因和一度被醫生所使用。 By the 20th century, however, its use by legitimate medical practitioners has dwindled, while its illegitimate use as a recreational drug has risen.由二十世紀，但其使用的合法醫生已減少，而其非法使用作為一個娛樂性藥物已上升。
Souder thus sets the stage for a morality tale populated by primitive practitioners and legitimate doctors, dangerous drug fiends and decent drug warriors. souder因此，設置階段，為道德的故事，人口由原始的和合法的執業醫生，危險藥物的fiends和體面的藥物勇士。
Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly invoked a similar cast of characters in his 2004 discussion of medical marijuana with US Deputy “Drug Czar” Dr. Andrea Barthwell.福克斯新聞的個性條例草案奧賴利引用了類似的鑄字在其2004年的討論醫用大麻與美國代理“毒品沙皇”博士安德烈barthwell 。 That year, voters in Oregon were to be presented with a ballot measure to amend their state’s already-existing medical marijuana law.這一年，選民在俄勒岡州被提交了一份選票的措施，修改其國家的已經存在的醫用大麻的法律。 The proposed amendment (which ultimately failed) was intended both to increase the amount of marijuana a patient could have over the course of a year and to redefine which health professionals could legally recommend marijuana for medical use.建議的修訂（最終失敗）的用意是既要增加數量的大麻，病人可以有超過的過程中，每年並重新確定，其中衛生專業人員可合法建議大麻的醫療使用。
O’Reilly scoffed at the idea that licensed health practitioners other than physicians might be authorized to recommend the use of cannabis to their patients: “Even a shaman could grant permission for you to toke in Oregon.奧賴利嘲笑的思想，領有牌照的衛生從業者以外的其他醫生可能會授權建議使用大麻，以他們的病人： “即使是巫師可以授予權限為您toke在俄勒岡州。 I mean, this is, you know, any health practitioner.我的意思是，這是你要知道，任何保健醫生。 So you’re a shaman from the Amazon and you set up shop.因此您巫師從亞馬遜和你設立店鋪。 Come on, I mean, everybody knows this is a ruse.來吧，我的意思是，大家都知道，這是一個詭計。 Am I wrong?” Andrea Barthwell confirmed for viewers that O’Reilly’s concerns were quite legitimate: “No, you’re absolutely right, Bill.我錯了嗎？ “安德烈barthwell證實為觀眾認為，奧萊利的關注是很合理的： ”不，您絕對正確的，條例草案。 This is what we’ve been trying to make clear to people when they have these proposals presented to them.這是我們一直努力使人們清楚當他們有這些建議提交給他們。 This is not about getting medicine to people who are sick and dying.這不是獲得醫藥的人誰生病和死亡。 This is about making marijuana legal.”這是有關決策大麻的法律“ 。
While both host and guest shared the belief that the Oregon proposal was no more than a thinly disguised attempt to legalize marijuana, O’Reilly asked whether cannabis itself might not be a legitimate medicine if prescribed by a legitimate physician to a patient with a legitimate need: “But there is a legitimate issue here, Doctor.同時，東道國和客戶的共同信念，即俄勒岡州的建議是不超過一分薄，企圖變相合法化大麻，奧賴利詢問大麻本身可能不是一個合法的醫藥處方，如果由一個合法的醫師與病人的正當需求： “但有一個合法的問題，在這裡，醫生。 We had Montel Williams [another popular TV talk show host] on a few weeks back.我們曾montel威廉斯[另一項受歡迎的電視談話節目主持人：就在數星期回。 He has MS [multiple sclerosis].他已女士[多發性硬化症] 。 And I believe Montel Williams when he says, ‘Look, medical marijuana helps me, helps me cope with this disease, cope with my suffering.我相信montel威廉斯時，他說， '看，醫用大麻幫助我，幫助我應付這種疾病，配合我的痛苦。 There’s no reason why I should be denied it.’ And I agree with Montel Williams that if this is the case, if a doctor — a doctor — says that he needs it for his MS, he should have it.有沒有理由我應該予以否認。 ' ，我同意montel威廉斯說，如果是這種情形，如果醫生-醫生-說，他需要為他的女士，他就應該有它。 You don’t disagree with that, do you?” Barthwell’s response was uncompromising: “Well, I do, actually.你不同意，你呢？ “ barthwell的回應是不妥協的： ”好，我這樣做，其實。 There is nothing that tells us from the science now that smoked, crude botanical should be a medication.有沒有告訴我們從科學的，現在吸煙，原油植物園應該是一個服藥。 We have a process that has been in place for 100 years in this country that protects the sick and dying from snake oil salesmen.我們有一個過程，已在地方百年在這個國家，保護病人和死亡的蛇油推銷員。 And just because something makes you feel better doesn’t make it medicine.”和公正的，因為一些讓你感覺更好，並不使中醫藥“ 。
In this short exchange, the terms of the debate for dismissing cannabis therapeutics are neatly laid out: medical marijuana is a ruse; cannabis is the modern day equivalent of “snake oil”; “crude botanicals” are not real medicine; licensed alternative health practitioners are not legitimate healers; marijuana is reduced to and synonymous with smoking as a delivery system; and “feeling better” isn’t always therapeutic.在這短短的交流，條款的辯論解僱大麻療法是整齊了：醫用大麻是一種詭計;大麻是現今相當於“蛇油” ， “原油植物”是不是真正的中醫;領有牌照的另類健康醫生是不合法的醫師;大麻是減少和與吸煙有關的代名詞，作為一個配送系統;和“的感覺更好”並不總是治療。 Taken together, these claims create a neat division between marijuana and “real medicine,” with medicine narrowly defined as that which is practiced by physicians prescribing pharmaceuticals to patients who will not necessarily feel better as a result.兩者合計，這些索賠創造一個整潔部之間的大麻和“真正的中醫， ”中醫藥與狹隘地定義為認為，這是實行醫師處方藥品給病人誰，不一定會覺得作為一個更好的結果。
The rise of “regular” medicine and the battle against botanicals 崛起的“定期”是醫學和對抗植物
According to Dr. Raphael Mechoulam, an Israeli research chemist who performed much of the original work in the early 1960s isolating the active ingredients in marijuana: From ancient times to the early 20th Century, cannabis was used for a wide variety of medical purposes including the treatment of pain and swelling, depression, arthritis, impotence, kidney stones, hemorrhaging in childbirth, irregular bowel movements, cold sores, distending stomach, dropsy, headaches, diseases of the respiratory organs, hysteria, neuralgia, sciatica, tetanus, dysentery, fatigue, disorders of the female reproductive system, convulsions, cholera, delirium tremens, vomiting, spasmodic asthma, and a host of other ailments.據博士拉斐爾梅舒朗，一名以色列研究化學家誰演出，許多原來的工作在六十年代初分離活性成分的大麻：從遠古到20世紀初，大麻被用於各種各樣的醫療用途包括治療疼痛和腫脹，抑鬱症，關節炎，陽痿，腎結石，出血在分娩時，不規則的腸運動，冷瘡， distending胃，水腫，頭痛，疾病的呼吸機關，癔症，神經痛，坐骨神經痛，破傷風，痢疾，疲勞，疾病的女性生殖系統，驚厥，霍亂，譫妄tremens ，嘔吐，痙攣性哮喘，以及許多其他疾病。 Most of these therapeutic claims were either based on folklore or were anecdotal, but the use of cannabis as a therapeutic agent in the past provides an insight for future drug development.大部分這些治療索賠的依據是民間傳說，或傳聞，但使用大麻作為一種治療劑，在過去提供了一個洞察未來的藥物開發。 More recently, some of the historical therapeutic properties of cannabis have been verified with pure natural or synthetic cannabinoids; however, in several fields no modern scientific work exists.最近，一些歷史的治療性質的大麻已被驗證與純天然或合成大麻;然而，在一些領域，沒有現代科學的工作存在。
In order to understand why marijuana, a promising medicinal botanical, should now be excluded not only from the modern pharmacopeia but also from much formal scientific study, it is necessary to ask why some drugs, but not all, get labeled “medicine”; why some healers, and not others, are “regular doctors”; why some effects, but only some, are understood as “therapeutic”; and why some risks are acceptable while others are prohibited under penalty of law.在以了解為什麼大麻，有前途的藥用植物，現在應該被排除，不僅從現代藥典，而且從許多正式的科學的研究，就是要問，為什麼有些藥物，但不是全部，得到標示“藥” ，為何一些醫師，而不是別人，是“經常醫生” ，為何一些影響，但只有部分，是理解為“治療性” ;以及為什麼一些風險是可以接受的，而其他所禁止的刑罰的法律。 The answers cannot be found in a simple appeal to scientific standards.答案不能找到一個簡單的呼籲，以科學的標準。 Instead, in order to understand what counts as “legitimate” medicine, it is useful to ask who, beyond the patient, might benefit from such distinctions.相反，在以了解怎樣才算“合法”的醫藥，這是有用的要求誰，以後的病人，可能受益於這種區別。 In our exploration of the role of organized medicine, state regulatory agencies, the courts, and the pharmaceutical industry in the demonization of marijuana, the intent is not to perform the reverse process, demonizing modern medicine.在我們探索的作用，組織中醫藥，國家的監管機構，法院，和製藥業在妖魔化大麻，其意圖是不執行反向過程中，妖魔化現代醫學。 Over the past century, during which organized medicine consolidated its authority and cannabis was first marginalized and then removed from the pharmacopeia, astonishing medical advances have been made.在過去一個世紀，在此期間舉辦的中醫藥鞏固其權威和大麻是第一次被邊緣化，然後從藥典，驚人的醫療取得了進展。 Unquestionably, the public would be ill served by a return to a time of unregulated medicine practiced by poorly trained doctors with recourse to few effective drugs.毫無疑問，市民將病患者提供服務的回報的時候，不受管制的醫學實踐的缺乏訓練的醫生與訴諸數的有效藥物。
Nonetheless, it is also the case that the healing arts remain an impure science.不過，這亦是案件的癒合藝術仍然是一個不純的科學。 The most striking difference between marijuana and “real medicine” is not the physical but the social effects the plant has on users and healers alike.最突出的差異大麻和“真正的醫學”是不是身體，但社會效果的植物，對用戶和醫師一樣。 Association with marijuana marks those it touches as illegitimate — a distinction with deep historical roots.協會與大麻馬克那些它涉及非法的-區別與深厚的歷史根源。 Prior to the professionalization of medicine, lay healers — often women — made extensive use of medicinal plants.之前的專業化醫藥，奠定醫士-通常是婦女-廣泛使用的藥用植物。 But as modern medicine moved into the ranks of the professions, and into hands of men, botanicals were discredited along with the women who had used them.但由於現代醫學搬進隊伍的專業，並到手中的男子，植物被抹黑，隨著婦女誰用了他們。 In their pathbreaking study of the rise of the male medical expert, For Her Own Good, Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English note that, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, anxiety over women’s knowledge of medicinal botanicals contributed to the European witch hunts: charges against the accused often included the provision of herbs.在他們的pathbreaking研究的崛起，男性的醫學專家，為自己的好，芭芭拉ehrenreich和deirdre英語注意到，在第十五和第十六世紀，焦慮婦女的知識藥用植物有助於歐洲巫婆捕殺：收費針對被告往往包括：提供的草藥。
In Colonial America and the early republic, health and healing practices also rested largely in the hands of lay women practicing herbal medicine.在殖民地美國和民國初年，保健與治療的做法也休息，主要是在手中，奠定婦女實行中藥。 Historian Carol Smith-Rosenberg observes that “women as midwives and as family nurses, women wise in the ancient herbal pharmacopoeia, had always cared for their own and neighboring families.歷史學家卡羅爾史密斯-羅森伯格指出， “婦女作為助產士和家庭護士，婦女明智的，在古代中藥藥典，一直照顧自己和周邊的家庭。 A survey of cookbooks and women’s diaries for the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries shows that women collected and exchanged recipes for medicines as routinely as they did for pies and cookies.”調查烹飪和婦女的日記為第十八和十九世紀初顯示，婦女的收集和交換食譜，為中藥作為常規，因為他們為餡餅和餅乾“ 。
By the nineteenth century, however, as medicine entered the marketplace, male physicians with little formal training claimed for themselves the designation “Regular doctor” while moving all others to the margins of the healing arts.由十九世紀，然而，由於中醫藥進入市場，男醫生很少的正式訓練，聲稱為自己指定“定期醫生”的同時，移動所有其他國家的邊緣癒合的藝術。 In North America, midwives, bonesetters, and “root and herb” doctors were thus gradually displaced by the self-proclaimed “Regulars,” not through the violence of witch burnings, as happened in Europe, but rather through professionalization.在北美，助產士，跌打，和“根和草本” ，醫生們流離失所，從而逐步由自我宣布“常客” ，而不是通過暴力的巫婆燒毀，發生在歐洲，而是通過專業化。 This challenge was, according to Ehrenreich and English, “at bottom, economic.這面臨的挑戰是，根據ehrenreich和英語， “在底層，經濟。 Medicine in the 19th century … [became] a thing to be bought and sold.”中醫藥在19世紀… … [成為]的事被購買和出售“ 。
Professionalization required that the Regulars distinguish themselves from midwives and herbalists; they did so through “heroic medicine,” a practice involving dramatic (though not necessarily beneficial) techniques such as bloodletting, blistering, purging, and the use of toxic mercury-based medicines.專業化的要求，該常客區分自己從助產士和中醫;他們這樣做，通過“英雄中醫藥”的做法，涉及戲劇性的（儘管不一定是有利的）技術，如放血，出現水泡，清洗，以及使用有毒汞為基礎的藥物。 These interventions were intended to produce “the strongest possible effect on the patient.” Though such therapies were not only dangerous and often ineffective, Ehrenreich and English observe that they gave “regular doctors something activist, masculine, and imminently more salable than the herbal teas and sympathy served up by rural female healers.” In fact, despite the very serious risks of heroic medicine, Smith-Rosenberg notes that the Regulars insisted that it was they who were protecting “the lives of innocent citizens from ill-trained, irresponsible ‘irregulars,’ and hysterical midwives.”這些干預措施的用意是產生“最強烈的可能影響對病人” ，儘管這種療法不僅危險而且往往無效， ehrenreich和英語，他們觀察了“定期醫生一些活動家，男性化，和即將更加暢銷，比草藥茶和同情，送達由農村女醫士。 “事實上，儘管非常嚴重的風險，中醫藥的英雄，史密斯-羅森伯格指出，該堅持的常客，這是他們誰被保護”無辜者的生命公民從病患者訓練有素，是不負責任的'非正規軍， '和歇斯底里的助產士“ 。
The Regulars prospered during the first two decades of the nineteenth century and succeeded in securing licensing laws in many states restricting the practice of medicine to those in their ranks and limiting membership to men.該常客繁榮期間，頭20年的十九世紀，並成功爭取發牌的法律在許多國家限制的做法，醫藥以那些在他們的行列，並限制成員的男子。 But growing dissatisfaction with the results of “heroic medicine,” and populist misgivings about monopolies and elites, led to the temporary repeal of such laws during the 1830s.但越來越多的不滿，結果“英雄醫學， ”和民粹主義的疑慮壟斷和精英，導致臨時廢除這些法律在1830年代。 The “Popular Health Movement” of the period challenged the position of Regulars by emphasizing “self-help” (through better hygiene and healthy living) and by embracing the therapeutic approaches of alternative medical sects, including those advocating botanical treatments. “流行的健康運動”期間，質疑的立場的常客，強調“自助” （通過更好的衛生和健康生活）和概括性的治療方法另類醫療的教派，包括那些鼓吹植物園的治療方法。
As sociologist Carol Weisman notes, under the banner of science, Sectarians or Irregulars “were attacked by mainstream physicians as ‘quacks,’ although the therapeutics of the regular physicians were not generally more effective than those of the irregulars.” The Regulars reinforced their claim that they, and they alone, were legitimate physicians by founding a national professional organization in 1847 — the American Medical Association — explicitly excluding both women and sectarian practitioners.作為社會學家，律師魏思曼卡羅爾指出，旗幟下，科學， sectarians或非正規軍“遭主流醫生' quacks ，雖然療法經常醫師通常不會更有效，比那些對非正規軍”的常客增強他們的索賠他們，和他們單，是合法的醫師成立一個全國的專業組織在1847年-美國醫學協會-明確不包括婦女和宗派執業。
In the second half of the nineteenth century, economic competition intensified as both Regulars and their rivals — now known as the “Eclectics” — opened medical schools to train practitioners.在第二個十九世紀下半葉，經濟競爭的加劇，雙方的常客和他們的競爭對手-現在被稱為“ e clectics” -開幕醫學院培養醫生。 The Eclectics, who advocated the use of botanical therapies, also represented a more populist and egalitarian politics — for example, they admitted women to their medical schools.該eclectics ，誰主張使用植物療法，也代表了更多的民粹主義者和平等的政治-例如，他們承認婦女在他們的醫療學校。 During this same period, in 1854, cannabis joined other herbal remedies in the national pharmacopeias and was freely prescribed for a large number of medical conditions ranging from insomnia to neuropathic pain.在此同一期間，於1854年，大麻加入其他草藥在全國pharmacopeias和自由為大量的醫療條件，包括失眠，以神經性疼痛。 In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, dozens of research papers were published on the various medicinal uses of marijuana.在後期，十九世紀和二十世紀初，數十名研究論文，分別發表於各種用途的藥用大麻。
This corresponds to a period in which Regulars began to consolidate the power of the newly organized medical profession, in part by absorbing Eclectics into their ranks.這相當於一個時期，其中的常客，開始鞏固權力的新組建的醫學界，在部分吸收eclectics到他們的行列。 As Paul Starr observes in his landmark study, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, Eclectics “succumbed to quiet cooptation; they were only too glad to be welcomed into the fold.” By co-opting much of the opposition, physicians were able to secure new licensing laws restricting the practice of medicine.正如保羅斯塔爾指出，在他具有里程碑意義的研究，社會轉型的美國醫藥， eclectics “屈服於安靜cooptation ;他們只是太高興能夠歡迎進入倍。 ”合作，選擇了大部分的反對，醫生能夠爭取到新的發牌法律限制的做法，醫藥。 But Eclectics paid a significant price; with the consolidation of control by conventional medicine, botanical therapies were increasingly marginalized by mainstream medicine.但eclectics付出了重大代價;與鞏固控制由傳統的中醫藥，植物療法被日益邊緣化的主流醫學。
The allopathic approach of the Regulars was not only dominant but also institutionalized in the early twentieth century when organized medicine completed its process of professionalization by gaining control over medical education, access to hospitals, and the right to prescribe drugs.該allopathic辦法的常客不僅是優勢，但也制度化，在20世紀初時舉辦的中醫藥完成了其專業化的過程中所掌控的醫學教育，進入醫院，並有權處方藥物。 The dominance of this paradigm was reflected in the growing strength of the American Medical Association.的主導權，這範式是反映在日益增長的實力，美國醫學協會。 In 1900 the AMA had no more than eight thousand members, but by 1910 membership reached seventy thousand, and by 1920 the majority of physicians in the United States had become members.在1900年反壟斷法已不超過8000成員，但由1910年的成員達成的70000 ，和1920年，大多數的醫師，在美國已成為成員。 In fact, by 1931 only about 5 percent of all cases of illness were handled by non-MD practitioners.在事實上，由1931年只有約5 ％的所有病例處理非海事處執業。
This exponential increase in the power and professional authority of regular doctors surprisingly did not rest primarily on the provision of more effective medicines; these were slow to be developed.這個指數增加，電力及專業的權威，經常令人驚訝的醫生沒有休息，主要是對提供更有效的藥物;這些都是緩慢的發展。 Instead, doctors were forced to find other ways to assert their newly established social and cultural legitimacy.反之，醫生被迫尋找其他方式來伸張自己的新成立的社會和文化的合法性。 One strategy was to position themselves as experts in not only the physical but also the moral health of the nation.其中一個策略是自己的立場，作為專家的不只是身體，而且道德健康的民族。 In the nineteenth century, condemnation of birth control and abortion, for instance, provided physicians with a clear moral platform that allowed them to denounce practices still largely in the hands of “irregulars.” According to Carol Smith-Rosenberg, these efforts to limit women’s reproductive choices became a key arena “in the war between the allopaths and the ‘irregulars’ for patients and for power ….在19世紀，譴責控制生育和墮胎的，例如，提供醫師一個明確的道德平台，讓他們譴責的做法在很大程度上仍然在手中的“非正規軍” 。據卡羅爾史密斯-羅森伯格，這些努力，以限制婦女奇摩的生育選擇，成為一個關鍵的舞台“在戰爭中之間的allopaths和'非正規軍'為病人和權力… … 。 The ‘irregular’ physician and the ‘irregular’ wife, the ‘regulars’ insisted, conspired together against public order and national well-being.” As Carol Weisman observes, this claim of medical and moral expertise “provided regular physicians with an element of social respectability and moral authority, which was enhanced by publicly criticizing the abortion practices of other practitioners and the crass commercialism of purveyors of contraceptives and abortifacients.” '不規則'醫師和'不規則'的妻子， '常客'堅持，串謀一起危害公共秩序和國家的福祉。 “卡羅爾律師魏思曼觀察，這種說法的醫療和道義上的專業知識” ，提供定期與醫師的一個組成部分社會尊嚴和道德權威，這是加強公開批評墮胎的做法，其他醫生和crass商業的傳播者避孕藥和墮胎藥“ 。
At the end of the nineteenth century, flush with its legislative success against abortion, the AMA turned its attention to another arena that neatly linked morality and public health: the provision of drugs.在十九世紀末，刷新其立法的成功，反對墮胎，反壟斷法將注意力轉向另一個舞台上整齊地掛道德和公眾健康：提供藥品。 Physicians enhanced their professional authority by speaking out against the dangers of addictive drugs frequently found in “patent medicines” and available directly to the public.醫師提高他們的專業權威發言，對危險的成癮藥物，經常發現在“中成藥”和可直接向市民負責。 Because the formulae of proprietary medicines were secret, it was impossible for patients to judge the safety of those drugs.因為公式專有藥品的秘密，這是不可能的病人，法官的安全，這些藥物。 The practitioners of organized medicine thus joined forces with muckraking journalists to bring to the public’s attention the possible risks of patent medicines.中醫中藥的有組織的力量，從而加入了與muckraking記者把市民的注意力，可能出現的風險的中成藥。 This important public service had a significant payoff for the profession as well, reinforcing a growing distinction in the public mind between good drugs (dispensed by doctors) and bad drugs (available directly to the public by unlicensed practitioners).這個重要的公共服務產生了重大的回報為界，以及，加強越來越多的區別，在公眾心目中之間的良好的藥物（診所醫生）和壞的藥物（可直接向市民無牌醫生） 。
See More: 看到更多的： Drugs 藥物 World News 世界新聞Have Your Say: How Pot Became Demonized 你說：如何盆栽成為妖魔化
Please note, only selected comments will be published.請注意，只有選定的評論將出版。
Or discuss this report in our our new forums 或討論這個報告在我們的我們的新論壇
3 Responses to “How Pot Became Demonized” 3回應“如何成為一鍋妖魔化”
Sheena 希娜
Posted: May 14th, 2008 at 10:25 pm | 發布時間： 2008年5月14日在下午10時25分| Link to this 鏈接到本Charlie Castelnau 查理卡斯特勞
Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 8:46 am | 發布時間： 2008年5月15日在上午8時46分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复It seems plain to me that marijuana is illegal because it is easy to grow and prepare, therefore corporations (the real government) cannot make profits from it.看來，平原，我認為大麻是非法的，因為它是很容易成長和準備，因此公司（真正的政府）不能賺錢。 Compare the the attitude towards marijuana with that towards tobacco which makes huge profits for government-donating corporations.比較的態度，大麻與對煙草，使豐厚的利潤為政府捐贈法團。 Tobacco is a much more serious threat to one’s wellbeing than marijuana.煙草是一個更嚴重的威脅之一的福祉比大麻。
pingback: pingback ：
Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 3:02 pm | 發布時間： 2008年5月15日在下午3時02分| Link to this 鏈接到本
How Pot Became Demonized | Canna Cafe如何盆栽成為妖魔化|美人蕉網吧
Free Newsletter 免費通訊 
Related News 相關新聞
- Marijuana rules could seed a new industry大麻規則可以種子的一個新的產業
- Cannabis proven effective in treating neuropathic pain大麻證實能有效治療神經性疼痛
- Cannabis may prevent breast cancer大麻可預防乳腺癌
- LA Gets Marijuana Vending Machines香格里拉獲得大麻的自動售貨機
- ‘Use children as medicine guinea pigs’ '利用兒童作為醫藥豚鼠'
Email This Page To A Friend 電子郵件此頁給朋友
Latest Headlines 最新的新聞標題
- CIA death squads killing with “impunity” in Afghanistan美國中央情報局行刑隊殺害與“有罪不罰的現象”在阿富汗
- Why should we pay the Orwellian licence fee?我們為什麼要支付奧威爾的牌照費？
- Firms await verdict on £2 billion ID cards project公司正等待判決英鎊， 20.0億的身份證項目
- I was tortured to confess, Pervez tells appeal court我是折磨招供，佩爾韋茲告訴上訴法庭
- Iran busts CIA terror network伊朗胸圍中央情報局的恐怖網絡
- Propaganda and the media宣傳和新聞媒體
- Cluster Bomb Ban Opposed by US, China, Russia集束炸彈，禁止反對由美國，中國，俄羅斯
- Is the Creative Internet Just About Dead?是創造性的互聯網僅僅是死？
- Hybrid embryos ’should be banned’混合胚胎'應被禁止'
- ‘Challenging Authority’ '富有挑戰性的權威'
More更多 Breaking News突發新聞
Archive 存檔
Quote”This important public service had a significant payoff for the profession as well, reinforcing a growing distinction in the public mind between good drugs (dispensed by doctors) and bad drugs (available directly to the public by unlicensed practitioners).”引述“這個重要的公共服務產生了重大的回報為界，以及，加強越來越多的區別，在公眾心目中之間的良好的藥物（診所醫生）和壞的藥物（可直接向市民無牌醫生） ” 。
Some of the “good drugs(dispendsed by doctors}” are highly addictive and have too many side effects. I will not ever take any of these pain medications to help with the pain that comes along with my MS. I started smoking marijuana about a year and a half ago. I hate smoking marijuana! I hate the taste, & smell. I used to feel really guilty about even smoking marijuana. Now, I still hate it, but it is the only thing that helps with the burning, tighting of my muscles and nerve pain that come along with my MS. It is the only thing that helps me get some sleep. Otherwise, I would be tossing & turning all night from the pain. I only smoke marijuana at bedtime or at times during the day when I just can not deal with the pain any longer. The up side is I can still go about my life. These “good drugs” put me out of order, with the many side effects I had to deal with. I do not find marijuana addictive. As where these “good drugs” are addictive!一些“良好的藥物（ dispendsed由醫生） ”高度上癮和有太多的副作用。我不會在任何時候都採取任何這些疼痛的藥物，以幫助與疼痛來，隨著我的女士，我開始吸食大麻約1一年半前，我恨吸食大麻！我最討厭的味道，與臭味。從前我真的覺得內疚，甚至吸食大麻，現在，我仍然恨它，但它是唯一的一件事，有助於燃燒， tighting我的肌肉和神經疼痛來，隨著我的女士。這是唯一的一件事，幫助我得到一些睡眠，否則，我將拋出＆轉折所有夜間從疼痛，我只煙，大麻在就寢時間或有時在一天，當我只是不能處理的痛苦，任何更長的時間。向上的一面，是我仍然可以去我的生命，這些“好藥”把我趕出秩序，與很多副作用，我不得不處理，我不找到大麻上癮。作為這些“好藥”上癮！