Cannabis, risk and normalisation: evidence from a Canadian study of socially integrated, adult cannabis users

Abstract

Howard Parker's 'normalisation thesis' has made a significant contribution to youth drug studies in many countries. Parker's thesis has been less investigated, however, for its application across the life course, and few scholars have considered its utility for assessments of the meaning and experience of drug-related health risks. This article adds to discussions of drugs, normalisation and risk by analysing qualitative data collected from 165 long-term cannabis users aged 20-49 years in four Canadian provinces between 2008 and 2010. We focus on participants' assessments of the risks and harms associated with persistent cannabis use and the strategies they employed to mitigate these risks. Our findings indicate important distinctions between culturally mediated conceptions of cannabis-related risks and the more narrowly grounded perception of cannabis harms based on personal or peer experience. These distinctions correspond with participants' reports of a significant shift in cannabis' risk profile in Canada. Participants attributed this shift to three factors: the growing prevalence of cannabis use; the rise of 'medical marijuana' and renewed attention to the drug's therapeutic benefits and what they perceived to be the low incidence of cannabis-related harms in Canada. We conclude that understanding how health risks are assessed and managed by cannabis users should help to clarify how and why more tolerant attitudes about cannabis have emerged in Canada and how this change may impact on non-users' expectations about any future initiation of use. We close by reflecting on the implications of our findings for cannabis-related public health, education and harm reduction initiatives.

Perspectives on Cannabis Legalization Among Canadian Recreational Users

“…These participants, like others throughout the normalization literature, have developed rates of cannabis use that are dictated not by the illegality of the drug, but rather by family duties, work responsibilities, financial considerations, and personal preference. As such, they are similar to those reported in other studies in that their lived experience with cannabis use is at odds with the current laws (Asbridge et al, 2016; Brochu et al, 2011; Duff et al, 2012; Duff & Erickson, 2014).…”

“…Various aspects of cannabis normalization among Canadian users have been explored by several researchers. This research has been primarily concerned with understanding consumption patterns, risk assessment, and how users control their use (Duff & Erickson, 2014;Hathaway, 1997aHathaway, , 1997bHathaway, , 2003, how use shapes identity (Mostaghim & Hathaway, 2013), and how users manage the stigma associated with this practice (Hathaway, 2004a(Hathaway, , 2004bHathaway, Comeau, & Erickson, 2011). Brochu, Bissell, and Balneaves (2011) found that lifetime cannabis users were woefully ignorant of cannabis policy in Canada, particularly the risk of arrest, and such ignorance contributed to their normalization of cannabis use.…”

Study Drugs “Don’t Make You Smarter”

“… 7. Other research, though not addressing the drug normalization framework directly and usually limited to athletes or specific subcultures of drug use, is also engaging in the conceptual work of problematizing this dichotomy (Duff & Erickson, 2014; Monaghan, 2002; Pappa & Kennedy, 2013; Race, 2009; Vecitis, 2011). …”

Prelegalisation patterns and trends of cannabis use among Canadian youth: results from the COMPASS prospective cohort study

“…Other factors have recently been suggested, for example, seeing drugs as a means of achieving normal goals, such as cannabis use by athletes to enhance performance 41–43. Indicators for the normalisation of cannabis use have been prevalent in Canada for some time 34 44–46. Subsequent to reduced restriction of medical cannabis in 2014, rates of students who thought cannabis easy to access significantly increased in 2015/2016 (Y4) and rose in tandem with further deregulation 1 2.…”