Cannabis Regulatory Confusion and Its Impact on Consumer Adoption

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 BUSINESS American Business Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-04-28 DOI:10.1111/ablj.12171
Stephanie Geiger-Oneto, Robert Sprague
{"title":"Cannabis Regulatory Confusion and Its Impact on Consumer Adoption","authors":"Stephanie Geiger-Oneto,&nbsp;Robert Sprague","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>The regulation of cannabis in the United States is inconsistent and contradictory, to put it mildly. While marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I substance under the federal Controlled Substance Act—in the same category as heroin and morphine, with accompanying criminal penalties up to and including life imprisonment for its production, distribution, and possession—as of the end of 2020, eleven states and the District of Columbia had legalized recreational marijuana use and thirty-six states and the District of Columbia had decriminalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Despite the trend toward legalization, however, marijuana is a stigmatized product. Stigmatized products are those toward which a significant portion of consumers hold negative attitudes and beliefs, whereas the concept of legitimacy is defined as a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions. This article addresses how current legislation and regulations influence consumer perceptions of a product category, and how conflicting regulations (or the lack of regulations) influence the adoption of a stigmatized product such as cannabis (i.e., marijuana and cannabidiol products)</i></p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"57 4","pages":"735-772"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ablj.12171","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12171","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The regulation of cannabis in the United States is inconsistent and contradictory, to put it mildly. While marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I substance under the federal Controlled Substance Act—in the same category as heroin and morphine, with accompanying criminal penalties up to and including life imprisonment for its production, distribution, and possession—as of the end of 2020, eleven states and the District of Columbia had legalized recreational marijuana use and thirty-six states and the District of Columbia had decriminalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Despite the trend toward legalization, however, marijuana is a stigmatized product. Stigmatized products are those toward which a significant portion of consumers hold negative attitudes and beliefs, whereas the concept of legitimacy is defined as a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions. This article addresses how current legislation and regulations influence consumer perceptions of a product category, and how conflicting regulations (or the lack of regulations) influence the adoption of a stigmatized product such as cannabis (i.e., marijuana and cannabidiol products)

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
大麻监管混乱及其对消费者采用的影响
委婉地说,美国对大麻的管制是不一致和矛盾的。尽管根据联邦《管制物质法案》,大麻仍被列为附表I物质——与海洛因和吗啡属于同一类别,对其生产、分销和持有的刑事处罚最高可达终身监禁——但截至2020年底,11个州和哥伦比亚特区已将娱乐性大麻使用合法化,36个州和哥伦比亚特区已将医用大麻使用合法化。尽管有合法化的趋势,但大麻是一种被污名化的产品。污名化的产品是指那些大部分消费者持有负面态度和信念的产品,而合法性的概念被定义为一种普遍的感知或假设,即在某些社会构建的规范、价值观、信仰和定义体系中,一个实体的行为是可取的、适当的或适当的。本文讨论了现行立法和法规如何影响消费者对产品类别的看法,以及相互冲突的法规(或缺乏法规)如何影响大麻(即大麻和大麻二酚产品)等污名化产品的采用。
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
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Joint value creation: A functional, proactive approach to contract governance Derivatives markets fragilities and the energy transition The sovereign climate debt trap and natural disaster clauses Public pension contract minimalism
×
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