Citation

Sandberg S. Addict. Res. Theory 2012; 20(5): 372-381.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.3109/16066359.2011.638147

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In qualitative interviews with 100 cannabis users in Norway, three discursive repertoires were particularly frequent. The first emphasized how users were 'normal' with statements, such as 'everyone smokes cannabis' or 'cannabis users are not different from others'. The second discursive repertoire emphasized the fascinating difference of both users and the drug. Many cannabis users, stated that cannabis was used by 'free-thinking, open people' and triggered creativity. The third discursive repertoire was different techniques of risk denial, arguing that cannabis 'is just a plant' or that cannabis use did not have any harmful consequences. These three discursive repertoires are the empirical foundations for three conflicting theoretical traditions in studies of illegal drugs. Cannabis has been described as 'normalized', interpreted in a subcultural framework, or researchers have emphasized how illegal drug use is neutralized by users. The interdiscursivity of Norwegian cannabis users challenge all three theoretical frameworks and can only be understood by analysing talk as action. This article argues that all three discursive repertoires can be understood as responses to stigmatization. The conclusion is that the theoretical framework of 'normalization' is not the best way to understand cannabis use in Norway and possibly elsewhere.

Language: en

Keywords

Cannabis; narrative criminology; neutralization; normalization; qualitative method; risk denial