Framing the User: Social Constructions of Marijuana Users Essay Example

movement on perceptions of marijuana users and comprehend its resulting outcomes.

Collective Action Frames are not fixed. They are constantly changing and evolving. These frames are a result of ongoing negotiations and discussions. Social movements aim to shape these meanings, but they are not the only ones involved in creating them. These framing contests occur in multiorganizational spaces.

According to Gamson (1992), collective action frames are more than just a combination of individual attitudes and perceptions (p. 111). The "politics of signification," as referred to by Hall (1982), involve not only movement activists but also antagonists, bystanders, the media, and the government. Frames are disputed and contentious, and signify agency and purpose. Due to the participation of multiple parties, movement activists have limited control over the inputs in the process of signification and their ideas can be directly rejected.

This is known as counterframing, which involves efforts to challenge or negate the misconceptions, perspectives, or interpretive frameworks held by individuals or groups (Benford 1987:75). The media and government play a crucial role in this process, despite activists having little control over these channels. These entities often fabricate the narratives associated with social movements and their concerns. The primary objective of framing within social movements is to gain support for the cause. Framing achieves this goal through various means.

First, the text highlights the importance of identifying the problem and locus of attribution. According to Gerhards and Rucht (1992:580), the more issues that a frame covers, the wider the range of social groups it can address, and the more mobilization capacity it possesses.

Second, frames can differ in terms of their flexibility, rigidity, inclusivity, and exclusivity. The more

flexible and inclusive a collective action frame is, the more appealing it can be to the public.

Third, frames also vary in their interpretive scope and influence. If a frame has a broad scope, it can function as a "master frame" (Snow and Benford 1992) with significant influence.

Master frames are highly appealing to the population, thereby increasing the appeal of the movement. Examples of master frames consist of democracy, victimization, and individual rights frames. Additionally, frames differ in cultural resonance, with greater resonance resulting in higher effectiveness or mobilizing potential.

The success of framing efforts is a result of its credibility, which can be determined by three factors: frame consistency, empirical credibility, and the credibility of the frame articulators or claimsmakers (Benford and Snow 2000:619). Consistency refers to the alignment between the beliefs, claims, and actions of the social movement organization (SMO). The more aligned these elements are, the more credible their frame becomes. Empirical credibility refers to the extent to which the claims can be proven through empirical evidence. Naturally, if the SMO's claims are more empirically credible, they will have a greater impact.

Empirical credibility is subjective, and a social movement organization (SMO) may face difficulties if it cannot extend its credibility beyond its core activists. The credibility of those articulating the message impacts the persuasiveness of their claims. These factors collectively influence the appeal of a movement. Furthermore, the frame's relevance to mobilization targets is also crucial, with centrality, experiential commensurability, and narrative fidelity forming the three dimensions of saliency. Centrality pertains to how fundamental the movement's beliefs, values, and ideas are to the lives of the mobilization targets (Benford and Snow 2000:621).

The level of

experiential commensurability is related to how well a frame aligns with the personal, everyday experiences of the target audience. Another factor that influences the importance of a frame is narrative fidelity, which examines how consistent the frame is with the cultural stories of the target audience. In theory, if a frame is more central and has a stronger connection to personal experiences and cultural resonance, it will be more significant to mobilizing the target audience.

The text discusses the framing perspective and its application to various movements. However, it notes that the framing perspective has not been applied to "user" movements, which are unique movements involving the consumption of potentially harmful products. This implies that framing contests occur regarding conceptions of the user and perceptions of the substances' effect.

The public's perception of the user and the substance's effects are important in evaluating the credibility and results of user movements. However, it should be noted that this distinction is somewhat artificial as many movements face similar challenges. For instance, the Civil Rights movement greatly relied on how the public perceived African Americans. If the public viewed them as lazy or criminal, it would likely impact how the Civil Rights movement as a whole was seen. This underscores a common differentiation between the populations benefiting from a movement and those actively engaged in it.

Simply put, any movement that clearly separates its activists from those who benefit from the movement's cause (examples being child welfare, disabilities rights, abolition, and abortion rights movements) must also consider this framing concern. The key difference between "user" movements and other beneficiary-based movements is that in the former, the beneficiaries are unwillingly placed in

that role, whereas in the latter, they are not.

The task faced by "user-based" movements is challenging as they must shape their message carefully. Involuntary beneficiaries have the potential to adopt a victimization frame, while voluntary beneficiaries cannot. Additionally, user movements are further constrained by the need to consider public perception of the substance being used. The overall legitimacy of the movement heavily relies on how the public views both the user and the effects of the substance. In contrast to the Prohibition movement in earlier centuries that aimed to prohibit alcohol consumption, the goals of Medical Marijuana and Marijuana Reform movements differ slightly. These movements aim to legitimize individuals who are already stigmatized (marijuana smokers), while Prohibition sought to stigmatize individuals (alcohol drinkers) who were previously socially accepted. Within early Prohibition movement, there were varying perspectives on drinkers.

In the early- and mid-1800s, the Prohibition movement (also known as a temperance movement) aimed to portray the elite as responsible drinkers, while negatively casting the working class and immigrants as incapable of handling alcohol. However, the attempt to stigmatize these previously unstigmatized individuals had limited effectiveness. The Sons of Washington, an organization formed in the 1830s as part of the Prohibition movement, specifically aimed to shield drinkers from public criticism.

The Prohibition movement's eventual success can be attributed to the changing framing processes, specifically attribution frames, that occurred over more than a century. At first, the movement tried to place the blame on the drinker, but this approach only had limited success. Then, they shifted their focus to blaming the saloon, but this also had limited success.

The movement was successful when they shifted their focus to targeting the

liquor trust as the cause of the attribution issue. The perception of drinkers transformed into that of individuals controlled by a powerful addictive substance. This created the perception that drunk individuals were merely victims of alcohol (Blocker 1989). Similarly, the Tobacco Control movement aimed to stigmatize cigarette smoking, previously seen as a harmless activity. They accomplished this by changing the image of cigarette smokers from glamorous Hollywood stars to individuals with hacking coughs who were harming their own health and that of others through second-hand smoke. This transformation was influenced by four factors: medical studies, increasing awareness of tobacco's addictive properties, the deceitful practices of the tobacco industry, and their misleading advertising methods.

Medical research on tobacco consumption has greatly influenced the public's perception of tobacco (Wolfson 2001). The way society views tobacco users is strongly influenced by medical opinions and studies. Although early medical studies conducted before 1950 produced varying results, it was in the 1960s that irrefutable evidence linking smoking to lung cancer became apparent.

The Surgeon General's office reports were instrumental in establishing the negative health effects of smoking tobacco. The Surgeon General has issued over 25 reports on the health consequences of tobacco use (Wolfson 2001). In contrast, the tobacco industry used deceptive practices to promote tobacco positively and hide information about its harmful effects and addictive nature. Moreover, criticism was directed at the industry for misleading advertising that specifically targeted children (Glantz et al 1996; White 1988; Wolfson 2001). These unethical tactics allowed the Tobacco Control movement to present smokers as unwitting victims of a conspiracy by the tobacco industry, unknowingly exposed to a highly addictive substance with severe health consequences due

to deceitful methods. However, the movement achieved success only when it shifted its primary focus from smokers' health to advocating for nonsmokers' rights (Mian 1988).

Perceptions of Marijuana Users and its Effects: A Historical Overview

Marijuana and its users have been perceived negatively for some time. As noted by Aldrich (1970), marijuana is illegal today because for many centuries Westerners have believed a set of myths in which cannabis has been associated with anti-Christianity, violence, insanity, narcotics, war, master-slave relationships, fanatic murder cults, non-white races, subjugated peoples, primitives, sybarites, immoralists, and The Enemy (p. 1). It seems marijuana has a long association with negative images.

In the 1930s, Harry Anslinger, as the Bureau of Narcotics' leader, played a crucial role in perpetuating negative perceptions about marijuana. Although he did not create these views, he exploited them by spreading terrifying stories of crimes associated with marijuana. These tales gained substantial attention from numerous newspapers and magazines. One particularly famous story involved a polite young man from Florida who smoked a marijuana cigarette and proceeded to brutally murder his entire family using an ax.

During the peak of Anslinger's anti-marijuana campaign, an unprecedented number of mothers were brutally murdered, many virgins were lured into the heinous world of white slavery, and countless siblings lost their heads. The 1936 film Reefer Madness perfectly encapsulated the prevailing mentality of that era, portraying casual marijuana use as a direct pathway to murder, rape, prostitution, addiction, insanity, and death (1981:5051). Immigrants, Mexicans, and jazz musicians were predominantly associated with marijuana use at the time, as they were marginalized groups who faced widespread contempt from mainstream America (Anderson 1981). By the 1950s, the portrayal of marijuana

as a whole had become overwhelmingly negative.

Fiorello LaGuardia, mayor of New York, led a group of voices that tried to present a different viewpoint. Unfortunately, they were deliberately discredited before their findings could be made public (Anderson 1981). Until the 1960s, marijuana use was primarily associated with marginalized communities and was not considered a major societal concern. However, this perception changed when student activism and the counterculture movement emerged. Overnight, marijuana became highly politicized and evolved from being an illegal substance to becoming a potent symbol of youth rebellion.

Furthermore, there was a significant shift in the social class composition of marijuana users as it expanded beyond marginalized social groups. In the 1960s, middle-class, white, college-educated individuals in America also began consuming marijuana. However, certain factions within this demographic such as student radicals and hippies faced negative judgment. Nevertheless, it marked the first time that mainstream America had to recognize that their children were using marijuana. Additionally, there was a dramatic increase in arrests related to marijuana, with numbers rising from 18,000 in 1965 to over 220,000 in 1970 (Anderson 1981). These changes brought about substantial shifts in how marijuana was perceived.

The Marijuana Reform movement began in 1964 with the establishment of LeMar (for Legalize Marijuana) and Amorphia in 1970. However, it wasn't until NORML was formed in 1971 that the movement garnered significant public attention. Despite making progress in the mid-1970s (eleven states effectively decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana between 1973 and 1978)1, the movement ultimately faltered due to its own incompetence. NORML's scandals and wrongdoings (Anderson 1981; Cooley 1997) portrayed the movement in a negative light. Additionally, counterframing initiatives were launched

to shift the focus of the marijuana issue towards protecting children rather than addressing adult rights (Cooley 1997). NORML recognized the need to change public perceptions of users as part of their efforts.

According to Anderson (1981:57), the challenge for the Marijuana Reform movement was to combat the myth that marijuana use caused "reefer madness," which nonsmoking Americans had long believed. However, despite the liberalization of drug attitudes and the arrest of high-status offenders, the movement was unable to completely change the negative public perceptions surrounding marijuana use (DiChiara and Galliher, 1994). It is surprising that during the 1970s, there was significant progress in repealing marijuana laws given the widespread negative portrayal of users that had been built up previously.

The expansion of marijuana smoking, beyond fringe groups, and the increase in arrests have had an effect, according to DiChiara and Galliher (1994). It is important to recognize that the Medical Marijuana movement is relatively new, but medical marijuana has been part of NORML's agenda since 1971. NORML, through a lawsuit against the federal government in 1971 (NORML v. DEA), initiated the medical, legal, and social debate about the medical properties of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act.

The case is one of the longest in US history (1971-1994) and generated a significant amount of legal/medical information" (NORML 2002). Nevertheless, in the early 1990s, the Marijuana Reform movement was inactive and the government had been promoting a strong anti-drug stance. However, within a relatively short time, the Medical Marijuana movement emerged and thrived. The rapid rise and initial triumphs of the movement surprised many observers. By changing the perceptions of millions of Americans regarding marijuana's effects and

the demographics of its users, the nascent movement achieved remarkable success.

This shift was primarily caused by the movement's ability to utilize culturally resonant frames, specifically ones focused on "patients' rights" and "compassion." The compassion frame has been present since the beginning of the movement and was apparent in the earliest activist actions. Valerie Corral, along with Scott Imler, frustrated by years of secrecy and negative encounters with the law, has decided to publicly advocate for the legalization of medical marijuana. She is openly distributing free marijuana to individuals suffering from terminal cancer, AIDS, glaucoma and seizure disorders, without trying to hide from authorities. Corral stated, "I believe that by remaining silent, I am contributing to this injustice."

The author expresses a reluctance to go to jail and believes that dying individuals should not have to break the law to alleviate their pain (1994:A15). The framing processes operate on an automatic level, as people in our media-saturated society are conscious of their public image. The article also highlights conceptions of marijuana users that challenge the typical stereotype under a section titled "THOSE WHO USE IT."

According to the people who depend on Corral and Imler's deliveries, they have exhausted all options provided by pharmaceutical science. Harold Allen, a 53-year-old patient with inoperable pancreatic cancer, stated, "I was using morphine and Dilaudid, a synthetic form of heroin. I was consuming a multitude of Dilaudid pills every day. I suppose it was effective, but it simply left me in a state of daze." Sandy Allen, Harold's wife, noted that her strong husband, who previously worked as a contractor before falling seriously ill, was diagnosed with cancer in 1991 and given

a prognosis of only six months to live.

Audrey stated that a harsh course of chemotherapy nearly lived up to the doctors' expectations. She recounted, "He shed 80 pounds and received a mere bundle of medications – pain relief, anti-depressants, you name it. He couldn't consume food; he was simply a skeletal figure covered in skin." She continued, "However, that was before Valerie entered our world – and the cannabis."

According to Sandy Allen, smoking approximately an ounce of marijuana each week helped Allen to gradually stop taking Dilaudid and anti-depressants. Additionally, it increased his appetite. Although he had previously tried Marinol, a synthetic alternative to marijuana, it had no impact on him. As a result of using marijuana, he regained 70 pounds that he had lost and is now alert and active, defying the doctors' expectation of his death within two years. Sandy Allen firmly believes that without marijuana, Harold would not be alive today.

According to an article from 1994, it is unfair that breaking the law is necessary for her husband's survival (1994:A15). George McMahon, who was one of the few people allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes through the government's compassionate use program, also played a significant role in the movement. In a newspaper article, he mentioned that he did not choose to be a spokesperson for this cause, but he felt obligated to do so. Starting in 1991, he and his wife Margaret began traveling across the country in a motor home, delivering speeches at various locations such as colleges, statehouses, Rotary clubs, and Kiwanis clubs in order to reach a wider audience.

McMahon presented himself as living proof that marijuana has therapeutic

value, with the federal government supplying him with the very pot it was against in its drug war. He joined a grassroots movement advocating for medical marijuana, which gained legitimacy in 1996 when California voters passed a medical marijuana ballot initiative despite federal opposition (Dallas Observer 2001). McMahon suffers from Nail Patella Syndrome, a rare genetic disorder that results in few nail beds and fractured, chipped nails.

His elbows and knees have deformities and his bones cause him intense pain. He suffered from an undiagnosed illness until the age of 38, during which he engaged in physically demanding activities such as digging ditches, riding motorcycles, and breaking horses and bones without much difficulty. Eventually, he had to undergo 19 surgeries and endure a battle with tuberculosis, as well as severe reactions to various prescription drugs. It was only then that he discovered smoked marijuana provided him with relief and comfort. In 1988, a doctor in Iowa supported his belief, but it took two years of navigating through the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the Drug Enforcement Administration before he was finally granted approval for medical marijuana (Dallas Observer 2001). The first instance of medical marijuana legislation being enacted, although it did not significantly impact law enforcement, was thanks to the efforts of Imler. His mother uses marijuana to treat a rare thyroid disorder and was arrested for cultivating cannabis in 1991. Consequently, he drafted the Santa Cruz County Measure A, which aimed to legalize medical marijuana and was included on the November 1992 ballot.

The local authorities were required to use their discretion in prosecuting medical marijuana use and

advocate for its legalization. The measure was approved by an overwhelming 77 percent of the vote (San Francisco Chronicle 1994:A15). Corral and Imler formed Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), an organization that supplied marijuana to individuals referred by AIDS and cancer support groups. Additionally, the issue of medical marijuana arose in various court cases, including a lawsuit filed by NORML in 1971. In 1976, a court ruling responding to a medical necessity defense led to the establishment of the federal "compassionate care" program (Randall and O'Leary 1998).

During the early 1990s, there were multiple instances where the "medical marijuana defense" was utilized. In 1992, Corral was involved in one such case. Additionally, in 1994, two cases were reported, one in Everett, Washington and another in San Francisco. After the McMahon case resulted in a favorable ruling, NORML filed a lawsuit against the DEA in an attempt to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug, thereby allowing its medical use. Despite receiving a favorable decision from Judge Young, the DEA chose not to comply with the judge's order to reclassify marijuana. Nevertheless, this legal setback did not impede the growing popular support for providing access to marijuana for severely ill patients.

Many patients across the country were self-medicating with a widely available weed that appeared to be beneficial for their ailments. According to a survey in 1990, 44 percent of oncologists had already violated the law by suggesting to at least one patient that they obtain marijuana illegally. Public opinion polls in the early '90s consistently indicated that between 60 to 80 percent of Americans supported the legalization of medical marijuana (Dallas Observer 2001). The Medical Marijuana

movement initially gained momentum in California, where various propositions were introduced. In 1991, Proposition P was passed by San Francisco voters, urging the state to reintroduce hemp medicine as a viable treatment option.

In 1992, the hemp initiative failed to meet the requirement for signatures. In 1994 and 1995, the legislature of California passed a bill authorizing the medicinal usage of marijuana, but it was vetoed by Governor Wilson on both occasions (Bock 2000). However, in 1996, Proposition 215 was unexpectedly approved in California, allowing for the medicinal use of marijuana and initiating a nascent movement. The movement from its inception was aware of the necessity to socially construct a different perception of marijuana users.

The text emphasizes the importance of adopting a compassionate and rights-based approach towards marijuana users, while also distancing from previous negative stereotypes. This shift is evident in various ways, such as the names of organizations advocating for the recognition of marijuana's medical benefits. Based on internet analysis, these organizations include Americans for Medical Rights (along with its subsidiaries, Coloradans for Medical Rights 2000, Mainers for Medical Rights, Floridians for Medical Rights, Alaskans for Medical Rights, Washington Citizens’ for Medical Rights, and Oregonians for Medical Rights), as well as Californians for Compassionate Care.

California’s Proposition 215, otherwise known as the Compassionate Care Act of 1996, highlighted the support for medical marijuana in Arkansas, with the Arkansas Alliance for Medical Marijuana stating that “66% of your Arkansas neighbors support this compassionate reform” (Ardpark.org). It is evident that the discussion around medical marijuana centered on rights and compassion. While the rights perspective has been recognized as a widely accepted viewpoint, the compassion perspective has not

received the same level of recognition.

Americans are highly motivated to support compassionate causes, as seen in the Animal Rights movement funded by billionaires George Soros, George Zimmer, and Peter Lewis. This movement, along with groups advocating for the end of hunger, employs the compassion frame (Jasper and Nelkin 1992) to raise awareness and support. The suffering of individuals who cannot be helped by traditional medicines is highlighted to evoke compassion. The debate surrounding medical marijuana often focuses on individuals suffering from illnesses such as AIDS, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, dystonia, Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease, and Tourette's syndrome. However, the medical benefits of marijuana are not limited to specific diseases but rather aim to alleviate the associated symptoms.

According to the Institute of Medicine (1999), medical marijuana provides relief for various symptoms such as chronic pain, nausea and vomiting (especially related to chemotherapy), wasting syndrome and appetite stimulation, muscle spasticity, epileptic seizures, and high intraocular pressure.

The debate surrounding the perception of the medical marijuana movement revolves around the stories of individuals who suffer from these symptoms and emphasizes the importance of patients' rights. The American Medical Marijuana Association, for instance, advocates for the rights of cannabis patients and stands firm in not compromising these rights (Americanmarijuana.org).

The Americans For Medical Rights share a similar viewpoint. They believe that if marijuana was treated like any other drug, the decisions regarding its medical use should be made by doctors and patients. However, current laws restrict this freedom and consider patients as criminals. Additionally, other uses for marijuana have also been documented in studies conducted by Grinspoon, Bakalar, Zimmer, and Morgan.

(1997). 18 should be changed” (Thirteen.org). One of the framers of California’s

Proposition 215, Bock (2000:15), stated that they exerted great effort in drafting a measure that would safeguard patients' rights. Supporting this stance, narratives were shared concerning individuals who were experiencing unnecessary suffering. The account of Robert Randall, who became the initial recipient of medical marijuana through the federal government's "compassionate use" initiative, is retold in Marijuana Rx (Randall and O'Leary 1998).

Several stories were published in newspapers, including an editorial in the Seattle Times. The editorial shared the story of a person's father who was suffering from terminal cancer and found relief from "magic brownies." The father, a war veteran and hard-working individual, felt angry that he had to resort to committing a criminal act to alleviate his merciless suffering (1998:B5).

Another letter to the editor in the Seattle Times expressed similar sentiments. It emphasized that individuals with terminal illnesses and other serious diseases such as multiple sclerosis, lupus, arthritis, and glaucoma deserve access to the best medicine available to combat their pain and nausea, often in the form of marijuana. The letter questioned how our society can deny this right to our most devastatingly ill citizens (1998:A11).

Newspapers in the Western states reported numerous such stories and editorials.

One patient in Alaska, a 31-year-old woman from Juneau, resorted to smoking marijuana as a last resort in relieving violent nausea caused by chemotherapy. In her own words, "I was vomiting up blood, I was really sick... It allowed me to get out of my body, so my body could get on with my healing" (Queary 1998). While the idea of legalized marijuana may bring to mind images of recreational drug use and packs of joints alongside cigarettes, the

term "medical marijuana" brings to mind scenes of comfort and relief from pain and debilitating nausea (Queary 1998).

According to reports from Idaho, there is a desire among doctors and other professionals who work with patients in pain to have an additional method to alleviate that suffering. However, this desire is in conflict with the country's ineffective war on drugs.