Since the 1960s, two diametrically-opposed views of drug use have appeared.

The view represented by the government and medical establishment has largely regarded all drug usage outside the realm of the medical activity to be considered an abuse with a negative impact on society (Martel 59), while critical perspectives have argued that the rationale for using drugs cannot be reduced to mere abuse or addiction (60). Instead, many have argued that drugs are an intrinsic part of spiritual experiences (i) or can be used to expand and better understanding of the human condition (ii). Central to this discussion are concerns about the health of drug-using individuals, especially since the start of the modern War on Drugs in the 1970s.

Most notably with regards to the question of cannabis prohibition, professional experts have thus been employed in varying capacities by both sides in an attempt to discredit the other. Looking through the lens of these differing professional opinions, we can begin to see many of the socio-political factors contributing to a public “credibility gap” in contemporary discussions on both the legalization and medicinal use of cannabis. As a result of this “credibility gap,” critical voices may emerge from non-professional bodies (Epstein 411).

It is in constructing a base of “lay-experts” willing to debate the effects of cannabis on health while simultaneously using the language of expert and professional bodies that medicinal cannabis advocacy groups are achieving a degree of credibility on an issue that in the past has largely been restricted to professional and government discussions.