Nevertheless, it would be erroneous to assume that acceptance of cannabis arose with the same intensity across California counties and cities.At the moment, only one-third of California cities permit the distribution, cultivation, testing, manufacturing, or sale of cannabis, while the rest have passed ordinances forbidding any cannabis-related economic activities within city borders. This project is the first and the most comprehensive study of the unfolding process of cannabis legalization, which empirically addresses a set of interrelated questions. First, how is the legalization of cannabis for recreational use spreading across California cities? Second, what accounts for the uneven legalization of cannabis across California cities? And third, what does the case of cannabis legalization reveal about the relationship between legitimacy and legality more generally? Historically, the war on cannabis drew a line between “productive” members of society and “dangerous” elements , thereby serving normality judgments. Today, cannabis is in a transition state: although the law made it legal in California, large segments of the population and local governments still do not accept the idea of recreational cannabis and refuse its incorporation in the communities. I explore cannabis regulation as an example of moral laws, i.e., policies that deal with problems of moral order and deviance . According to Max Weber, certain laws, especially those relating to moral issues, are not accepted on the basis of their legality, but because they express legitimate moral values . The legalization of cannabis in California presents an ideal context to unpack the mechanisms that explain why some jurisdictions move toward more permissive moral policies, and others do not. The implementation of morality policies at the city level is a neglected area of research. Many writings focus on the nature of morality policies and whether or not the state should regulate certain individual practices. Still, little efforts have been directed toward understanding how these legislations are created and carried out. This study provides an empirical test of the morality of law and explains what drives the adoption of permissive cannabis regulation at the bottom level of US politics—cities.
There is a commonly held misconception that since most citizens supported the legalization of cannabis in California,vertical agriculture its use and sale is allowed throughout the state. However, a closer look at local political projects shows that public support cannot fully explain the adoption of pro-cannabis legislation. For example, in Santa Monica, 75 % of voters supported cannabis legalization in 2016, but the city government forbade all economic activities related to recreational cannabis. Meanwhile, most of Firebaugh’s citizens voted against the legalization of recreational cannabis, but the city government permitted cannabis businesses. By focusing on cannabis legalization in the cities of California, this project brings to the fore the importance of local actors and decisions. Despite the significance of local policies, we still lack a comprehensive body of theoretically driven research explaining variation in policy outcomes at the local level . Studying local policies can be beneficial for many reasons. First, the success or failure of state or federal regulations depends on how it is operationalized and put into effect by local jurisdictions . Local practices may change an idea laid by legislators. Second, the decisions produced by local governments have a direct impact on the well being of citizens and communities. Lastly, a large number of national initiatives have grown out of local activities . For example, San Francisco was the first American city that ignored state and federal laws and decided not to prosecute “underground cannabis pharmacies”, which eventually paved the way for legalizing cannabis across the state . This research delves into the complex nature of change. I purposely do not say “legal change”, for the term oversimplifies the dynamics inherent to the transition from illegal to legal cannabis. Legalization is not a mere outcome and does not happen overnight. It is, first of all, a gradual process of social, cultural, legal, and institutional transformation, which started in California well before Proposition 64 in 2016 and may extend long into the future. Therefore, I adopt a process-oriented approach that overcomes the limitations of the outcome-based perspective, widely used in sociolegal studies, and allows us to speak about legalizing cannabis in California as a project under construction. Socio-legal scholars examine the drug problem predominantly through the lens of control, prohibition, and punishment. Drugs are viewed as a card played within the bigger political project that is the creation of the penal state. Various studies have demonstrated how drugs became both a target and a source of the war on crime, and how by associating drug use to violent crimes, the federal government made the war on drugs an integral part of American life . These analyses present a causal explanation of penal change, which contains the following key elements: the intensification of state control as a response to the public’s fears incited by the mass media. Although such theorizing is essential for understanding the drug problem, it is not sufficient.
The preponderance of the “crime and punishment” framework stifles other possible research angles and reduces the perimeter of the drug problem. Drugs are not only a criminal justice issue but also a societal problem, a medical problem, a moral problem, a market problem, and so on. Another limitation of the existing socio-legal literature on the drug problem is its outcome based and top-down orientation. The research heavily relies on causal explanations and focuses on macro-level trends, elite political actors, class conflicts, federal policies, and national mass media. At the same time, it neglects other layers of interpretation, such as local-level processes, institutional practices, and social relations. As Andrew Abbott notes, the vast majority of sociological studies aim to evaluate the causes of “what happens” but lack a reflective concept of how to temporarily conceptualize “what happens” . Instead of focusing on where we ended up, Abbott says, we should look at the walk itself. The outcome-based theorizing may be problematic since it reinforces a “normal” and “objective” view of life . By explicating the causal relationship between crime and drugs, socio-legal scholars conceptualize the drug problem in the same inadequate way as policymakers and therefore run the risk of exacerbating intolerance and prejudices . Currently, socio-legal scholarship lacks an alternative language to speak about the drug problem and continues investing in the criminal justice approach . Cannabis legalization raises interest among various social science disciplines—jurisprudence, sociology, criminology, political science—which focus on a narrow range of topics, such as the discrepancy between federal and state regulation, or the effect of legalization on crime rates, drug use, and driving under the influence. Much of this scholarship defines law in instrumental terms: legal change simply ensues from broader policy and regulatory shifts, such as the passage of the Controlled Substance Act in 1970 or Proposition 64 in 2016. However, the law is not a direct reflection of collective consciousness; neither is it the immediate result of lawyers’ work. The alternative way to study law is to look at it as a communicative practice that directs attention to the law’s power in constructing meanings, legal discourses, symbols, interpretations, and knowledge. In short, to understand the nature of the legalization process, it is necessary to employ a bottom-up perspective and move from the enactment of federal and state legislation to local political projects, from the patent outcomes to latent everyday practices, and from the direct impacts to negotiated agreements.Many intricacies of the legalization process become apparent only when we apply a processual view and focus on local political projects.
What do we mean when we say that cannabis became legal in California? From a strictly juridical point of view, it means that possession, cultivation, distribution, and sale of cannabis do not represent a criminal act anymore. Individuals who consume, grow, or sell cannabis cannot be arrested or prosecuted. From a market point of view, it means that the state oversees the operation of the legal cannabis market. Namely, it creates a legal infrastructure for market development, enforces contracts, safeguards competition, protects property rights, and provides standards. Finally,hydroponics flood table from a cultural perspective, legalization means a cultural shift reflecting the broader public acceptance of cannabis. Some scholars call this process “normalization” , arguing that today, cannabis use is more tolerated, and cannabis users are less stigmatized. But how do all these processes evolve in practice? First, even though de jure cannabis is legal throughout California, de facto its status is controversial. Under the Controlled Substances Act , cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug, along with such potent substances as heroin and LSD. Thereby, the federal government has the authority to prohibit and prosecute any use of cannabis. As separate sovereigns, the states may decide whether to cooperate with the federal government or not, but they cannot prevent the federal agencies from enforcing the law. Therefore, cannabis is legal in a state that has voted to allow it, but only to the extent the federal government chooses not to enforce the CSA . Despite several attempts to resolve the conflict between federal and state laws, cannabis is still in a legal limbo. In 2013, the Department of Justice issued a memo notifying that prosecuting local cannabis cases is not a priority.3 However, under the Trump administration, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded all Obama-era lenient policies towards cannabis, including the memo limiting federal prosecution of local cannabis cases.4 Currently, Congress is debating over the Marijuana Opportunity and Reinvestment and Expungement Act , which decriminalizes cannabis and completely removes it from the list of controlled substances.5 On December 4, 2020, the House of Representatives approved the ACT, but many experts are pessimistic about its passing in the Senate. Second, the continued status of marijuana as a federally prohibited substance significantly hampers the states’ capacity to implement new regulatory policies effectively and creates legal jeopardy for those in the legal cannabis market .
As Sam Kamin notes, “federal prohibition acts as a brake on an industry that otherwise might grow with unhealthy pace” . Cannabis dispensaries cannot obtain banking services since financial institutions are not ready to support companies selling a product that the federal government treats as an illegal drug. They have to rely mostly on cash and thus become an easy target for robberies . Additional obstacles for legal cannabis companies are associated with high taxes, difficulties with obtaining legal aid, and unavailability of property rights protection and other business necessities . The adversity of the business environment induces some cannabis distributors to stay outside of the legal market. In 2018, California legal dispensaries sold fewer products than a year before, when only medical cannabis was allowed6 , a picture which many specialists associated with the persistence of illegal or semi-legal economic activities.7 Third, in the last decades, cannabis use has undergone a transition from a largely marginal activity to a more prevalent and tolerated one . California issued more than 20,000 cannabis licenses within the first two years of the legalization of recreational cannabis. The number of professional associations, networks, business-related newspapers, websites, and the variety of cannabis products is continually growing.According to Gallup, the support of cannabis legalization grew from 12% in 1969 to 66% in 2018.8 After the possession of less than an ounce of cannabis was reclassified as a misdemeanor9 in 2010, the number of arrests for cannabis possession has dropped considerably—from 56,000 in 2010 to 10,000 in 2011 . The evidence indicates that cultural attitudes to cannabis have changed. However, there is still a certain stigma associated with cannabis. Despite its normalization, cannabis use continues to be perceived as risky, marginal, and deviant and is often kept private to escape conflicts with family, landlords, employers, or police . The war on drugs generated various misconceptions about cannabis, which detrimentally affect the image of current cannabis users and cannabis dispensaries. For example, under Proposition 64, public and private companies have a right to ask job candidates and current employees to pass a test on cannabis to “maintain a drug and alcohol-free workplace.” If a drug test shows traces of cannabis, a person can lose a job. 10The legal status and the meaning of specific products vary over time and space .