The New Frontiers of the War on Drugs: Contesting Narratives in Canada's Cannabis Policy Debates
Balaseviciute, Vilija (2021)
Balaseviciute, Vilija
2021
Master's Programme in Global Society
Yhteiskuntatieteiden tiedekunta - Faculty of Social Sciences
This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Hyväksymispäivämäärä
2021-05-17
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202104273907
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202104273907
Tiivistelmä
The perception of the drug problem is significantly affected by the war on drugs narrative and by the view of drugs as an evil public enemy. Institutionally this perception is enforced by the global drug policy regime constituted by the three UN conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988 which aim to control and strictly regulate the production, distribution and consumption of illicit pharmaceuticals. The signatories translate and adopt the obligations of the conventions via domestic drug policies which are normally debated in the national parliaments.
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate how parliamentary debates on recreational cannabis legalization in Canada reflect the common perception of the drug problem. In order to do so, narrative analysis and epistemic governance tools were used to qualitatively analyze ten parliamentary sessions that took place in the House of Commons between April 13th, 2017 and November 27th, 2017. The focus of analysis was on the methods of persuasion utilized by the parliamentarians to justify their position in favor or against the proposed cannabis policy.
The analysis shows that the war on drugs is a commonly utilized narrative which appears on both sides of the debates. It informs a great deal of the overall understanding of cannabis as a psychotropic substance. Furthermore, it could be argued that regardless of what is right or true in this context, cannabis is understood as an enemy. Depending on the position taken on cannabis legalization, it is either an enemy to fight or an enemy to make truce with. As a result of this belligerent worldview, the war on drugs narrative continues to have a hold on the common perception of cannabis. It influences the claims decision-makers make about reality, relevant actors and identifications, as well as norms and ideals.
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate how parliamentary debates on recreational cannabis legalization in Canada reflect the common perception of the drug problem. In order to do so, narrative analysis and epistemic governance tools were used to qualitatively analyze ten parliamentary sessions that took place in the House of Commons between April 13th, 2017 and November 27th, 2017. The focus of analysis was on the methods of persuasion utilized by the parliamentarians to justify their position in favor or against the proposed cannabis policy.
The analysis shows that the war on drugs is a commonly utilized narrative which appears on both sides of the debates. It informs a great deal of the overall understanding of cannabis as a psychotropic substance. Furthermore, it could be argued that regardless of what is right or true in this context, cannabis is understood as an enemy. Depending on the position taken on cannabis legalization, it is either an enemy to fight or an enemy to make truce with. As a result of this belligerent worldview, the war on drugs narrative continues to have a hold on the common perception of cannabis. It influences the claims decision-makers make about reality, relevant actors and identifications, as well as norms and ideals.