The image of cannabis as a dangerous drug was promoted in the public discourse, which resulted in its classification as a Schedule I narcotic by the 1970’s Controlled Substances Act .11 In the 1980s, with the launch of the war on drugs, the prosecution of cannabis cultivators, distributors, and consumers is escalated, which significantly contributed to the mass incarceration of minority groups. Meanwhile, cannabis supporters crafted an alternative image of cannabis as a safe and pleasurable alternative to alcohol. Social movements and their efforts to portray cannabis as an innocuous substance led to the decriminalization of cannabis in several states in the 1970s . However, neither the prohibitionists nor the proponents of cannabis viewed it as a medicine, but primarily as an intoxicant used for hedonistic pleasure . The medical conceptualization of cannabis came back with the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. Cannabis use helped patients to increase appetite, retain weight, and hence prolonged their lives. Pro-legalization activists created a new concept of cannabis as a compassionate palliative for dying people. Thence began the process of cannabis legalization in the US.12 This brief historical overview suggests that cannabis is more than a plant in modern America. As Alan Bock argues, “It is something of a cultural signifier, a totem laden with assumptions and attitudes about what constitutes a good life” . Nowadays, cannabis has three equally powerful meanings. In different situations, cannabis is described as a dangerous drug, a medical treatment, or soft tonic. This polysemy creates a significant challenge for developing consistent legal and cultural infrastructure related to cannabis vertical farming consumption and distribution. Although both medical and recreational cannabis were legalized in California, the idea of “legal cannabis” is still vague.
The very distinction between medical and recreational meanings exacerbates this ambiguity, leaving cannabis is in a limbo: it is a pain-relief medicine that is not available in the pharmacy, and a recreational intoxicant , that cannot be bought at the supermarket. Cannabis was removed from the criminal justice context but was refused a place in the context of existing medical or market institutions. At present, cannabis is going through a moment of transition and institutional change. In order to become a “thing,” legal cannabis should settle in a new institutional environment. When we say that something is institutionalized, we mean that it is cognitively, behaviorally, and organizationally established.13 First, institutionalization rests on meaning making. There should be a consensus about what cannabis is and what it is not, a cognitive convention upon which individuals can jointly rely when they make decisions. An idea is institutionalized when it is built into the language, logic, values, social relations, or—as Mary Douglas put it—when it finds “its rightness in reason and in nature” . Second, institutionalization manifests itself through practices, actions, preformed roles, and shaped identities. To understand the real meaning of cannabis, we need to look at what people do in their everyday lives—that is, how cannabis companies apply for licenses, how licensing agencies decide who gets a license, how landlords decide who gets a space, how consumers choose where to buy cannabis, how the police oversee the activity of illegal businesses, and so forth. Finally, the institutionalized phenomenon is represented through material reality, such as cannabis dispensaries, testing laboratories, greenhouses, licensing agencies, legal documents, licenses, permits, etc. Social phenomena can be institutionalized to a different degree . Complete institutionalization means that individuals experience an institution as an objective reality and take it for granted . In California, cannabis is not understood as a dangerous drug anymore.
It is something else, but what exactly? Why distinguish between medical and recreational cannabis, given that it is the same herb, grown in the same conditions, and distributed by the same people? Does the persistence of the black market affect the institutionalization of legal cannabis? To understand the real status of cannabis nowadays, one should answer such and other questions. The idea of cannabis is not crystallized yet, and its vocabulary is still in a formative stage. For example, recently, activists and state officials began using the term “adult-use cannabis” instead of “recreational cannabis.” Such wording supposedly sounds more neutral and legitimate, deemphasizes the pleasure component, and denies the possibility of adolescent use. My research contributes to an understanding of institutional change. The legalization of cannabis is unfolding before our eyes at this very moment. It is a great opportunity to observe the process of institutional change in action, rather than post factum. Instead of examining what caused an institutional change in the past, I focus on what enables it right now, namely, what kind of background understandings, practices, and organizations make the legalization of cannabis possible . According to Rao et al. , institutional change is characterized by the transformations in institutional logics and governance structures . In the case of cannabis legalization, social movements were the most important motors of institutional and ideational change; their actions eventually led to the dissolution of old beliefs systems and governance structures and the necessity to create new ones. Since 2015, California has passed seven statutes and propositions regulating different aspects of cannabis-related activities and elaborating on the idea of cannabis. To be naturalized and reproduced in the future, these new understandings of cannabis come to be positively validated in the environment .14 The real meaning of cannabis has to be defined by continuous interaction between regulators, local authorities, market actors, and societyin general. When I say that cannabis legalization is the project under construction, I mean that institutional elements are not yet equilibria : power relations, roles, identities, potential benefits are still being validated and clarified.
My research lies at the intersection of cultural criminology and lawmaking perspective. The primary focus of cultural criminology is the meaning, representation, and power in the contested construction of crime . Cultural criminology incorporates, on the one hand, traditional sociological perspectives and, on the other hand, postmodern theories . The concept of crime embodies a dynamic notion: it is defined as a project under construction, which is shaped by interaction, encoded with collective meaning, and attached to a particular social context. This view is essential for understanding several problems in my research, such as the criminalization of cannabis and stigmatization of its users through the 20th century, the role the mass media and power structures in the social control of illicit substances, the reasons and implications of the war of drugs, etc. Similarly, this approach helps to investigate the nature of the legalization process—the reverse mode of criminalization—and understand the construction of “legal cannabis”, i.e., how it is being depenalized, decriminalized, destigmatized, and deracialized. As for the lawmaking perspective, the following ideas are informative for the current study: Gusfield’s distinction between the instrumental and symbolic functions of law; and the ‘gap studies’ exploring the discrepancy between claims held out for law and its actual effects . According to Gusfield , lawmaking is not only a means of social control but also a symbol of cultural ideals and norms. Symbolic aspects of law are concerned with public morality and defining the line between right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, drying cannabis normal andpathological. In analyzing a legislative act as symbolic, we are oriented towards the meaning people attach to it rather than its instrumental functions. Legal rules are not automatically created and enforced; they result from a moral enterprise undertaken by individuals engaged in defense of their status position and the enforcement of their ethical standards . The temperance movement, for instance, was the response of the old middle class to a changing status system and a perceived loss of moral authority . The government acted as a prestige-granting agency glorifying the values of one group and demeaning those of another. Similar to other culture wars, cannabis regulation in the 20th century reflects a general clash over cultural values between the progressive and conservative camps . In this project, I analyze cannabis legalization through the lens of symbolic politics, cultural dominance, and moral authority. The gap studies allow us to move beyond national-level explanations and empirically investigate the local factors—social, cultural, political, or economic—that affect policy implementation. As Mona Lynch has argued, law as practiced is significantly shaped by local norms and culture . Although the adoption of federal and state regulations predicts homogeneous outcomes across the jurisdiction, there are significant variations at the county and city levels. The notion that legal change happens through ground-up—rather than top-down—processes has gained popularity in socio-legal scholarship recently . The case of cannabis legalization offers another illustration of how social and political culture affects local decision making.
This study focuses on the law-before and the law-in-between processes exploring the adoption and enforcement of morality policies at the city level. Specifically, it explains the gap between public input on cannabis legalization and actual political decisions. This project covers several gaps in the existing literature. First, most studies focus on the legalization of cannabis for medical use. The legalization of cannabis for recreational purposes has a very different rationale behind it, but since it is a relatively new phenomenon, it has not been fully explored yet. Second, cannabis legalization is a subject that attracts the attention of economists, policy analysts, psychologists, biologists, but rarely socio-legal scholars. Criminologists are exclusively interested in how the legalization of cannabis affects crime rates—increases, decreases, or does not change them . Sociologists focus on public attitudes to cannabis, deviance and stigma, identities, or the market formation . However, there is no comprehensive socio-legal analysis of how cannabis shifts from an illicit drug to a legal intoxicant, how the idea of legal cannabis is constructed and institutionalized, or, in short, how cultural, social, and legal change happens. Third, the traditional gap studies focus on the discrepancy between the law-in-the-books and the law-in-action. In other words, scholars are interested in how the initial idea of legislators is implemented in practice. However, there is no single “gap” but multiple types of gaps at different levels of the decision-making process . This perspective is especially important when we analyze morality policies, such as the legalization of abortions, same-sex marriages, gambling, prostitution, or recreational drugs. Fourth, a large body of literature focuses on the symbolic qualities of law: the symbolic role of drug legislation ; the symbolic meaning of “crime control” in political campaigns ; the symbolic character of capital punishment ; the symbolic goals of anti-abortion campaign , and so forth. However, all these studies center on prohibitionist legislation while the permissive morality policies, like cannabis legalization, were not on the radar of the symbolic politics studies. The present study covers this gap in the literature.There is no single definition of the “drug problem.” The term may simultaneously refer to the mere use of illegal drugs, drug use by teenagers, the abuse of drugs, drug-induced behavior that harms others, or domestic and international drug trafficking . The polysemy of the “drug problem” is itself a problem for researchers. The two main traditions in the literature on drugs are the constructionist and the objectivist. The latter examines drugs as objective phenomena that can be measured, counted, and classified . This approach is popular among medical scholars, medical practitioners, psychologists, policy advocates, and legislators. The objectivists typically speak about “drug problems” in the plural and employ it as an umbrella term for drug use, drug abuse, drug addiction, drug trafficking, drug selling, etc. The constructionist approach is common among sociologists, socio-legal scholars, political scienThists, journalists, and policymakers who see the drug problem as a product of political campaigns and social concerns. The basic premise of the constructionist literature is that drugs have an identity beyond pharmacology. To a large extent, these two traditions ignore each other, and their mutual neglect limits our understanding of drugs as a problem: the idea of drugs refers at once to a social construct, a chemical substance, and a legal fiction . Although the current socio-legal literature mostly relies on the constructivist approach, I suggest that we also should not rule out individual experiences that shape the understanding of drugs. In this study, I define the drug problem as: various ways in which societies deal with drugs, i.e., define its meaning, produce competing discourses, establish forms of control and treatment, etc.; and various ways in which individuals experience and respond to drug control, i.e., resist social and institutional pressure, challenge the existing modes of control, mobilize for change, deal with stigma, shape alternative understandings of drugs, etc.