Making sense of pot: conceptual tools for analyzing legal cannabis policy discourse

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q1 Social Sciences Critical Policy Studies Pub Date : 2022-02-23 DOI:10.1080/19460171.2022.2044874
Gabriel Lévesque
{"title":"Making sense of pot: conceptual tools for analyzing legal cannabis policy discourse","authors":"Gabriel Lévesque","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2022.2044874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the last decade, there has been a significant surge in cannabis legalization, with Uruguay (2013), Canada (2018) and 19 U.S. states (2012-2022) having developed recreational cannabis policies. A growing literature analyzes legalization from a policymaking or public health standpoint. Yet only few studies have explored its discursive component . This article contributes to filling this gap by developing conceptual tools for cannabis policy discourse analysis. I first examine the history of cannabis policy in North America and find two main discursive clusters, i.e., moral and epistemic discourse. I then discuss existing typologies of cannabis regulation models and select that of Beauchesne, which distinguishes between three models: prohibition 2.0, public health and harm reduction, and commercialization. At the intersection of discursive clusters and these regulation models, I identify six mutually exclusive frames of cannabis policy: moral panic, medical/health, reparations/vulnerabilities, harm reduction/risk mitigation, laissez-faire/liberalism, and illicit market/revenue.","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2044874","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT In the last decade, there has been a significant surge in cannabis legalization, with Uruguay (2013), Canada (2018) and 19 U.S. states (2012-2022) having developed recreational cannabis policies. A growing literature analyzes legalization from a policymaking or public health standpoint. Yet only few studies have explored its discursive component . This article contributes to filling this gap by developing conceptual tools for cannabis policy discourse analysis. I first examine the history of cannabis policy in North America and find two main discursive clusters, i.e., moral and epistemic discourse. I then discuss existing typologies of cannabis regulation models and select that of Beauchesne, which distinguishes between three models: prohibition 2.0, public health and harm reduction, and commercialization. At the intersection of discursive clusters and these regulation models, I identify six mutually exclusive frames of cannabis policy: moral panic, medical/health, reparations/vulnerabilities, harm reduction/risk mitigation, laissez-faire/liberalism, and illicit market/revenue.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
理解大麻:分析合法大麻政策话语的概念工具
在过去的十年中,大麻合法化的数量大幅增加,乌拉圭(2013年)、加拿大(2018年)和美国19个州(2012-2022年)都制定了娱乐性大麻政策。越来越多的文献从政策制定或公共卫生的角度分析大麻合法化。然而,只有少数研究探讨了它的话语成分。本文通过开发大麻政策话语分析的概念工具来填补这一空白。我首先研究了北美大麻政策的历史,发现了两个主要的话语集群,即道德和认知话语。然后,我讨论了大麻管制模式的现有类型,并选择了Beauchesne的模式,它区分了三种模式:禁止2.0、公共卫生和减少危害以及商业化。在话语集群和这些监管模式的交叉点上,我确定了大麻政策的六个相互排斥的框架:道德恐慌、医疗/健康、赔偿/脆弱性、减少伤害/减轻风险、自由放任/自由主义和非法市场/收入。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
39
期刊最新文献
A complementary approach to Critical Frame Analysis and ‘what is the policy represented to Be?’ Pragmatism over sovereignty? The Italian policy response to the infrastructuralization of non-EU cloud service providers Exploring counter hegemony and action research to address the climate crisis Social prescribing for and beyond health: hyper-solutionism in health policy What problems is the AI act solving? Technological solutionism, fundamental rights, and trustworthiness in European AI policy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1