Rifts in the Hegemony: Swedish News Journalism on Cannabis Legalization

ABSTRACT

This study analyzes the journalistic construction of the ongoing international renegotiation of cannabis, with the aim of contributing to the theorization of how journalism mediates between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions at times of crisis of hegemonic values. The study perceives the many ongoing attempts of legalizing and decriminalizing cannabis for recreational use as providing a disequilibrium to the hegemonic view of the substance as a dangerous narcotic that is rightly banned, and as intensifying a hegemonic struggle over the meaning of cannabis. Swedish print news journalism about cannabis legalization in different countries and contexts is studied, using critical discourse analysis. The analysis shows that journalism allows for debate between positive and skeptic discourses about the effects of recreational cannabis consumption and its medical benefits, and that voices that argue for cannabis legalization to combat organized crime are given important framing power. This means that a measure of legitimacy is given to discourses that counter the prohibitionist hegemony in Sweden, which means that mainstream journalism in this specific case serves as an arena for challenging hegemonic values that are in crisis.

KEYWORDS:

• Cannabis legalization
• critical theory
• critical discourse analysis
• hegemony
• journalism
• legitimation

Introduction

Journalism plays a key role in the process of cultural hegemony – the moral and intellectual leadership that leading social groups exercise (Gramsci 1971) – by constructing reality in ways that affirm or challenge established values, norms and power relations in society (Abalo 2014; Allan 1998). This study seeks to understand the relationship between journalism and hegemony in times when hegemonic values are being severely challenged by studying the journalistic construction of the ongoing international renegotiation of psychoactive substances deriving from the cannabis plant (hereafter cannabis) as a case.

After being classified as a narcotic and being subjected to a worldwide ban for several decades, a new approach on cannabis is being undertaken. In 2014, Uruguay became the first country to legalize the cultivation, recreational use and sale of cannabis (Curran et al. 2016), and as of early 2018, eight US states legalized cannabis for recreational use (although illegal on a federal level) (Governing 2016). In addition, several countries such as the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Portugal have decriminalized small possessions of the substance (Goldberg 2004), and Argentina, Belgium, Israel, and several US states permit cannabis for medical purposes (Healey 2016). Cannabis, in its many varieties such as marijuana, hashish and oil is the world’s most-used illicit drug (WHO 2016), and its ban has been supported by the United Nation’s drug conventions, which classify it as a dangerous drug (UNODC 2013). In addition to concerns about health risks due to prolonged cannabis use such as cognitive impairments, an established yet contested argument, which may have influenced prohibition, is that cannabis is a gateway to heavier drugs (see Månsson 2017, 9–14).

This study perceives this ongoing renegotiation of cannabis as providing a disequilibrium to the hegemonic view of the substance as a dangerous narcotic that is rightly banned, and as intensifying a hegemonic struggle over the meaning of cannabis, in which journalism plays a key role. The article examines how Swedish print news journalism constructs cannabis in the context of international legalization and how it (de)legitimizes different positions and perspectives, especially discourses that challenge the reigning prohibitionist hegemony. The aim is to contribute to the theorization of how journalism mediates between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions at times of crisis of hegemonic values. Swedish journalism was chosen because of the hegemonic status of the prohibitionist drug policies in the country. In Sweden, the ideal of a “drug free society” has been conceived of as a national project (Goldberg 2004; Tham 1992), and the drug policy enjoys great popular support and is defended throughout the political continuum (Goldberg 2004; Lenke and Olsson 2002). Journalism about cannabis legalization potentially poses a challenge to that hegemony because it allows for constructions that challenge prohibition and the view of cannabis as narcotics. Consistent with this struggle over meaning, the prohibitionist context can also serve to shape the discourse on legalization.

The research community has shown great interest in the relationship between drugs at large and the media (see Månsson 2017, 17–19). Research on cannabis and the media – as presented below – has mainly contributed to research areas such as drug policy, substance use and misuse, drug prevention, and public health, with few studies conducted by media and communication or journalism scholars. In addition to studies focusing on how the media shapes attitudes toward and usage of cannabis (Palmgreen et al. 2001; Primack et al. 2009; Slater et al. 2011; Stringer and Maggard 2016; Stryker 2003; Walther et al. 2010), one focus has been on how the substance itself and experiences of cannabis use have been posted on social media (Cavazos-Rehg et al. 2016; Daniulaityte et al. 2015). In a review of the research on cannabis, including media and cannabis, Månsson (2017, 28) argued that “comparatively few empirical studies have focused on media portrayals of cannabis”. Nevertheless, existing research provides important insights on how the media represent cannabis. Studying American press, Griffin et al. (2013) showed that harsher policies on cannabis made the substance a more newsworthy topic. Acevedo (2007) showed that the media became an actor with significant power in the debate over cannabis and its users. McGinty et al. (2016) showed that it is more common for articles about the recreational use of cannabis to be found in newspapers from US states that have legalized the substance, implying that local policy affects how the media portrays the substance. Boyd and Carter (2012) suggested that law enforcement discourse is central to constructing cannabis in the media, which reproduces their power in question. According to Haines-Saah et al. (2014), the media use double standards when reporting on cannabis: legitimizing use when reporting on elites and delegitimizing it when reporting about people from lower social strata. Double standards on cannabis use are also employed when reporting on athletes, privileging white cannabis-using athletes (Lewis and Proffitt 2012). A more positive view on cannabis can be found in the reporting on medical cannabis (Sznitman and Lewis 2015; Vickovic and Frandella 2011).

Closer to the focus of the present study, Månsson (2016) analyzed Swedish print media’s reporting on cannabis in 2002 and 2012. She found that the media mainly situate cannabis in contexts of crime, social problems and health. Månsson argues that drug-liberal discourses may have begun to gain prominence in the Swedish media, noting discourses that relate cannabis to the economy and recreation. These findings suggest changes to the common discourse on cannabis, which can serve to challenge prohibition. A closer analysis of the workings of journalism, including the interplay between the journalistic voice and the social actors in news texts, or the (de)legitimization of different discourses on cannabis, fell outside that study’s scope. The current study seeks to explore these aspects further. Using critical discourse analysis, this study shows that Swedish journalism about cannabis legalization opens the floor for debate between positive and skeptic discourses on cannabis, which serves to lend legitimacy to discourses that challenge the prohibitionist hegemony.

The next section introduces the theoretical framework of the study, which focuses on the relationship between hegemony, journalism and legitimation. After that, the methodological choices of the study are described, and the results of the study are presented. The study concludes with a discussion of the implications of the main results for understanding journalism’s ability to provide discourses that challenge hegemonic values that are in crisis.

Hegemony, Journalism and Legitimation

Before discussing the relationship between the media and hegemony, the ongoing renegotiation of cannabis is described to show the contestation of hegemonic values, especially in the Swedish context.

Cannabis Legalization and a Crisis of Hegemony

Drawing on Gramsci’s (1971) discussion of hegemony, Hall et al. (1978, 217) describe a crisis of hegemony as “moments when the equilibrium of consent is disturbed”, resulting in the explosion and contestation of the authority of the ruling social groups. Hall (1988, 168) notes that such crises can erupt in areas other than traditional class politics, such as in debates about “moral and intellectual questions” that do not “appear to be articulated with politics, in the narrow sense, at all”. Although the ongoing renegotiation of cannabis does not bring about a major political crisis, it constitutes a crisis for the authorities that uphold a cannabis ban and challenges the moral values that justify such policies. At a general level it constitutes a crisis for the so-called wars on drugs and crime, which, in some places, have served as a hegemonic strategy for legitimating harsher policies on crime and incrementing the power of the police (Beckett and Sasson 2000).

In the Swedish context, the redefinition of cannabis challenges the goal of a “drug free society”, which has guided the country’s drug policy for several decades (Goldberg 2004). This zero-tolerance approach is grounded in the total prohibition of substances that are considered narcotics, such as cannabis, including their mere use (Lenke and Olsson 2002). Tham (1992) argues that this ideal has been a means of constructing a national identity in a Swedish context in which the welfare model has been contested during an emerging globalization. This ideal has rested heavily on morality and political consensus across the ideological continuum, calling for all good forces to struggle against drugs (Tham 1992). A recent poll among the Swedish population indicates massive popular support for the reigning drug policy. In fact, 88% consider the goal of a drug-free society to be good, and 83% are against the decriminalization of the use of drugs (Mellgren 2018). The effects of the drug policy on cannabis use are disputed. Although Sweden has a low use rate of cannabis compared to other European countries (EMCDDA 2015) – which prohibitionist advocates see as evidence of a successful policy – access to cannabis increased during the 1990s, and figures indicate an ongoing increase in use in the 2000s (CAN 2014). Although the ongoing renegotiation of cannabis abroad has not had acute consequences on Swedish drug policy, it makes Swedish journalism a potential carrier of perspectives that challenge the prohibitionist hegemony.

Journalism and (De)legitimation

Journalism constitutes an arena for hegemonic struggles to occur (Abalo 2014; Allan 1998), and the reporting of cannabis legalization is part of the struggle for (re)defining the meaning of cannabis. Journalism is set in a context of social change, something that can affect the choices of angles, sources and language in the creation of news on cannabis, which can affect the ascription of legitimacy to different perspectives on cannabis. Legitimation is understood as the justification and sanctioning of “a certain action or power, on the basis of normative or other reasons” (Carvalho 2008, 169) and is central for hegemony by sanctioning some views and actions over others. Legitimation in journalism is approached in two ways: the framing of legitimate debate and the use of discourse to convey (de)legitimation.

Framing is central for conceptualizing how the media constructs meaning about a reported topic by giving prevalence to specific aspects over others and can be defined as “the process of culling a few elements of perceived reality and assembling a narrative that highlights connections among them to promote a particular interpretation” (Entman 2007, 164). The functions of fully developed frames, argues Entman (2007, 164), are “problem definition, causal analysis, moral judgement, and remedy promotion” and serve to shape the ways the audience interprets a specific issue. To understand the framing of cannabis legalization in journalism, one must thus analyze how different aspects and perspectives regarding the substance are given salience over others. At the same time, the framing of cannabis legalization also strongly relates to the ways journalism sets the boundaries of what is considered a legitimate debate, which in turn is tied to established values on cannabis. As Hallin (1989) notes, the ways in which journalism frames different topics is sensitive to established values, norms and truths in society. Hallin argues that journalism acts in accordance to the rules of three different spheres. When journalism is in the sphere of consensus, objectivity does not apply because of the commonsensical character of the reported topic. When in the sphere of legitimate controversy, as in the reporting of party politics, objectivity is key. Here, various positions are perceived as equally legitimate and are therefore given space. The last sphere is the one of deviance, which applies to voices that fall outside the limits of what is acceptable and are silenced or condemned. Following Hallin’s reasoning, voices that are critical to cannabis legalization would have the upper hand in Swedish journalism because they are more compatible with hegemonic values on drugs whereas advocates of legalization would risk being treated as deviant. Some argue that this is what happened to the drug debate in Swedish media after the major political blocs agreed on a restricted policy. According to that view, the media “dropped their critical stance in relation to the drug issue and started instead to function as a public address system for official policy and the police” (Lenke and Olsson 2002, 74). However, society is not static, and neither is journalism. This means that what is viewed as consensual, legitimate or deviant can potentially change (see Schudson 2002). In a context in which cannabis legalization is debated in many countries, it may be the case that journalism adapts to that circumstance and integrates voices and perspectives that would otherwise be considered deviant. This would be coherent with how journalism absorbs and domesticates dissenting values to appear objective (Allan 1998). Research on the media framing of cannabis shows a move toward more positive connotations of the substance, at least in contexts with a certain acceptance of cannabis. Research from Israel, where cannabis is allowed as a medicine, shows that cannabis in most cases is framed as a medicine rather than an illicit drug (Sznitman and Lewis 2015) and that patients may serve as relevant sources (Lewis, Broitman, and Sznitman 2015). Furthermore, research on the framing of cannabis legalization in US media found pro-legalization arguments in most of the news stories (McGinty et al. 2016), and that a neutral tone characterized the reporting although legalization was mainly framed as a law enforcement matter (Kim and Kim 2018). It has also been shown that a positive or negative framing of cannabis can depend on the actors being reported and the sources used, privileging elites using cannabis (Haines-Saah et al. 2014). Research has also shown that the strategies employed by cannabis advocate groups can serve for a more positive framing of cannabis-related topics in the media (Pardal and Tieberghien 2017).

The other dimension of legitimation in journalism regards discourse, the “semiotic ways of constructing aspects of the world (physical, social or mental) which can generally be identified with different positions or perspectives of different groups of social actors” (Fairclough 2009, 164). The construction of meaning in media texts is a matter of making specific topics, or actors visible or not and is also dependent on how language is used to shape reality in a specific direction. The lexical choices and use of discursive strategies – more or less conscious discursive interventions – is central (Carvalho 2008). This can involve concrete legitimation strategies in which an actor seeks to justify a specific action (Carvalho 2008). The construction of legitimation (and delegitimation) is also set in an interplay of strategies involving the use of framing strategies to select an angle in which language is organized to promote a specific position and the construction of identities, which serve to position different social actors to other actors, diverse actions and values (Carvalho 2008; Fairclough 1995). In Western news journalism, different discourses normally struggle for dominance. For example, cannabis can be attached to a psychological discourse, placing the substance in a context of scientific inquiry and cognitive effects, which can serve to construct cannabis use as problematic. Cannabis can also be set in a discourse of political freedom, legitimizing the right of citizens to use cannabis. As research shows, specific discourses on cannabis can shape the subject-positions of the actors involved, thus who will be considered a cannabis (mis)user or an expert (Månsson 2016). Furthermore, the media discourse on cannabis is highly dependent on the sources used and the institutions that are considered relevant for framing a cannabis-related topic. Uncritical reproduction of police discourse, for example, has shown to lead to one-dimensional accounts on cannabis-related topics (Boyd and Carter 2012). Additionally, the media discourse on cannabis is prone to change, which in turn is interrelated to the current dominant views on cannabis (Acevedo 2007). This means that depending on how different discourses on cannabis are (de)legitimated, journalism can serve as the provider of counter-hegemonic discourses or the guardian and reinforcer of the hegemony of prohibition. However, more engagement with legitimation and hegemony is needed in media studies on cannabis. The current study adds new insights to how the workings of journalism serve to (de)legitimize certain views about cannabis in the context of legalization, but also contributes to a more general discussion (beyond the question of cannabis) about how journalism mediates between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions at times of crisis of hegemonic values.

Methods and Materials

Data Collection and Sample Construction

A strategic approach was used to construct a sample for the qualitative analysis of cannabis legalization in Swedish print news journalism. The first step in the sample construction was to select news outlets. Dagens Nyheter (DN) and Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) were chosen because they are two of Sweden’s most prominent morning papers and have a national reach although based in Stockholm. The next step was to choose a time frame for the sample, which was set from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2015. Within this period, it was possible to include potential coverage about the legalization in Uruguay, which was debated in 2013 and took effect in 2014, the legalization vote in Alaska in 2014, and the legalization of cannabis in Colorado and Washington, which took effect in 2014, although voted on in 2012. The time frame was also selected with the belief that the events in Uruguay and the US would lead to an increased interest for cannabis legalization as a topic in the selected newspapers. Thus, the time frame was constructed to cover a critical period when the legalization of cannabis had gained momentum in several parts of the world and started to become a highly newsworthy topic in the media. The materials were retrieved by searching the database Retriever using the following keywords for both newspapers: “cannabis”, “marijuana”, “Colorado”, “Washington”, “Alaska”, and “Uruguay”. The first two keywords are the most common terms for cannabis substances, and were used to obtain a broad range of materials about cannabis. The latter four keywords indicate places where cannabis legalization had been implemented or discussed during the period under review, and were used to control that relevant materials had not been missed. Only materials that placed substantial attention on cannabis in relation to legalization were collected, meaning that, for example, regular beat journalism that reported about cannabis in relation to crime, and excluded frames on legalization, was excluded. The next step was to refine the sample. Because the study focuses on news journalism, opinion materials such as editorials, debate articles, essays and cultural commentaries were excluded. Forty-nine textual items with accompanying information boxes and visuals were included in the sample, 25 items from DN and 24 items from SvD. The sample included news or feature articles (19 items), columns by correspondents (2 items), briefs (20 items), and blurbs relating to news content (8 items). The materials were mainly published in the foreign news section, although there are also items from the first page, summary section, feature section, national pages, economy section and culture section. The dominance of materials about foreign events makes evident that cannabis legalization was mainly constructed as a foreign matter, which in turn can be interpreted as being a consequence of the limited national debate on cannabis legalization in Sweden during that time. However, this does not mean that the studied outlets were not engaged with the studied topic. Several articles were written by Swedish correspondents, which points to an interest from the newsrooms to cover and explain cannabis legalization to a Swedish audience. This is important to point out because the international character of these events does not make the journalistic discourse about them less valid for the current study. The journalistic discourse is here constructed by Swedish newsrooms set in a specific drug-policy context and distributed to a Swedish audience, factors that indeed could shape the discourse in question.

Analytical Approach

Critical discourse analysis (CDA), an approach that is widely used in the analysis of media discourse, was used as a qualitative method to analyze the sampled data. Although CDA is methodologically diverse (Wodak and Meyer 2009), it “often involves a search for aspects or dimensions of reality that are obscured by an apparently natural and transparent use of language” (Carvalho 2008, 162). The analysis involves textual and contextual analysis, inspired by an approach developed by Carvalho (2008) and designed for journalistic discourse. Each item was subjected to the following analytical moments:

Layout, structural organization and visuals. In line with Carvalho’s (2008) model, the textual analysis began with the identification of surface elements such as the item type (for example, news article or brief), the section where it was placed, eventual visual elements, and the use of wire materials or house journalists. Then, the structural organization of the text was analyzed to discover which voices, perspectives and topics are given prominence. A visual analysis was added to this step when relevant. The visual analysis involved a description of what was shown in the visuals and how the visual elements contributed to meaning-making (induced from the moments below).

Objects. Objects are similar to themes and are understood as constituted realities that involve both broad and specific issues (Carvalho 2008). The analysis is centered on the identification of different objects as well as mapping the links made between broad objects (e.g., public health) and specific objects (e.g., recreational use of cannabis). Objects have been identified by analyzing the overall topics in the specific item, which is mainly delivered in the headline and the lead paragraph, and by analyzing propositions made by the journalistic voice and quoted social actors, in addition to objects represented visually.

Actors. Actors are perceived as the social agents that are represented in journalistic texts. The analysis of actors involves mapping the actors referred to in the text, those that are quoted (also labeled sources) and those that are represented visually. As discussed by Lewis and Cushion (2017), the choice of sources – especially the use of think tanks – can have profound impacts on the ideological balance of news. The analysis, therefore, involves the assessment of the framing power of a specific actor. Framing power is understood as the influence that a specific actor has in shaping the meaning of the text by being quoted or talked about (Carvalho 2008).

Language, grammar and rhetoric. In this stage, four aspects of the language use of the journalistic voice and quoted actors are analyzed more closely. The first regards the concepts used in the text and their links to wider frameworks. Second, special attention has been placed on the lexical choices used to describe a situation or an actor (Smith and Higgins 2013). Third, the writing style is analyzed to determine if the language used is formal or not and if it is technical or not. Lastly, persuasive elements that appeal to emotions are looked for, as they can play an important rhetorical role (Carvalho 2008).

Discursive strategies. Tightly connected to the analysis of actors and language is the analysis of discursive strategies, which are more or less conscious discursive interventions to achieve a specific effect (Carvalho 2008). The analysis sought for four different discursive strategies. One is framing, how actors “organize discourse according to a certain point of view or perspective” (Carvalho 2008, 169). The second is positioning, which is how identities and relationships between actors are constructed. The third is legitimation, which is the justification of an action. The fourth is politicization, which is “the attribution of a political nature or status to a certain reality” (Carvalho 2008, 169–170). As Carvalho (2008) notes, it is important to separate the discursive strategies of the journalistic voice from those of social actors. The journalistic discourse is investigated to determine if the strategies of relevant actors are “reproduced, challenged or excluded” (Carvalho 2008, 170).

Ideological standpoints. Key in any discourse analysis is deducing the overall worldviews that a text promotes (Carvalho 2008; Fairclough 1995). In this study, ideology is conceived of in a very broad sense, meaning the overall perspectives on cannabis that are promoted (for example a prohibitionist attitude or a more liberal one, and the social and political meanings invested in each of these positions). Given that news discourse seeks to be politically neutral, these general standpoints are inferred from the sum of all the previous steps of the analysis. At this stage, it is central to see how the composition of the text allows for the (de)legitimation of different discourses and thus to which extent different discourses are contested on a macro-level.

Comparing text to context. The analysis also involves an intertextual dimension, which compares each text to other texts. The analyzed texts were compared to each other to see if different objects have been constructed differently within and across newspapers. Furthermore, the discourses induced from the textual analysis were compared to different positions in the debate on cannabis, which were deduced by extensive reading on the topic and searches on actors and organizations that appear in the analyzed texts to learn more about their positions and motives and see how they influence the discourse on cannabis. This step was not conducted separately and was integrated in all the previous steps; it is significant for understanding the ideological standpoints that are reproduced and challenged.

It is important to note that CDA is an interpretative method, increasing the risk of making the analysis, and the conclusions drawn, prone to subjective interpretations. The different analytical steps that were followed ensure a high degree of systematics in the analytical work, which should reduce the risk of obtaining skewed results.

Results

The coverage of the legalization of cannabis is, at a general level, constructed as an ongoing shift in international policy, making the exceptionality of the legalization a central object in the discourse. Headlines stating that, “Here, the drugs are sold totally legal” (Dagens Nyheter, 19 May 2013), “The government can sell cannabis” (Dagens Nyheter, 2 August 2013), “The use of marijuana is allowed” (Dagens Nyheter, 30 August 2013), “Legal marijuana to be considered” (Svenska Dagbladet, 19 May 2013), “Yes to marijuana in Uruguay” (Svenska Dagbladet, 2 August 2013), and “Marijuana is free in one more state” (Svenska Dagbladet, 30 June 2014) exemplify how the legalization of cannabis is constructed as something new and extraordinary.¹ Constructions of this kind unveil traces of domestication because the legalization taking place in the reported international contexts is especially remarkable with the strict drug policies in Sweden in mind. Furthermore, the developing character of the legalization of cannabis leads to constructing uncertainty around the legalization processes in question. The labeling of marijuana legalization as an “experiment” (Dagens Nyheter, 30 August 2013; 12 December 2013; 7 June 2014; Svenska Dagbladet, 12 December 2013; 30 June 2014) exemplifies how uncertainty becomes a constructed object, something that can be seen with regards to US states and Uruguay. The construction of uncertainty also connects to other objects in the coverage such as concerns about increased drug misuse or whether legalization will have the intended social effects.

A salient result deriving from the analysis is that the legalization of marijuana widens the debate around the substance, as advocates of legal cannabis and users of the substance are given space in the news coverage to raise their opinions and meet opposite views. This means that the legalization of cannabis is constructed as a legitimate controversy (Hallin 1989), where the opposing sides are voiced to uphold journalistic neutrality. However, the discursive struggle over cannabis involves a set of different strategies that serve to legitimize some discourses over others.

Below, I present two results themes that involve discursive struggles about the redefinition of cannabis, which emerged from the analysis. The first concerns the construction of cannabis’s effects on health and its medical benefits. The second regards the construction of cannabis legalization as a way to handle crime.

Cannabis’s Effects on Health and its Medical Benefits

Previous research (Acevedo 2007; Månsson 2016; McGinty et al. 2016) has shown that the news media coverage of cannabis tends to highlight different health risks surrounding the substance. This is also true for this study, although there are examples in which discourses constructing cannabis use as a health risk are contrasted by discourses that either refute such claims or present positive aspects of cannabis use. Central in this study is the use of legitimation strategies by social actors with a positive attitude to cannabis and the reference to and use of scientific discourse to problematize legalization.

Chloe Villano, co-owner of “Club 64”, who meets up at the bar, does not see any downsides with the increased use of marijuana that now will follow.

- No, there are no health risks with smoking. It is true that we get high, but in contrast to alcohol, it does not lead to increased violence. No one batters his wife after smoking marijuana, she says (Dagens Nyheter, 19 May 2013).

Toni Fox sees yet another advantage with the legalization: If people can buy marijuana legally, then the Latin American drug cartels will lose market shares. Perhaps, she acknowledges, there is a risk that children will get an easier access to the narcotics. However, the teenage use is not increasing, she argues. She dismisses arguments about health risks as propaganda (Dagens Nyheter, 19 May 2013).

In the beginning he was not against legalization, but when he was confronted with the results of medical marijuana that had been set free, he changed opinions.

As the manager for a teen rehab center he met an increasing number of teenagers below 16 years who told him that they had gotten someone else’s medical marijuana illegally. The minimum age for prescribed marijuana is 18 years, but it happens often that it is being resold to younger people.

- The kids ask me: “Doc, why should I stop using this, it is good for my ADHD, for my anxiety and helps me sleep”. However, I observed that the number of teens that were remitted for drug misuse was tripled in a short time. Marijuana is the number one reason why young teenagers are treated for drug misuse (Dagens Nyheter, 19 May 2013).

The excerpts above come from a feature article about the implementation of cannabis legalization in Colorado that links the legalization to risks of increased drug misuse and health concerns, apparent from the article’s three subheadings in bullet-lists that supplement the article (“Legalization”, “Rehabilitation”, and “The misuse is increasing”) and their corresponding paragraphs. The article was written by a journalist from Dagens Nyheter, and the accompanying photographs were taken by a photographer from the newspaper – both reporting from Denver. Understanding framing as the organization of a narrative that promotes specific interpretations (Entman 2007), the overall frame of the article is the legalization and the legal sale of cannabis as a novelty, which is evident from the discursive focus on the legal sale of drugs in the headline (“Here, the drugs are sold totally legal”). This overall framing of the legal sale of cannabis overlaps with the framing of cannabis in relation to rehabilitation and misuse, as seen in the subheadings quoted above, which serves to construct certain a degree of skepticism towards legalization. The focus on misuse and health concerns unveils a certain degree of domestication because it is in line with how cannabis normally is portrayed in Swedish media (Månsson 2016). In the excerpts above, one can see contrasting discourses about the health effects of cannabis, mediated by the quotations of and references to three actors: Chloe Villano, who co-owns a cannabis smokers club, Toni Fox, who runs a drug store for medical marijuana, and Chris Thurstone, associate professor in child psychiatry and assigned drug expert in the State of Colorado. The examples show that there is a discursive struggle in defining the health risks of cannabis use and that positive discourses on cannabis are given space. The quotation of Villano constructs her as directly denying any health risks with smoking marijuana, and in the journalist’s reference to Fox, she is constructed as dismissing claims of health risks as propaganda. Thus, these voices legitimate cannabis use.

However, the positive discourses on marijuana are offset. The journalistic voice’s contextualization of Villano unveils an assumption that marijuana use will increase because of the legalization (“the increased use of marijuana that now will follow”), something that is uncertain given the recent legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado. However, such a discursive strategy serves to frame Villano’s position as problematic. Furthermore, the legalization of cannabis in Colorado is problematized by referring to scientific discourse. In the excerpt above, this is apparent in the quotations and references to Thurstone. Such strategy serves to justify the construction of marijuana as hazardous. The references and quotations to Thurstone construct the first-hand experience of a scientific expert on the negative consequences of legal cannabis, although he is referring to medical and not recreational cannabis. His position makes his argument that “Marijuana is the number one reason why young teenagers are treated for drug misuse” more robust than the dismissal of marijuana-related health risks as propaganda. Later in the article, Thurstone is referred to as backing up his arguments with statistic figures, something that works rhetorically to strengthen the view of him as a scientific expert and strengthens his problematization of cannabis.

However, the materials also offer constructions that problematize scientific experts’ skepticism about cannabis. In a news feature about Uruguay, written by a Dagens Nyheter correspondent reporting from Montevideo, Manolo Varela, the owner of the cannabis cultivation shop Urugrow, is referred to as waving “aside the psychologist’s apprehensions, which according to him are about misusers, not normal marijuana smokers who take a joint on a Friday evening instead for a glass of red wine” (Dagens Nyheter, 1 November 2014). The reference to Varela serves to counter an earlier quote from psychologist Nancy Alonso, who argued that marijuana use leads to dependency. The quote with Varela serves to nuance the use of cannabis, making a distinction between normal users and addicts, as is typically done in relation to alcohol. Varela is given a significant amount of framing power in the article because his arguments are not contested. The article ends with a quotation of him giving advice on how to grow cannabis. In addition, a picture representing the exterior of Urugrow is the main photograph accompanying the article. There is also a smaller photograph of Varela as well as pictures of other social actors. The psychologist Alonso is not visualized.

The materials offer an example of when scientific discourse is used to advance a positive view of medical cannabis and counter scientific skepticism. In an article about medical cannabis in the Swedish context, a physician is quoted as saying that “It is well known that patients who suffer from protracted pains have great benefits from cannabis” (Svenska Dagbladet, 21 January 2015). In contrast to what has been shown above, scientific discourse is here legitimizing the use of cannabis – medical cannabis, not recreational cannabis, however. Another central actor in this article is a person who has self-medicated with cannabis and who describes its beneficial effects. This shows that positive discourses about medical cannabis are given certain framing power in the reporting about Sweden, although articles of this kind are rare in the materials.

Cannabis Legalization to Handle Crime

It is well documented that the media puts cannabis in a context of crime when reporting on countries in which the substance is illegal, leading to a significant focus on police work and judicial discourse (Acevedo 2007; Boyd and Carter 2012; Månsson 2016). Although crime is an object that is constructed in the materials, the context of legalization allows for a different take on the relationship between cannabis and crime.

The analyzed materials offer constructions on whether cannabis legalization can be a means to address crime-related problems. Fundamental for discursive constructions of this nature is the questioning of prohibitionist policies and the so-called war on drugs. For example, one journalist contextualizes the situation in the US by saying that, “Many politicians and sociologists think that [current] marijuana regulations are obsolete and that a liberalization would lead to a decrease of smuggling and that fewer people would be facing long-term sentences due to minor possession” (Svenska Dagbladet, 30 June 2014). Discourses highlighting juridical injustices are mainly present in the materials on the US and carries the assumption that cannabis is a light drug that should be handled differently.

Another discursive construction in relation to crime is that of cannabis legalization as a means to combat organized crime, central in the materials about Uruguay but also present in relation to other countries. Headlines such as “Drug was legalized – to stop the violence” (Dagens Nyheter, 1 November 2014) about Uruguay or “Legal hash will stop the gangs” (Svenska Dagbladet, 12 August 2013) about a legalization initiative in Denmark exemplify how significant framing power is given to that type of discourse. The discourse in these two examples constructs a cause-and-effect relationship between legalization and combatting violence and organized crime, something that indirectly serves to frame the latter as problems, and legalization as a possible solution to these problems. This type of problem definition and causal analysis is central in framing (Entman 2007). The framing power given to that type of discourse is also visible in briefs on Uruguay, which inform that “The politicians hope that a state monopoly on the handling of cannabis will stop the illegal trade” (Dagens Nyheter, 2 August 2013) or that “President José Mujica has seen legalization as a way to fight criminality, to stop the money flow that is feeding an increasingly stronger organized crime that threatens the stability and the security in the country” (Svenska Dagbladet, 12 December 2013), without offering discourses that directly contest these arguments.

The discursive construction of cannabis legalization as a means to combat organized crime relies heavily on legitimation. The discourse itself is legitimizing because the policy carries a good intention because it intends to combat a greater ill. Social actors that are quoted as carrying this discourse are also ascribed legitimizing strategies. For example, the head of Uruguay’s drug control program, Julio Calzada, is quoted by correspondents as saying that, “We do it for society’s best” (Dagens Nyheter, 1 November 2014), that the government wants to steal the market from gangs “to avoid that they run our country to the bottom” (Dagens Nyheter, 1 November 2014) and that the state wants to use cannabis revenues to “invest on preventive work and education” (Dagens Nyheter, 6 July 2013). Thus, legalization is constructed as being in the service of society. Furthermore, the interplay between the journalistic voice and social actors defending legalization contributes to legitimize the discourse. Consider the following excerpt:

Copenhagen. The supply on Pusher Street, the dealer’s street in the sanctuary Christiania, is extensive. Here, hash, skunk, weed, marijuana, joints, all types of more or less processed Cannabis sativa products are sold for 60 Danish kronor per gram and up. On a table, there are 2–3 kilos at a guess. That can be the look of 150,000 Danish kronor in the form of gray-brown-green lumps.

The local politicians want to have their fingers in the principally illegal but steadily reemerged sale.

- We want to get rid of the gangs’ increasingly cruder battle for the market, which makes it unsafe to travel in certain parts of Copenhagen today, says the Lord Mayor of Copenhagen – equals the president of the municipal executive board – Frank Jensen (Svenska Dagbladet, 12 August 2013).

The excerpt represents the first three post-lead paragraphs in a news article on Jensen’s proposal to legalize cannabis in Copenhagen. The article comprises the second page of a double-page spread on cannabis that also involves an article about Uruguay – both articles were written by Svenska Dagbladet staff. Fundamental for the discourse that Jensen carries is the construction of a situation where cannabis prohibition is not working because of the power of organized crime, something that the framing strategy of the journalistic voice provides in the excerpt’s first and second paragraphs. The illegal trade is constructed as being so open that even the journalist has access to it – something that is reinforced later in the article when a cannabis seller is quoted – and it is constructed as involving large quantities of cannabis and money. The quote of Jensen responds to that problematic situation by underscoring the problem of organized crime and launching his proposal, which is legitimized by alluding to the crime situation and the reigning unsafety. Jensen’s discourse is given a significant portion of framing power and permeates the whole article. Although the legalization proposal is questioned in the same article by politicians and by a cannabis seller in Christiania, there is no other proposal offered to resolve the problem with organized crime in the trade of cannabis. In this context, cannabis legalization stands out as an option to the status quo.

Another way to legitimize the legalization-as-combat discourse is the use of quotes from cannabis users that express their displeasure with buying the substance from illegal traders, something that can be seen in the materials on Uruguay. For example, a woman is quoted as saying, “It was a relief when the law was passed because then I do not need to go to a ‘boca’ [dealer]” (Dagens Nyheter, 4 May 2014), and a man is quoted as saying that the legalization lets him “be spared from the contact with the dealers” (Dagens Nyheter, 1 November 2014). Quotes of this kind, construct a situation in which prohibition is forcing cannabis users to nurture organized crime even if it is against their will. In that sense, legalization appears to be a change for the better.

In the analysis materials, the legalization-as-combat discourse does not remain completely unchallenged. For example, Chris Thurstone, a drug expert in the State of Colorado, is quoted as saying that “we have more of the cartels here, and they grow [cannabis] more than ever” (Dagens Nyheter, 19 May 2013), which directly questions the assumption that legalization is combatting organized crime. However, the framing power given to the legalization-as-combat discourse, especially in the materials on Uruguay, shows that this manner of justifying cannabis legalization receives significant legitimacy in the media analyzed.

Conclusions

In contrast to many previous studies about cannabis portrayals in the media, this study limited its scope to the construction of cannabis in relation to legalization, which implies limitations and strengths. The study does not cover the general news discourse about cannabis in the Swedish context, which offers diverse portrayals of the substance (see Månsson 2016). However, the restricted focus on legalization offers significant insights on how journalism mediates between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions at times of crisis of hegemonic values.

A central conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that there is a dynamic and empowered relationship between Swedish news journalism and hegemonic values and policies on cannabis because it allows for a struggle between conflicting discourses and for the legitimation of perspectives that challenge the hegemonic values. For instance, in contrast to previous work (Acevedo 2007; Boyd and Carter 2012), this study does not find any strong presence of law enforcement discourse or other discourses promoting disciplining cannabis users. Instead, there is a strong presence of politicians, entrepreneurs, scientists, and cannabis users (that are not necessarily constructed as misusers) who are given a voice and shape the analyzed reporting. Although this difference is partially explained by the methodological choices of the current study, especially that of focusing on legalization rather than on the general portrayal of cannabis, this pattern suggests that journalism is sensitive enough to the crisis of the hegemonic values to invite and legitimize voices would otherwise be seen as deviant and give them framing power. Using Hallin’s (1989) terms, cannabis legalization moves from the sphere of deviance to the sphere of legitimate controversy. Although the studied discourse mainly constructs cannabis legalization as a foreign matter, it could have been the case that Swedish journalism had chosen to frame these events differently, for example, by giving less voice to discourses that promote legalization and more framing power to law enforcement actors or anti-legalization voices – something that would have been in line with the prohibitionist hegemony in Sweden. Instead, what the study’s results show is that the ongoing international renegotiation of cannabis, which includes a move away from the so-called war on drugs toward a more accepting view of cannabis, invites Swedish journalism to approach the question differently, which in turn affects the framing of the reporting. This journalistic discourse thus serves to create somewhat of a rift in the mainstream discourse about cannabis legalization in Sweden and opens up for a broader debate of the status of cannabis in a Swedish context. Such a conclusion does provide further support to Månsson’s (2016) findings that liberal views on cannabis are gaining prominence in Swedish media and suggests that such a development serves to underscore a discursive contestation over the meaning of cannabis.

The discourse analysis suggests that although the debate on cannabis is broadened, all discourses are not given the same authority. Viewed through hegemony theory (Allan 1998), this could exemplify how deviant voices, although given space, are absorbed. This is especially the case regarding the use of cannabis for non-medical purposes. Skepticism toward cannabis use is mainly mediated through references to scientific discourse, and although advocates of recreational use are provided voice, these voices are not conveyed as carrying scientific expertise in the same manner as psychologists or psychiatrists. In fact, some of these cannabis-friendly voices may even appear as what Hobson and Niemeyer (2013) in the context of climate change call skeptic discourses, which mistrust formal science. In this sense, journalism appears to be neutral while in fact ascribing a greater authority to discourses that are in line with the hegemonic view on cannabis. However, more than being a journalistic strategy, this could be due to a lack of scientific experts that are willing to provide positive accounts of the recreational use of cannabis for various reasons. Furthermore, it is difficult to argue that pro-legalization discourses are completely delegitimized. The framing power given to politicians and officials that argue for cannabis legalization as the means to combat organized crime suggests that authoritative voices, although not scientists, are used to establish a general problematization of drug prohibition. This is viewed as indicative of the acceptance in newsrooms of alternative frameworks to the prohibitionist hegemony, at least for places other than Sweden. Such an approach also suggests that international social actors advocating legalization have been successful in establishing their discourses in foreign media, even where strong prohibition reigns.

In relation to the study’s conclusions, it is important to be aware of what Cameron (1995, 127) calls “discursive drift”, thus how the meanings of certain terms change and acquire new connotations. On one side, the contestation over the meaning of cannabis could serve a less repressive approach to cannabis and other drugs, while on the other it could serve liberal drug advocacy in more general terms, which could lead to increased public health risks. With this in mind, a case for future research could be the journalistic construction of the monetary aspects of cannabis legalization. Legalization could involve monetary gains in concerning taxes and corporate revenues. However, increased cannabis use could also mean increased healthcare expenses. Researching this topic would help deepen the understanding of how journalism treats different interests in the legalization of cannabis, and how this serves to develop the meaning and understanding of cannabis.

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank the colleagues present at the research seminar of the Media and Communication Department of the School of Education and Communication for insightful comments that helped me improve the first draft of this article. I also want to thank Johan Nilsson for commenting on specific parts of the paper, as well as the two anonymous reviewers for providing insightful comments that helped me improve the manuscript.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID

Ernesto Abalo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9515-4691

Notes

1 All excerpts have been translated from Swedish to English by the author.