Medicinal Cannabis Users Downplaying and Shifting Stigma: Articulations of the ‘Natural’, of What Is/Is Not a ‘Drug’ and Oppositions with ‘Chemical’ Substances

Abstract

While sympathy exists among the public for chronically ill and/or disabled people who use cannabis medicinally, cannabis remains a prohibited substance in the UK. How do medicinal cannabis users negotiate this potential stigma when talking about their use of this substance? I reflect on the spoken discourses of 10 medicinal cannabis users (from a sample of 32), obtained by way of qualitative interviews, adopting a critical discourse analysis approach to the data. Specifically, I focus on their articulations around three related themes: cannabis as a ‘natural’ substance, discursive oppositions between cannabis and other substances, and articulations about what is/is not a ‘drug’. I examine how participants articulated these themes in ways that attempted to negotiate the potential for stigma that talking about their cannabis use involved. I found they used rhetorical strategies that downplay their own deviance, attempt to shift the application of stigma to users of other substances, or both. I argue that the more powerful the discursive resources that are articulated, the less rhetorical work an individual has to do to negotiate positive moral standing in an encounter. I also consider to what degree these articulations involved constructions emphasising individual self-control. I argue participants emphasise their individual self-control by asserting that cannabis is a ‘natural’ substance (connoting less inherent risk).