Background: Diving medicine literature often regards the use of cannabis as a potential contra-indicator for fitness to dive. With that said, there has been no empirical research done with cannabis-using divers to examine how they subjectively understand and construct the risks that their cannabis use may have on their diving. This study explored how cannabis-using divers rationalise the pejorative associations of cannabis use through rhetorical techniques of neutralisation (TON) that function to deny the risks that cannabis use may have on their diving. 

Materials and methods: Ten medically-fit professional divers from South Africa were individually intervie- wed. The interviews focussed on each diver’s reported recreational use of cannabis. The interviews were transcribed and analysed through a framework for TON originally formulated by Sykes and Matza (1957). 

Results: Analysis revealed six primary TON employed to refute the pejorative associations of cannabis use on dive work, namely: 1. Denial of responsibility: which denies a diver’s direct culpability for their cannabis use; 2. Denial of injury: which asserts that no (serious) harm results from a diver’s cannabis use; 3. Denial of victim: which repudiates the potentially deleterious effects that cannabis use may have on a diver; 4. Condemnation of condemners: which minimises cannabis use in relation to other divers’ unsafe diving practices; 5. Appeal to loyalties: which situates cannabis use within interpersonal networks to whom a diver has a “higher” allegiance; 6. Denial of penalty: which justifies cannabis use by virtue of a perceived lack of punitive action by a Diving Medical Examiner. 

Conclusions: The findings of this research highlight the TON which potentially inform a diver’s cannabis use, particularly in relation to their diving. Identifying such TON carry important implications for the ways in which fitness to dive is assessed.