Cannabis normalization and stigma: Contemporary practices of moral regulation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabis (marijuana) has undergone a normalizing process as indicated by high use rates, social tolerance, and broader cultural acceptance of its use in many countries. Yet, consistent with its status as a banned drug, users still face the threat of legal sanctions and experiences of stigma that challenge the assumptions of the normalization thesis. In this paper we shed light on extra-legal forms of stigma based on in-depth interviews with marijuana users ( N = 92) randomly recruited in the city of Toronto. Notwithstanding indications of a normalizing process in respondents’ understanding and experience of use, mainstream conventional perspectives about cannabis as risky, even marginal or deviant, were prominent as well. The findings are interpreted with reference to Goffman’s (1963) theoretical distinction between normalization and the more apt description of normification reflected in the attitudes of marijuana users. Consistent with the latter term, these data indicate that stigma is internalized by users which results in the active reinforcement and performance of established cultural requirements emphasizing self-control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it