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.

Growing interest in visual timeline methods signals a need for critical engagement. Drawing on critical emancipatory epistemologies in our study exploring resilience among marginalized groups, we investigate how the creation of visual timelines informs verbal semistructured interviewing. We consider both how experiences of drawing timelines and how the role of the timeline in interviews varied for South Asian immigrant women who experienced domestic violence, and street-involved youth who experienced prior or recent violent victimization. Here we focus on three overarching themes developed through analysis of timelines: (a) rapport building, (b) participants as navigators, and (c) therapeutic moments and positive closure. In the discussion, we engage with the potential of visual timelines to supplement and situate semistructured interviewing, and illustrate how the framing of research is central to whether that research maintains a critical emancipatory orientation.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract