Framing the User: Social Constructions of Marijuana Users

Topics: Social movement, Cannabis, Hashish Pages: 29 (9806 words) Published: February 3, 2012
Framing the User: Social Constructions of Marijuana Users and the Medical Marijuana Movement

Nelson A. Pichardo Almanzar Dept. of Sociology Central Washington University Ellensburg, WA 98926

Thanks to Laura Appleton and Ericka Stange for comments on an earlier draft. Thanks also to Kirk Johnson for his assistance in locating criminal data sets.

Framing the User: Social Constructions of Marijuana Users and the Medical Marijuana Movement

ABSTRACT Social movements are continuously engaged in the act of framing. Whether it is to present their message in a positive light or to cast their opponent’s arguments in a negative light, SMs find it necessary to engage in a public contest over how they are perceived. Although the SM literature has been focusing on questions related to framing it has not given much attention to a particular class of framing “objects”: that is, users. This is not surprising considering that the social constructions of users are only pertinent to a narrow range of movements having to deal with drug use. Only a few significant movements pertain among them the Prohibition, Tobacco Control, Marijuana Reform, and Medical Marijuana movements. This paper explores social constructions of marijuana users over the years and how the medical marijuana issue has altered these constructions as a means to understand the framing processes involved and the changing public conceptions of marijuana reform with an eye toward explaining movement outcomes.


There are many elements of social movements that are subject to the act of framing. Framing is simply the social meaning given to various social movement elements among which include global perceptions of the movement and its legitimacy, perceptions of activists, attributions of cause and responsibility, proposed solutions, reasons for taking action, and the degree of resonance with the larger culture (Benford and Snow 2000). As noted by Benford and Snow (2000), there has been a significant increase in the amount of scholarly attention to this subject. Although this attention to framing processes has increased our understanding of social movement processes there are still a number of gaps in the literature (see Benford and Snow 2000 for a fuller discussion). One such “gap” is the failure to attend to the variety of movements that exist and the unique framing concerns that these movement types may confront. In particular, I wish to focus on a movement that marks a distinction between activists and “users”, that is, movements that deal with drug use. In particular, this paper will focus on the Medical Marijuana movement and how it has influenced and affected perceptions of marijuana users with an eye toward understanding the outcomes of the movement. Collective Action Frames Collective action frames are not static entities. Rather they are dynamic and processual in nature. That is, they are continually negotiated and renegotiated meanings. Social movements attempt to influence the outcome of these meanings but they are not the sole contributors to the meanings created. Framing contests take place in multiorganizational arenas. As noted by Gamson (1992), “[c]ollective action frames are not merely aggregations of individual attitudes and perceptions” (p. 111). In addition to movement activists, antagonists, bystanders, the media, and the government are also


involved in what is referred to as the “politics of signification” (Hall 1982). Frames are contested and contentious and imply agency and purpose. Because of the involvement of many different parties, many of the inputs into the process of signification are beyond the control of movement activists and in fact are subject to direct repudiation. This is referred to as counterframing, which are attempts “to rebut, undermine, or neutralize a person’s or group’s myths, versions of reality, or interpretive frame-work” (Benford 1987:75). Prominent among the parties involved in this...

Bibliography: n.d. American Medical Marijuana Association. Home page. October 2002. Andersen, Patrick. 1981. High in America. NY: Penguin Books. n.d. Alliance for Reform of Drug Policy in Arkansas. Home page. October 2002. Benford, Robert D. 1987. Framing Activity, Meaning, and Social Movement Participation: The Nuclear Disarmament Movement. PhD thesis. University of Texas, Austin. __________, and David A. Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:611-639. Blocker, Jack S. 1989. American Temperance Movements: Cycles of Reform. Boston: Twayne Publishers. Bock, Alan W. 2000. Waiting to Inhale: The Politics of Medical Marijuana. Santa Ana, CA: Seven Locks. Boorstein, Michael. 1998. “Medical Marijuana Proponents Move Toward Mainstream.” Associated Press. November 9. Cherrington, Ernest H. 1969. The Evolution of Prohibition in the United States. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith. Clark, Norman H. 1976. Deliver Us From Evil: An Interpretation of American Prohibition. New York: Norton.
Cooley, Ericka. 1997. The Cultural Politics of NORML: Conflicting Constructions of the Marijuana Law Reform Issue in the 1970s. MA thesis. State University of New York, Albany. Copley News. 2002. “Medical marijuana grower, activist grower gets warning letter from DEA.” Jeff MacDonald. September 20. Dallas Observer. 2002. “Joint Effort.” Mark Donald. March 22. DiChiara, Albert and John F. Galliher. 1994. “Dissonance and Contradictions in the Origins of Marihuana Decriminalization.” Law and Society Review 28:41-77. n.d. Government Publications on Drugs and Drug Policy. October 2002. Ellis, Samuel. 1848. The History of the Order of the Sons of Temperance. Boston: Stacy, Richardson & Co. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports, 1980-2001. Wash., D.C.: US Government Printing Office. Gamson, William A. 1992. Talking Politics. NY: Cambridge University Press. Glantz, Stanton, John Slade, Lisa A. Bero, Peter Hanauer and Deborah E. Barnes. 1996. The Cigarette Papers. Berkeley: University of California Press. Grinspoon L, Bakalar JB. 1993. Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gerhards, J and Dieter Rucht. 1992. “Mesomobilization: Organizing and framing in Two Protest Campaigns in West Germany.” American Sociological Review 98:555595.
Goodwin, Jeff, James M. Jasper, and Francesca Polletta, (eds.) 2001. Passionate Politics: Emotions and Social Movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Grinspoon L, Bakalar JB, Zimmer L, Morgan JP. 1997. Marijuana addiction [Letter]. Science 277:749; discussion, 750—752. Hall, S. 1982. “The Rediscovery of Ideology: Return to the Repressed in Media Studies.” In Culture, Society, and the Media, ed. M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curon, J Wollacott, pp. 56-90. NY: Methuen Press. Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A. Benson, Jr., editors. Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C. Jasper, James M. and Dorothy Nelkin. 1992. The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth of a Moral Protest. NY: Free Press. _________ and Poulsen, J.D. 1995. “Recruiting Strangers and Friends: Moral Shocks and Social Networks in Animal Rights and Anti-Nuclear Protests.” Social Problems 42:493-512. Johnston, Lloyd D., Patrick M. O’Malley and Jerald G. Bachman. 2000. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-2000. Vol. 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Wash., D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Kerr, K. Austin. 1985. Organized for Prohibition. New Haven: Yale University Press. Krout, John A. 1925. The Origins of Prohibition. NY: Russell & Russell. Las Vegas Review-Journal. 1998.
_________. 1998. “Medical Marijuana Backers Not Just Blowing Smoke.” Naftali Bendavid. October 28. __________. 1998. “Medical Marijuana: If initiative Drive Succeeds, Nevada May Emerge as Drug-War Battleground.” Rafael Tammariello. June 14. Lewiston Morning Tribune. 1998. “Give Medical Marijuana Choice to Doctors, Not State.” Jim Fisher. October 27. n.d. “Federal Government Actions Against Medical Marijuana Individuals/Organizations.” October 2002. Mian, Marla G. 1988. A Dramatist Analysis of the Anti-Tobacco Movement and the Countermovement Response, 1957-1972. PhD, Northwestern University. National Opinion Research Center. 2000. General Social Surveys, 1972-2000. Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Pew Center Research. 2001. News Release. Wash., D.C. Queary, Paul. 1998. “Medical Marijuana Measures Fine-Tuned to Attract Voters ' Compassion.” October 23. __________. 1998. “Medical Marijuana Measure Tuned to Voters ' Compassion.” Associated Press. October 16. Randall, Robert C. and Alice M. O’Leary. 1998. Marijuana Rx: The Patients’ Fight for Medicinal Pot.” NY: Thunder’s Mouth Press. San Francisco Chronicle. 1996. “U.S. Drug Czar Visits Haight, Denounces Medical Use of Pot.” Sabin Russell. August 16. _________. 1994. “Crusade to Legalize Medical Marijuana.” Maria Alicia Gaura. February 7.
Seattle Times. 1998. “Medical Marijuana – ‘Magic Brownies’ Helped Extend, Improve Father’s Life.” February 27. _________. 1998. “Medical Marijuana – How Can We Deny Relief to Devastatingly Ill Citizens?” January 31. Schmitz, Richard and Chuck Thomas. 2001. “State-by-State Medical Marijuana Laws: How to Remove the Threat of Arrest.” Wash., D.C.: Marijuana Policy Project Foundation. Snow, David and Robert D. Benford. 1992. “Master Frames and Cycles of Protest.” In Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, eds. Aldon Morris and Carol Mueller, pp. 133-155. New Have: Yale University Press. Stein, Joel. 2002. “The New Politics of Pot.” Time Magazine, November 4. n.d. “Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes?” November 2002. Time Magazine. 2002. “Is America Going to Pot?” November, 4. White, Larry C. 1988. Merchants of Death. NY: Beech Tree. Wolfson, Mark. 2000. The Fight Against Big Tobacco. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Zeese, Kevin B. 1999. “Research Findings on Medicinal Properties of Marijuana.” Wash., D.C.: Common Sense for Drug Policy.
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Essay on IT User NVQ
  • social media detrimental to a users health Essay
  • User 335851220142 Essay
  • Essay about User Manual
  • End User Essay
  • User Interfaces Essay
  • Essay about Internet Users

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free