By bringing actors from the black market to the taxed and licensed marketplace, the state can raise billions in annual tax revenue and create jobs for thousands of people. The economic justification of cannabis legalization was compelling: if people were going to use it anyway, why not tax it? Other important arguments favoring full legalization were: reducing law enforcement and incarceration costs; alleviation of the drug war in Mexico; breaking with racial disparity of the war on drugs; consumers’ protection through quality control and regulation; defense of individual rights and freedoms; and so forth. The legalization of recreational cannabis is a nascent field of study, which has more questions than answers. Today, it looks that the economic framework has been most influential in the recreational cannabis campaign. With this project, I intend to shed some light on how the legalization of recreational cannabis became possible in California and which frameworks contributed the most to legal change. To answer these questions, I interview people who have a direct bearing on the institutionalization of the idea of recreational cannabis at the local level, i.e., licensed and unlicensed cannabis growers and distributors, social activists, city officials, representative of licensing agencies, and law enforcers. Today, cannabis is the transitional period characterized by a search for a new legitimate meaning. According to Victor Turner, a liminal stage means being “at once no longer classified and not yet classified” . In the case of cannabis, it means that it is no longer illegal but not yet legal; no longer criminalized but not yet legalized; no longer intolerable but not yet entirely acceptable. As cannabis consumption slowly and tentatively gains legitimacy, it also shows some harbingers of its institutionalization.
The binary rhetoric on cannabis—i.e., the medical and recreational perspectives—reflects a lack of a dominant narrative about it . For example, weed trimming tray many physicians do not have a consolidated perspective on whether cannabis is a medicine or not. On the one hand, they want to abide by professional norms and exclude dubious substances from clinical practice; on the other hand, they want to help patients by relieving their pain and suffering . A similar ambivalence exists on the regulatory level. California’s cities have discretion over whether to permit recreational cannabis, and many are still debating what to do. Thus, even if recreational cannabis became legal in some parts of California, it remained illegal in others, as well as on federal property. The persistence of the black market is yet another marker of ambiguity: due to high taxation, many cannabis providers choose not to obtain a license and remain in a shadow area. The socially uncertain state of cannabis partly arises out of its lasting conceptualization as a criminal justice issue. The federal prohibition of cannabis continues to jeopardize the position of every person involved in its cultivation and distribution in California. On December 2, 2020, the United Nations Commission on Narcotics removed cannabis from the list of most dangerous drugs. Two days later, the US House of Representatives approved the MORE Act , which should decriminalize cannabis at the federal level and remove it from the list of controlled substances. Both legislations are important symbolic gestures, but the future of cannabis in the US remains unclear. The federal enforcement agencies are not yet ready to accept cannabis legalization, and sometimes one step forward leads to two steps back. Although the recognition of medical benefits of cannabis use is more widespread now than decades ago, cannabis abuse is rarely perceived as a public health issue . All psychoactive substances that alter physical and mental processes in the human body require a special system of control, and cannabis is not an exception.
The question is: Which social institutions should be responsible for regulating cannabis? In different countries, cannabis sale, use, and abuse is regulated by the healthcare system, welfare institutions, religion, law enforcement, or the market. In the current US context, it comes under the jurisdiction of law enforcement agencies and courts and is viewed from a bureaucratic rather than a professional logic. Federal prohibition of cannabis encourages social stereotypes and impedes ideational change, which is necessary for moving cannabis from criminal justice to the medical, commercial, or recreational discourse. Drug testing in workplaces, widespread anti-cannabis campaigns, the concentration of dispensaries in marginal zones, the stigmatization of cannabis users, the unavailability of banking and legal services, the prohibition of interstate trade, and, of course, the federal prosecution—all these points indicate the heavy symbolic load attached to cannabis use, which means that cannabis is far from being normalized and institutionalized in California. Based on this information, some people might question whether the passage of Proposition, which legalized cannabis for recreational use, was premature. In this project, I argue that the adoption of formal regulation is only one in an ongoing series of episodes contributing to a broader cultural transformation. Asking whether the legalization of cannabis was premature is not relevant if we understand legalization as a process of gradual, incremental change. Such an approach allows us to see how the idea of cannabis is historically constructed through social interactions, strategic political decisions, adaptations, innovations, or even unintended consequences. It also provides a perspective on particularities and paradoxes of public morality, or, better to say, a moral background of contemporary American society . The increased tolerance of cannabis use, which we observe in recent decades, is often referred to as “normalization.” Saying that cannabis is becoming normalized means that the substance is available and accessible, consumption rates are increasing, and that there is greater social and cultural accommodation of its use . Since the 1990s, cannabis had undergone a significant transformation in public perception.
The perceived risk of cannabis is decreasing, along with the cultural anxiety and negative labels attached to it, and its users are less inclined to guard information about their consumption . The tone of media coverage of cannabis-related issues also becomes more favorable . Opinion polls detect broader acceptance of cannabis use: according to Gallup, the support of cannabis legalization grew from 12% in 1969 to 68% in 2020 . Many Americans believe that smoking cannabis is morally acceptable . In 1969, only 4% of Americans said they had tried cannabis; in 2017, that figure grew to 45%. The rates of cannabis and tobacco consumption rose at a similar pace ; however, among young adults aged 18 to 29, cannabis is significantly more popular than tobacco . Availability and access to legal cannabis are also growing: as of December 2020, the recreational use of cannabis is permitted in 15 states and its medical use in 36 states. Yet, despite broader social tolerance, the cannabis issue remains controversial. First, its continuing federal illegality poses a threat of legal sanctions on those using or distributing cannabis under state law. As Sam Kamin points out, “legalized” cannabis continues to operate in an unstable gray area. When the commodity is prohibited at the federal level and legalized at the local level, there might be considerable confusion regarding how governmental, market, educational, cannabis grow setup and other institutions should treat it . In particular, what the true dangers of cannabis use are and how to effectively distribute institutional resources to address these dangers . People engaged in cannabis activity still risk losing their jobs, parental rights, and many federal benefits . For example, the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 requires employers who are federal contractors to maintain a drug-free workplace and prohibits the use and possession of illegal substances. Because the federal government classifies cannabis as an illegal drug, employers in California feel incentivized to impose drug testing at the workplace to comply with the law, even though the Act neither directly demands nor authorizes it . As of now, the attempts to challenge the discriminatory policies against employees using cannabis for medical purposes have been unsuccessful.Second, cannabis users continue experiencing stigma and social disapproval. Many studies show that notwithstanding the normalizing trends, cannabis-related stigma is conspicuous and strongly affects cannabis users’ identity formation . That cannabis is no longer “deviant”—at least in some social circles—does not make it “normal” either . Cannabis users employ various strategies to distance themselves from labels and familiar stereotypes about cannabis use and its relation to crime, deviance, sickness, etc. . Since the 1960s, civil rights movements are fighting for the “normalization” of cannabis use under the banner of recognition of dignity and pride within difference . Despite widespread tolerance and the success of the legalization movement, cannabis use still challenges the dominant values and remains on the margins of the mainstream culture. In 2019, 86% of cannabis supporters believed that cannabis helps people who use it for medical reasons, and only 35% agreed that cannabis use is not harmful. Moreover, cannabis use has potential social consequences—from disapproval by family members to termination of a labor contract.
This project instead underscores the importance of organizationalstigma by bringing attention to actors who are involved in cannabis legalization at the level of practice. I argue that normalization happens not only through changes in public morality and consumption practices but also through establishing new institutions and new social relationships. For example, the legalization of recreational cannabis brought about a variety of new organizational forms, such as licensing agencies, recreational cannabis dispensaries, microbusinesses, testing labs, cannabis cafes and restaurants, cannabis law firms, and so on. These institutions gave rise to new relationships—between cannabis companies and licensing agencies, landlords, law enforcers, lawyers, local communities, or consumers. Like individuals, organizations, or whole markets can also experience stigma, which forces them to exist in the shadows. The passage of Proposition 64 did not put cannabis on a par with other legitimate and tolerated intoxicants . Instead, it placed the emerging legal cannabis market abreast of other markets of morally questionable goods, for which attaining legitimacy is a crucial and pressing issue . For example, while alcohol can be enjoyed at bars, restaurants, or sporting events, there is no public place to consume cannabis lawfully . Moreover, due to incompatibility between state and federal legislation, cannabis companies do not have access to professional services necessary for businesses to function. Banks, attorneys, insurance companies, potential investors, and others are concerned with breaking federal law. As a result, the cannabis market is a cash-based trade that needs enhanced security services . Similarly, landlords are reluctant to let their properties to cannabis operations due to the risk of federal seizures . Since the traditional professions are cautious about engaging with legal cannabis, a pool of “special” cannabis doctors, creditors, and attorneys has emerged. These specialists are often considered marginal within their professional groups. Cannabis dispensaries manage the effect of industry stigma by dismantling the harmful stereotypes and distancing from the “black” market. In particular, they incorporate the language, symbols, and values associated with the healthcare system ; promote themselves as responsible and caring providers ; craft their professional image as experts in pain and anxiety ; imitate normal businesses ; deemphasize potential dangers of cannabis use ; and so on. Despite these efforts, the cannabis industry is not yet fully destigmatized. How can we quantify the current stigma of the legal cannabis industry and understand the extent to which it has been removed? Different theoretical perspectives can give a clue on how to test the normalization hypothesis and measure the effect of organizational stigma. In The Rules of Sociological Method , Emile Durkheim makes a distinction between normal and pathological based on how often individuals encounter different kinds of events. In other words, the criterion of frequency determines whether we call a phenomenon “normal” or “pathological”: normal things are the ones more widespread and common to find. Currently, only one-third of California cities allow cannabis-related activities within their borders, and therefore we can infer that cannabis companies are still a pathology rather than a staThistical norm. Durkheim’s main vulnerability is his disinterest in the social agents’ perspective and the systematic neglect of power . There are many rare social facts, but some become pathological based due to their infrequency, and others do not. Why is that so? To tailor the Durkheimian theory and make it more suitable for my empirical analysis, I incorporate Mary Douglas’s idea of pollution and power.