decontructionist
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Messages
- 39
Hi all,
Long time lurker, first time poster.
I am an academic in the field of substance use at an Australian University. Despite this forum providing me with an abundance of useful information, I have not before contributed to the discussion as I have not wanted to draw attention to myself. Further, I think there is a fine line between my public and personal life, and I do not want my personal life to become public, so I am not sure as to whether or not I will continue to post on this forum, and if I do, what the content would pertain to.
Having not received a reply from my e-mail to p_d that outlined my concerns with possible ramifications pertaining to the current project, I have found that the answers that I requested have been posted here (I understand that you are a busy guy, and am in no way disappointed at not getting a reply). However, I would like an opportunity to present a retort to what has been said thus far.
The paradigm from within which I work is called social constructionism, and involves deconstructing the ways in which institutions have vested interests in maintaining certain perceptions of drug use. As such, one of my biggest concerns with this project was the possibility of media involvement. In particular, the media can only work within the conceptual frameworks of the dominant institutions within a society, which is why we always see drug use portrayed in certain ways (e.g., vilification of certain substances while normalising others). In doing so, true harm reduction is ultimately precluded. My concern is that media involvement with regard to the current situation will only lead to further vilification of recreational substance use.
I understand that what p_d has done here is in very good faith, however, we come from quite different paradigms in terms of the way in which we conceptualise drug use and harm reduction, which is reflected in the way in which he and I go about our business. Without being antagonistic, I would suggest that unwittingly, p_d has a vested interest in perpetuating the role of the medical institution in understanding drug use, whereby doctors become the all holy enforcement agency of how our bodies are writ. They have the authority to say who should and should not use what substances, and indeed which of these substances are ‘evil’. In turn, the legal institution has a dialectical relationship with the medical institution that self-perpetuates the status quo since certain drugs are illegal because they are ‘bad for us’, and certain drugs are bad for use ‘because they are illegal’.
Now that I have been transparent in providing my position, I have to ask the question: “Is the possible legal ramifications of using these neo products following the attention that has brought upon the products worse than the toxicological effects of the substances?” This is an age old question, but I believe that despite p_d and I being so similar in what we wish to achieve, the differences in the way in which we go about this are reflected in subtle paradigmatic discrepancies. I personally have a moral objection to perpetuating the dominant structural entities that preclude conversions of moderation through the vilification of substances and the removal of personal freedom through law enforcement.
Long time lurker, first time poster.
I am an academic in the field of substance use at an Australian University. Despite this forum providing me with an abundance of useful information, I have not before contributed to the discussion as I have not wanted to draw attention to myself. Further, I think there is a fine line between my public and personal life, and I do not want my personal life to become public, so I am not sure as to whether or not I will continue to post on this forum, and if I do, what the content would pertain to.
Having not received a reply from my e-mail to p_d that outlined my concerns with possible ramifications pertaining to the current project, I have found that the answers that I requested have been posted here (I understand that you are a busy guy, and am in no way disappointed at not getting a reply). However, I would like an opportunity to present a retort to what has been said thus far.
The paradigm from within which I work is called social constructionism, and involves deconstructing the ways in which institutions have vested interests in maintaining certain perceptions of drug use. As such, one of my biggest concerns with this project was the possibility of media involvement. In particular, the media can only work within the conceptual frameworks of the dominant institutions within a society, which is why we always see drug use portrayed in certain ways (e.g., vilification of certain substances while normalising others). In doing so, true harm reduction is ultimately precluded. My concern is that media involvement with regard to the current situation will only lead to further vilification of recreational substance use.
I understand that what p_d has done here is in very good faith, however, we come from quite different paradigms in terms of the way in which we conceptualise drug use and harm reduction, which is reflected in the way in which he and I go about our business. Without being antagonistic, I would suggest that unwittingly, p_d has a vested interest in perpetuating the role of the medical institution in understanding drug use, whereby doctors become the all holy enforcement agency of how our bodies are writ. They have the authority to say who should and should not use what substances, and indeed which of these substances are ‘evil’. In turn, the legal institution has a dialectical relationship with the medical institution that self-perpetuates the status quo since certain drugs are illegal because they are ‘bad for us’, and certain drugs are bad for use ‘because they are illegal’.
Now that I have been transparent in providing my position, I have to ask the question: “Is the possible legal ramifications of using these neo products following the attention that has brought upon the products worse than the toxicological effects of the substances?” This is an age old question, but I believe that despite p_d and I being so similar in what we wish to achieve, the differences in the way in which we go about this are reflected in subtle paradigmatic discrepancies. I personally have a moral objection to perpetuating the dominant structural entities that preclude conversions of moderation through the vilification of substances and the removal of personal freedom through law enforcement.