Argumentation in anonymous online discussions about decriminalising cannabis use

Abstract

Aims: In October 2019, a citizens’ initiative to decriminalise cannabis use started a large debate about drug policy in Finland. This study examines online discussions about the initiative to supplement the current knowledge about citizens’ drug opinions. The focus is especially on argumentation techniques that are used to support or object to the decriminalisation. Design: Methodologically, the study is based on discourse studies, new rhetoric, and argumentation analysis. The data of 1,092 messages were collected from a popular Finnish anonymous discussion forum Ylilauta. Results: Online discussions about the legal status of cannabis are highly polarised. Decriminalisation is often both supported and resisted in a strong and affective manner, and even hate speech is not rare in the data. Statements made by both discussion parties often lack any argumentation or are based on fallacies, especially ad hominem arguments. Some discussants refer to scientific studies and expert statements, even though such references are usually inaccurate. Cannabis is compared to alcohol more often than to other illegal drugs. Conclusions: The emotional responses and inadequate argumentation might be partially explained by the general nature of online discussions and the culture of the investigated website, but also by the powerful stigma related to illegal drugs and insufficient knowledge on the subject. A future objective is to create a societal atmosphere where the complex question of the legal status of cannabis could be discussed more neutrally and rationally.

Twitter activity surrounding the Finnish green party's cannabis legalisation proposal: A mixed-methods analysis

“…Previously, a qualitative study was held about public opinion on a citizens’ initiative to decriminalise cannabis use based on data extracted from the popular Finnish anonymous discussion forum Ylilauta ( Hämäläinen & Lahti, 2021 ). The total anonymity of the platform led to more diverse and free discussions, but our study includes not only topic and thematic content analysis, but also the effects of influencers on public discussions.…”

“…Several studies focusing on the Finnish population suggest that people separate cannabis from other illegal substances and tend to see cannabis as less harmful ( Hakkarainen & Kainulainen, 2021 ; Hakkarainen & Karjalainen, 2017 ; Hämäläinen & Lahti, 2021 ; Karjalainen et al, 2020 ). Our topic analysis shows that the comparison of substances still constitutes the main argument for both the pros and cons of cannabis reform (see also Månsson, 2014 ).…”

”Uuniin siitä” – Väkivaltainen ja toiseuttava verkkokeskustelu Ylilaudalla

“…(Suominen et al 2019, 175-185. ) Ylilaudan keskustelukulttuurille on olennaista provokatiivinen ja ironinen kielenkäyttö (Arjoranta & Koski 2018;Hämäläinen & Lahti 2021;Vainikka 2020, 12;Ylä-Anttila et al 2020). Väkivaltaan viittaavia sisältöjä ei syntykontekstissaan välttämättä siis tulkita väkivaltaisina, ja keskustelukulttuurin monitulkintaisuuden vuoksi 1 Uushomo-ja vanhahomonimitysten avulla käyttäjät tekevät eroa uusien ja vanhojen käyttäjien välillä.…”

Sociodemographic differences and experienced effects of young adults who use cannabis mainly for self-medication versus recreationally in Finland

“…Nordic drug policies are said to be at a crossroad and affected by the situation and development in other European countries (Tham, 2021, p. 299). These political changes and public debates, which nowadays take place increasingly online (Månsson, 2014; Hämäläinen and Lahti, 2021; Unlu and Hupli, 2023), can potentially affect current use practices, requiring researchers to focus their attention on key populations, in this case, young adults who use cannabis, both medically and recreationally.…”