Exam 2 - Drugs and Society

What does a contextual constructionism framework do?

It helps us to understand how drug use comes to be defined as a problem

• It focuses on the collective social processes that determine what conditions are defined as social problems

• Claims-makers (powerful groups) push and define the problems

What does contextual constructionism argue?

Society’s views on substance abuse are shaped by powerful groups and are reinforced through our everyday behaviours, becoming taken for granted assumptions

Contextual constructionists look at:

1. How issues are discussed

2. How claim-makers bring attention to certain problems

3. How the media covers these problems

4. The reaction of the public

5. How policy makers deal with the problem

Contextual Constructionists divide the statements made by claims-makers into 3 groups:

1. Grounds

2. Warrants

3. Claims

Grounds Statements

Statements that form the foundation for interpreting the problem in a certain way

Establish certain boundaries (what is good vs bad, normal vs abnormal, moral vs immoral)

Serve to establish the facts and nature of the problem

• Claims-makers will use stories that are more extreme and evoke emotion in people and give statistics that show how large the problem is

• They will also suggest it is a widespread, contagious problem that is growing geographically

The most fundamental form of claims-making:

is defining the problem by giving it a name - it becomes a new phenomenon that draws the public’s attention

(Considered a grounds statement)

Warrants Statements

Statements that justify drawing attention to a particular conclusion or solution

The problem must be seen as valid by the public

• Persuade people by appealing to their values, whether personal or societal, or moral beliefs

• Persuade people by appealing to their emotional responses by shining light on the plight of vulnerable victims

Conclusions Statements

Statements that are calls to action to alleviate or erase the social problem

Can include long-term or short-term objectives

Once the problem is established, claim-makers will push politicians to bring about change. There are 3 different ways to persuade the public to take action:

1. Rhetoric of rectitude

• Emphasizes moral righteousness

• Focus on immorality, right or wrong

• “This problem violates our social morals and principles”

2. Rhetoric of endangerment

• Emphasizes the risk or danger of individual harm

• The problem is threatening individuals or society

• The action taken will protest the general public

Rhetoric of entitlement

• Emphasizes personal freedom

• Focus on rights, individual choice, freedom to make decisions about own lives

Contextual Constructionists and media representations

Contextual Constructionists argue that media representations of social problems are the central conduit for public information and they shape the public’s understanding of the issues that are being represented

Opium Act (1908)

First official federal drug legislation

Only had to do with opium

Made it an indictable offence to import, manufacture, possess, or sell opium for purposes other than medicinal use

The primary concern centred on maintaining the dominance of the Anglo-Saxan colonizers and their notions of morality

What were the racial aspects of the Opium Act (1908)

Opioid use was associated with Chinese labourers

The concern was that this drug was being used to sexually exploit white women

Reformists thought that cultural differences of outsiders were a threat to the powerful white Europeans

Reformists presented young white women as the epitome of innocence and purity (being seduced by members of the racialized other)

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act (1911)

Added cocaine to controlled drugs list

Came from the work of Emily Murphy (“The Black Candle”)

Emily Murphy (“The Black Candle”)

She claimed that Black men were peddling cocaine, encouraging interracial sex and sexual promiscuity, and that they had a propensity for violence

These claims justified harsh treatment of anyone found guilty under this law

Narcotic Control Act (1961)

1955 Senate Committee held hearings on the Traffic in Narcotic Drugs in Canada

They heard testimony from civilians and experts (researchers, police, doctors)

Academics and physicians recommended expanding treatment facilities (they supported medicalizing opioid addiction)

Under this act, the maximum penalties were raised from 14 years to life imprisonment

The Alcohol and Tobacco Paradox

The social costs of drugs are far greater for alcohol and tobacco than for all illicit drugs combined

A 2002 study from the Canadian Center for Substance Abuse found:

A societal cost analysis found that tobacco accounted for 17 billion dollars in costs (healthcare, law enforcement, prevention, research)

Alcohol accounted for 15 billion dollars in social costs

All of the illegal drugs combined accounted for 8 billion dollars

Costs of Human Life

The same study found that over 37 thousand deaths were attributed to tobacco

Under 1700 deaths were attributed to all illegal drugs combined in the same year

Prohibition

Is essentially criminalization

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)

The CDSA is Canada’s criminal statute, whereby any violation constitutes a criminal act necessitating some form of punishment

Several hundred substances are prohibited under Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which carries criminal penalties for use, possession, distribution, trafficking, cultivation and manufacturing, and importing and exporting

De facto versus De jure prohibition

De facto prohibition: Restrictions exist through social practices, policies, and regulations but are not formally written into law

De jure prohibition: Restrictions are formally established through laws with specific legal penalties

Advantages of prohibiting psychoactive substances

Reduces consumption: Making substances illegal may discourage people from experimenting with or using drugs

Reinforces social values: Laws establish moral boundaries and communicate which behaviours society considers unacceptable

Protects public health: Prohibiting particularly dangerous substances may prevent some potential harms

Disadvantages of prohibiting psychoactive substances

Financial costs: Significant taxpayer money goes toward policing, courts, and prisons rather than healthcare and rehabilitation

Increase in total crime: Under prohibition, production, sales, purchasing, and consuming drugs are all defined as crimes, which increases the total number of offences that occur each year

Encourages violence and corruption: Illegal markets operate without legal protections, increasing violence, bribery, and exploitation

Creates health risks: No quality control means substances may be contaminated or have unpredictable potency, increasing overdose risks

Undermines morality and civil liberties: Criminalization can disproportionately target marginalized groups and encourage invasive policing practices

Limitations of prohibition

Does not eliminate drug use or demand

Creates underground markets and organized crime

Does not necessarily reduce the overall harms associated with substance use

The Le Dain Commission's Final Report (1973)

A Canadian government commission that investigated non-medical drug use and the effectiveness of Canada's drug laws

• Challenged the effectiveness of criminalizing drug users

• Recommended decriminalizing personal cannabis use

• Considered decriminalizing other recreational psychoactive substances

• Supported maintaining criminal penalties for trafficking and unauthorized production

Main argument: Individual drug users should not automatically be treated as criminals. Drug policy should distinguish personal consumption from drug trafficking

Limitations of prohibition that the Le Dain Commission identified

1. Criminal records: Limit future opportunities and personal freedoms

2. Criminal involvement: People must break the law or associate with criminals to access drugs

3. Deviant subcultures: Criminalization encourages underground drug-using communities

4. Undermines drug education: Reduces the credibility of drug education

5. Disrespect for law: Creates disrespect for laws and law enforcement

6. Police morale: Negatively affects law enforcement morale

7. Police resources: Diverts resources away from more important responsibilities

Decriminalization

Removing criminal penalties for personal drug use and possession

Civil or administrative penalties, such as fines, may still apply

• Trafficking and unauthorized production generally remain criminal offences.

• Focuses on treatment, education, and individual users rather than punishment

Advantages of decriminalization

Greater public support: Generally receives more public support than full legalization.

Does not necessarily encourage drug use: Recognizes that drug users are not automatically criminals without suggesting that drug consumption is acceptable.

Focuses law enforcement on suppliers: Allows police to concentrate on trafficking and production rather than individual users

Disadvantages of decriminalization

Potential increase in consumption: Removing criminal penalties may encourage experimentation and continued use

Uncertain effectiveness: Difficult to determine whether decriminalization reduces overall drug-related harms

Advantages of legalization

Tax revenue: Generates government revenue that can fund healthcare and social services.

Employment: Creates jobs through legal production and distribution.

Reduces organized crime: Takes away some economic power from illegal drug markets.

Improves public health: Allows greater focus on treatment, education, and harm reduction.

Quality control: Government regulation improves product safety and consistency.

Reduces enforcement costs: Less government spending on policing and criminalizing users

Potentially reduces crime and corruption: Reduces reliance on illegal markets

Disadvantages of legalization

Increased consumption: Greater availability may encourage experimentation and regular use

Uncertainty: Limited long-term evidence about the effects of legalizing previously illegal substances

Different levels of harm: Not all substances have the same risks, so they may require different regulations

Limited research: Experiences with cannabis legalization cannot necessarily predict the effects of legalizing other substances

Does not eliminate harm: Legalization alone does not guarantee reductions in substance abuse or social problems

Three Models of Legalization

1. Free-Market Legalization (The most liberal model)

2. Limited-distribution legalization

3. Medicalization (The most restrictive model)

Free-Market Legalization

Founded on the notion of freedom of responsibility (associated with neoliberalism)

Key Characteristics

• Unregulated Supply: Unlike government-regulated legal models, there is no official oversight regarding product content, purity, or safety labeling.

• No Criminal Penalties: Engaging in the production or sale of the goods does not trigger criminal prosecution or police enforcement.

• Market-Driven Pricing: Prices, availability, and competition are controlled strictly by supply and demand, just like a standard free market.

Some argue that free-market legalization is not a viable solution for psychoactive substances that are currently controlled because it could lead to a substantial number of citizens consuming the substances and experiencing devastating effects

Limited-distribution legalization

A regulatory framework where a previously prohibited substance, product, or drug is made legal, but its supply, sale, and physical access are heavily restricted through government-controlled or heavily capped channels

In Canada, both alcohol and tobacco are legalized under a limited distribution model

A limited distribution model with age restrictions and regulated outlets would be more effective and humane than the current criminal justice approach

Medical legalization

The process of removing criminal penalties and establishing a state-regulated system that allows patients with specific health conditions to legally obtain, possess, and use cannabis under the supervision of a licensed healthcare practitioner.

Study from 2005-2008 North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI)

Found that a supervised treatment approach could help people with long-term opioid dependence who had not benefited from conventional treatments.

Participants receiving supervised treatment with injectable medication had better treatment retention and greater reductions in illegal drug use than participants receiving oral methadone treatment alone.

About 88% of participants receiving diacetylmorphine remained in treatment after one year, compared with 54% receiving methadone

What can Labelling Theory be used for

Can be used to explore how society attaches meaning and stereotypes to drugs and objects associated with them, which can stigmatize people who use drugs

Labelling theorists examine why drug users continue to do so (after they have been caught and sanctioned)

Different forms of control under Labelling Theory

Informal Social Control

• Not imposed by law ex. Being stigmatized by peers/verbal ridicule

Formal Social Control

• ex. Being arrested, fined, jailed, fired/losing children or driver’s licence

Process of Labelling

Once an individual is caught, they are given a label of being a deviant

Once an individual has been assigned this label, it starts a process wherein they face exclusion, rejection, and ostracization

This can result in a person being more committed to the undesirable behaviour

Self-fulfilling prophecy under Labelling Theory

Individuals identify with that label, and it becomes their master status; they see themselves as that label

They are more disconnected from society, and they see themselves as too far gone

They associate more with and spend more time with people who are engaging in the same behaviour and have the same label

What does heroin use symbolize for users and non-users

Users

• Find community and meaning in each other (find solace in like-minded people)

• Sense of escape and pleasure

• Stand-in for romance or sexual intimacy

• Prideful in skills and knowledge of their heroin use (making, obtaining, using, avoiding detection)

Non-Users

• Telling of right behaviours versus wrong behaviours

• Users symbolize a loss of agency or self-control

• Users threaten cultural values

• Users are blamed for undermining a sense of order

• Users are seen as very dangerous criminals in society

• Fear of loss of control (of the self)

Normalization Thesis

The use of illicit drugs has not only increased but they have also become more socially and culturally accepted by non-users.

Both users and non-users see illicit drug use as legitimate

Differentiated Normalization

Allows for the ways in which different types of drugs and drug use may be normalized for different groups of people

How had Marijuana use become more mainstream

Use enters mainstream culture - becomes normalized - informal social control is less effective at deterring people from using - prevalence grows

Users maintain a sense of distance from the criminal or deviant label

Attitudes have changed towards widespread tolerance of users because of rates of use rising in the general population

How has the symbolic value of Marijuana changed

Many people are open about marijuana use - admitting use and being forthcoming about it

Symbolic value is now ambiguous - it no longer suggests a clear ideological diving line between what is good and bad

Its symbolic value is ambiguous, no longer suggesting a clear sense of ideological cohesion

Marijuana data from National Drug Surveys

Nearly half of Canadians older than 14 have used marijuana at least once

Younger people are more likely to have used it in their lifetime, with more than 66% of respondents being 18-19 (being recent users)

Master Status –> Practice of Self

Marijuana use is no longer designated as a subculture or subgroup with a distinct ideology or pattern of behaviour. It is now a regular aspect of one’s daily life; It is no longer a Master Status

Using - Transition from Adolescence to Adulthood

Theorists argue that social outlook on drug use might be changing because of the lengthening transition from adolescence to adulthood and adjustment between balance of leisure time vs work.

Rates of substance use are higher among young people who have fewer responsibilities.

Some research indicates that marijuana use is often abandoned when young people become adults (more responsibility and less free time).

2022 Norwegian Study conducted by Bilgrei, et al.

Individual interviews with Norwegian adolescents completed in 4 stages

Studied how cannabis use is constructed and thought of through ages; what does it symbolize

• Found that the meaning of cannabis use evolves during adolescence

• It moved from a distant symbol of addiction and marginalization to increasing accommodation and acceptance

Norwegian Study: Stage 1 (12-13 Years Old)

Cannabis was presented as a highly addictive drug

Students linked cannabis use to peer pressure

Students compared the risks of Cannabis and other drugs, especially alcohol

Kids did not report personal cannabis use, so their discussions related to their symbolic meanings of the drug

Sources of knowledge were mainly from school and their parents

Saw the use as a result of poor childhood, linked it with addiction and marginalization, stemming from poor upbringing/social and individual problems

Saw as a solution to the problems people were experiencing; it was lumped in with other highly addictive and illicit drugs

Norwegian Study: Stage 2 (14-15 years old)

Some described it as distant, dangerous, and addictive, while for some it was a tangible object subject to negotiation

Alternative sources of knowledge: Media and phones (Mild media portrayals temper the very negative perspectives)

Majority were still skeptical, seen as dangerous

Some saw it as a stepping stone to other drugs

There was a slight move toward it being an option available to them, as a possible drug of choice

Norwegian Study: Stage 3 (15-16 years old)

increasing number who described personal drug experiences

Increasingly differentiated cannabis use with other types of drugs

Social identities linked to use were increasingly based on their peers

Move towards increasing acceptance

Norwegian Study: Stage 4 (16-17 years old)

More users and non-users increasingly described it as a normal activity, used for pleasure and relaxation

Shifted from a symbol of addiction and marginalization, to representing a drug that was used for recreational purposes

25% said they had smoked cannabis

Liberal Conflict Theorists vs Marxist Conflict Theorists

When was Cannabis criminalized in Canada

1923

Comparing where government funding goes

The amount of funding dedicated to law enforcement is 3 times the amount allocated to treatment, 18 times the amount given to prevention, and 28 times the amount devoted to harm reduction

The resistance against smoking

Began in the 1890s by Christian women as part of the larger social gospel movement

Smoking cigarettes was once linked to the deterioration of white Canadian values

Smoking after WWI

Smoking was seen as respectable, and women in this era used tobacco to challenge conventions of male dominance.

Young women who smoked symbolized impurity and social degradation to an anxious older generation of adults.

The Heroin Subculture

After the post-war era, injecting heroin became the ultimate symbol of defiance and resistance to Canadian social norms.

Heroin users were predominantly white, working-class young people.