Though gaining insight into specific groups’ perspectives on marijuana and its legalization is essential in understanding how society views the topic, it is perhaps more important to understand how individuals within various groups think about the topic of legalization. The following chapters focus on this cross-group analysis, not drawing distinctions based on role or employment, as the earlier chapters did.
This type of analysis allows us to attempt to reconstruct different ways of thinking about marijuana and in turn to relate those ways of thinking to how society tends to view issues of legalization. As such, there are few references to the groups examined in chapters 1 through 7 and a much more focused analysis on the individual level. While a public opinion poll can provide excellent answers to broad questions about what aggregate groups think about marijuana, the approach taken here is meant to draw out more specific and nuanced ways of seeing the issue and to contextualize them across individuals and groups.
This, more than providing an important basis for discussion, also moves our understanding of the debate regarding legalization forward and may impact our understanding of future attempts to legalize other “vices.” Thus, it is important to note that although we cannot claim to be representative in our sample, there is no reason to believe that the ideas we uncover in the following chapters are not present in other individuals and groups and at the very least, their discovery here makes further examination—and further discussion—necessary.
A Note on Method
Though there are a number of ways to examine data, we have taken a qualitative, inductive approach called grounded theory akin to that suggested by Charmaz.1 In adopting an approach based on induction, we hope to draw from the data information that already exists—in essence, to help make sense of it beyond the manifest meaning of the speech itself. This is not a single-stage process, and it has developed significantly over the course of the research, with questions in the in-depth interviews probing for additional information about who could be considered an expert and based on what information—and what types of experience—people felt they could rely on. These questions, sometimes direct, were one source of the information gleaned here. Another source were offhand comments within other interview questions, not necessarily directed at the information here. Although often shorter, these sometimes were more enlightening in terms of the overall framework we have developed here.
The flexibility of grounded theory was one of the reasons we felt that its use here was warranted. A second and perhaps more important reason was that we could develop the information and test it as we went. Writing any kind of full text is daunting, but being able to effectively gather, analyze, and interpret the data in a single step has been a significant element within the current analysis, as it has allowed us to go back to participants when necessary to clarify elements or to help us develop new questions for the interviews as the research progressed. Grounded theory itself is designed around this idea of “continuous questioning” and was therefore essential in developing the ideas put forth here.
Three Contested Areas of Legalization
Although there are many interesting elements within the data, there were three primary topics that may generate particularly interesting discussion. First is the role of knowledge and expertise within the legalization framework. The second is the role of language and metaphor within the context of our understanding of marijuana and legalization. Third is the politics of legalization from the standpoint of broader social problems.
Each of these perspectives provides a different lens through which to view the legalization debate. Far from being exclusive, these lenses can be layered in interesting ways, and in each case additional perspective can be gained through that layering. Moreover, as we have tried to contextualize each of the chapters in the broader literature, the chapters open up new opportunities for exploration and discussion for the reader. As this was the goal, we have avoided seeking “definitive” answers in favor of interesting interpretations, though we also believe these interpretations have value as explanations.
Given the reliance of the debate regarding marijuana legalization—both recreational and medical—on some of the frames we put forth, the cross-cutting analyses provided in the next chapters offer what we hope are not only explanations for different perspectives on legalization and the bases of discussion as a topic, but also more general approaches to other “vices” that may be legalized.
Qualitative Assessment
One thing the reader will notice is a lack of quantification in the analysis chapters. There are two reasons for this. First, as discussed in each chapter, the positions held by individuals were often not exclusive, which in turn means that if numbers were presented, they may give a skewed view of the different positions. Additionally, while quantitative support can be helpful for establishing a position’s ascendency, we were much more interested in establishing qualitative bases for discussion, rather than simply presenting a quantitative argument.
Though we have generally eschewed using numbers, it is worth noting that the lenses developed across the next three chapters rely on the more than two hundred interviews conducted. Thus, though some positions were perhaps more quantitatively well-supported, there were few positions that had single adherents, and certainly those were not used to develop the lenses in the following chapters.
Conclusion
Overall, again, it is key to think about these cross-cutting analyses not as particularly focused on providing definitive answers to how individuals or groups see the legalization debate, but as another set of perspectives that inform the legalization debate. Although we do not focus on numbers, we rely on the quality of the evidence, particularly within the quotes we choose to use, to convince the reader that these are valid interpretations. Even if there is disagreement, we hope that this too stirs further conversation and analysis of the legalization debate as a whole.