Introduction to the Special Issue on Cannabis Legalization: Cannabis Policy at the Twilight of Prohibition

The title of this special issue is borrowed from our colleague Matt Reid, who catalogued the range of cannabis stigmas that persisted even as prohibition appeared to be receding (Reid, 2020). Indeed, cannabis policy has changed rapidly over the past decade. This not only has created opportunities for meaningful reform but also led to a variety of new problems and challenges. This special issue brings together articles from various international contexts to address some of these emerging issues. It is difficult to observe the march of cannabis liberalization across the globe without concluding that cannabis prohibition is unraveling. Long-time opponents of reform have joined the boards of cannabis companies, cannabis advertising adorns billboards and social media sites, and cannabis is increasingly seen as a commercial good rather than a dire existential threat to civilization. Because of this perceptual shift, one might assume that cannabis-related issues will become less relevant to social scientists and legal scholars. However, there are indications that suggest this is not the case. From countries that prohibit cannabis use to those where legalization is decades old, a series of ironies, unintended consequences, and adverse outcomes continue to plague cannabis policy. One issue is that contemporary cannabis research often emphasizes Northern jurisdictions where liberalization dominates the policy debate. However, Western and especially U.S.-inspired models of drug control have led to considerable harm in the global South. These harms persist. For example, in this issue, Nelson and Klantschnig examine illicit cannabis in Nigeria based on interviews and long-term interactions with illicit cannabis cultivators and traders in both rural and urban contexts. They explore the socioeconomic benefits that cannabis offers illegal market actors, document the threats they face from repressive law enforcement, and report concerns about a future legal cannabis market fraught with inequities. African countries are not the only supporters of the prohibitionist approach on the international level, of course. Of continued interest is how alarmist messaging about the risks of cannabis continues to proliferate. Political rhetoric around cannabis has historically produced ironic results. This is especially true when claims being made are not based on empirical research and instead stem from efforts to scare young people away from drug use. This has a long history in North America and is perfectly illustrated in the infamous “This is your brain on drugs” commercial featuring an egg being fried, symbolizing any and all illicit drug use.1 A similar pattern emerges in a paper by Bebre, published in this issue. Based on her analysis of interviews with people in Latvia who use cannabis, when state actors embellish the dangers of cannabis use, people often interpret it as a sign of a lack of knowledge of the subject matter and proceed to ignore their claims. State actors are advised to use empirical evidence and realistic strategies to better reach those they are trying to educate and inform. One area requiring more education and information is medical cannabis. Regulating medical cannabis is a common step in the transition from prohibition to legalization (Newhart and Dolphin, 2019). In Poland, when medical cannabis was legalized in 2017, people who use cannabis turned to online forums to gain insight into how to obtain it legally. Wanke and colleagues decode, illuminate, and interrogate the convergence between medical narratives and recreational goals by analyzing online forum posts. They provide a window into how medical cannabis has been subculturally accommodated in Poland and highlight some of the challenges to come as people who use cannabis compare strains, uses, and the quality of licit and illicit cannabis. Another development leading to legalization is long periods of “de facto” decriminalization. Little is known about these interim periods (Rouhani et al., 2024; Wheeldon and Heidt, 2024). However, based on some studies, racial discrimination may be exacerbated during these times and may persist even in the face of official policy changes (Sheehan, Grucza, and Plunk, 2021). During these periods of legislative limbo, police tend to use discretion and often do not enforce cannabis laws that are on the books (Gunadi and Shi, 2022). In some cases, White people have been treated more leniently even after legalization is fully implemented. In his review of Waiting to Inhale: Cannabis Legalization and the Fight for Racial Justice (Owusu-Bempah and Rehmatullah, 2023), Farrell discusses the authors' critique of cannabis legalization as a missed opportunity to address long-standing racial injustice perpetuated by prohibition. Using empirical evidence and personal narratives, this book illustrates how legalization has primarily benefited a White entrepreneurial class while leaving marginalized communities, particularly those harmed by prohibition, excluded from its economic and social benefits. Other ironies are associated with this transition. During de facto decriminalization, there is evidence that smaller gray market growers emerge because of reduced enforcement activity and focus on larger, more dangerous grow operations (Capler, Boyd, and MacPherson, 2016). These people establish illegal, unlicensed businesses to fill a void in the market, often accruing knowledge of how to produce and market the drug properly. With the implementation of legalization, these smaller growers are usually viewed as criminals. Held out of the market by regulations and fees, large corporate entities with little direct knowledge of cannabis are favored. In her review of The High North: Cannabis in Canada (Hathaway & McCann, 2022), Starr offers a broader view of cannabis legalization in Canada. This edited collection explores the multifaceted impacts of Canada's 2018 cannabis legalization through contributions from both academics and industry participants. This work highlights challenges such as variations in regional regulation and social inequalities in policy implementation. One focus of importance to other jurisdictions contemplating reform is the operation of illicit markets. Since 2018, illicit cannabis has slowly lost ground to the legal, regulated marketplace in Canada. According to a survey from Health Canada in 2023, nearly 75% of consumers obtained their cannabis products from the legal market. This is an increase from surveys conducted in previous years and consistent with recent studies (Wadsworth et al., 2023). However, before regulated cannabis could gain market share, the lack of experienced growers and cannabis producers led to lower quality products. This can create a “lag effect” in which the involvement of organized crime is prolonged because of issues getting high-quality products to market in the face of heavy regulations and fees (Heidt and Wheeldon, 2024). Our understanding of the impact of cannabis legalization on organized crime remains limited. However, Bouchard and his colleagues seek to fill this void by examining existing studies on this topic. In their paper, they propose some recommendations for indicators to assess these impacts, which could aid future drug reform efforts by allowing for pre- and post-legalization comparisons in countries undertaking cannabis reform. Another irony extends to the transition from cannabis as an illegal drug to cannabis as a consumer good. A key issue for social scientists, policymakers, and business professionals is how cannabis industry workers perceive themselves amid policy changes. In his research on this topic, Kinney interviews cannabis professionals to explore how decisions to enter the cannabis industry, commitment level, and the desire to formalize drug identities are affected by the moral meanings attached to cannabis. This research offers new avenues for exploring how identity affects participation in emerging cannabis markets. In their online survey, Athey and Newhart explore several factors associated with the decision to start home-grow operations in legal states. They identify several explanations for growing and, like Kinney, find that identity is of vast importance in these decisions. Even in regions where cannabis is legal, stigma persists. Many employers still test for it and may terminate employees who test positive for THC (Heidt and Wheeldon, 2024). Further, people who use medical cannabis face specific challenges if they must attend drug treatment court. To better understand this issue, Sousa engages in a sociolegal analysis to identify the looming challenges facing drug treatment courts and their tendency to institute a strict abstinence policy in the wake of medical cannabis reform. To do this, he reviews the existing judicial decisions alongside an analysis of qualitative data obtained from three drug treatment courts. The final pair of articles in this issue deals with the Emerald Triangle, an area in Northern California that has long been a hotbed of cannabis cultivation. It seems ironic that these articles focus on racialization and recriminalization in a post-legalization setting, especially in an area that has a long history of cannabis cultivation. Miesel's research examines the racialized construction of cannabis growers in Northern California's Emerald Triangle, particularly the “cartel grower” narrative, through content analysis of media, government reports, and fieldwork, highlighting how these narratives shape U.S. cannabis policy and reinforce anti-immigrant sentiment. In his analysis of archived news stories from 2018 to 2022 in this issue, Kavanaugh demonstrates how some opponents of cannabis policy reform in Northern California instituted “soft” criminalization designed to hamper the recreational market. These measures include exerting financial pressure on cannabis growers and justifying the criminalization of cannabis-related activities because of exaggerated claims of ecological devastation and drug gang involvement in the cannabis trade. Ironically, the paradoxes and contradictions that continue to inform cannabis policy as prohibition recedes may require more research, not less. As this issue suggests, it is especially important to include international voices and views if the harms associated with cannabis prohibition are to be identified, acknowledged, and addressed. We would like to thank the editors of SI, J. Scott Carter and Cameron D. Lippard, for the opportunity to bring international early-career scholars together with more established cannabis researchers. We would also like to acknowledge the anonymous peer reviewers whose time and attention are the bedrock of the peer review process. In a time when truth is contested by those who seek to literally rewrite history, the commitment to peer review has never been more critical. Thank you for working with us. We owe you one.

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.