Suchergebnisse

Pt. 1: "November 5, 1981." ; CIS Microfiche Accession Numbers: CIS 82 H401-14 ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Microfiche. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Item 1016-A, 1016-B (microfiche). ; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Reuse of record except for individual research requires license from Congressional Information Service, Inc. ; CIS Microfiche Accession Numbers: CIS 78 S381-26 ; Microfiche. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The last decade has seen the flourishing of drug politics theory. Rooted existentially in the political and cultural radicalism of the late 1960s and theoretically in the societal reaction perspective on deviance, it took off from the specific controversy over marihuana to pose the general question of what conditions determine the legal and moral statuses of the use of various psychoactive drugs. True to its theoretical lineage, it has concluded that how a society reacts to drug use has less to do with the drug itself than the factors of class, status, and power in the social context in which use occurs. Put more simply, it has asserted that drug controls are largely efforts by powerful social groups to oppress powerless social groups. In the last few years, drug politics theory has developed progressively more sophisticated specifications of this basic assertion. It is about time, therefore, to evaluate how well it has done. Surveying the literature, we can conclude the following: First, drug politics theory is far more promising than any other approach to the question of the legal/moral statuses of drug use. Second, despite this, there are many kinds of drug controls that it simply cannot explain. It may be relevant only to certain moralistic responses to drug use. Third, historically, powerful groups have just as often tried to promote drug use among powerless groups as to control it, which is difficult for drug politics theory to explain. Fourth, drug politics theory has yielded a vast ensemble of often conflicting assertions, rather than a coherent body of ideas. There is disagreement on where in the control process politics intrudes, what social groups are responsible for controls, and what the functions of the control process are. These differences, furthermore, are often not recognized by the theorists themselves.

CIS Microfiche Accession Numbers: CIS 82 S401-15 ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Microfiche. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Item 1016-A, 1016-B (microfiche). ; Pt. 1: "November 5, 1981." ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

For over fifty years there has been international co-operation in the control of narcotic drugs. This co-operation has expanded in scope and depth as the years have passed since January 23, 1912, when the International Opium Convention was signed at The Hague. Four more conventions and three protocols deal with the international control of narcotics, and two agreements aim at suppressing opium-smoking in the Far East. The most recent convention, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs signed at New York on March 30, 1961, does little to advance the steps already taken but rather consolidates much of the work accomplished in the preceding years.

This paper uses California's first opium law in 1875 to examine the process of early drug legislation, specifically the political and economic conditions leading up to the passage of the law. We explore the possibility that initial opium prohibition was simply a component of a larger process of social control aimed at securing the isolation of the Chinese in the lower rungs of the labor market. It is suggested that analyses of social control must take into account the interrelationship between economic, political and ideological motivations behind any quest for prohibitive legislation.

Control of illegal drug use and abuse requires an elaborate network of organizations and professions: medical, legal, political, educational, and welfare. This book, first published in 1984, explores the way in which these diverse sectors coordinate the control of deviance in a complex society and how they respond to a sudden widespread increase in deviance spanning many institutional and professional domains. The latter of these concerns, James Beniger argues, affords us a unique insight into the more general question of societal control. He takes as an example of this phenomenon the dramatic appearance of the 'drug problem' in America in the Vietnam war era of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Exploiting this as an approximation of an experimentally induced disruption of society, Professor Beniger examines its impact on the interorganizational and professional networks that together constitute a system for the control of a social deviance

On cover: Drug abuse control and prevention. ; Mode of access: Internet.