Reply
Wed 5 Jan, 2011 07:21 am
It is said marijuana is anti establishment, is this just an effect of marijuana or just clearing thinking about the establishment that we are involved in?
You need to work on the coherence of what you write. The notion that marijuana is "anti-establishment" derives from some rather complex history. It was originally seen as a drug of poor people--of blacks and Hispanics--and was associated with a demi-monde of musicians and artists. I believe that it is correct that the first marijuana busts were made in the 1930s.
The drug became increasingly popular with white middle class kids, though, probably as a result of their exposure to music out of the norm of their parents. Films such as Reefer Madness portrayed the drug as very dangerous to the mental health of users (it certainly does have a serious effect on the mental health of long-time, heavy users, but nothing like the hysterical tone of that motion picture). However, beginning in the 1960s, it was increasingly associated with the rebellion of youth against their parents, and the issue of drug abuse got caught up in the issue of opposition to the war in Vietnam, then the most divisive issue between the generations in the United States.
For young people in the 1960s, the establishment was an us and them matter. The establishment was "them," the generation of their parents or grandparents, the "fat cats," the capitalist exploiters, the "captains of industry"--all figures (stereotypes) who were despised by young people enamoured of the New Left and the newly identified counter-culture. To that extent, yes, marijuana can be seen as anti-establishment. From what you have written, though, it is not clear what you think the establishment is. For young people in the 1960s and -70s, it was clear. The establishment was "them," people who stood for everything with "we" despised.
You last sentence there is non-sensical, i have no idea what it is supposed to mean. Your view of what constitutes the establishment is pretty narrow. In the 1960s, the establishment was seen as not simply the government, but the social and capitalist establishments, too.
@Setanta,
I had the wrong idea about what constitutes establishment. Thanks