Marijuana, Otherness, and Weeds
Abstract
In the U.S., the history of marijuana consumption features the criminalization of marijuana in the early 20th century and a strong trend towards the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes primarily. The current paper features the argument that television programs such as Weeds have played an important part in changing the tendency of people, especially in the United States, to view marijuana users—and those who are otherwise associated with the drug—as “other”. The history of marijuana use and the legality of marijuana in the U.S. is first explored, revealing two major shifts, one for and one against marijuana consumption, during the 19th century. Next, facts about marijuana are explored to determine the net impacts of marijuana. It is revealed, here, that consuming cannabis oils provides many medical benefits, while minimizing the negative effects of marijuana. Finally, an investigation of the portrayal of marijuana in television media is conducted in order to determine how such television programs contributed to shifts in public perceptions of marijuana. It is shown that the mainstream population considered marijuana consumption to be something that out-group or others did in the mid-20th century, contributing to the criminalization of marijuana at this time.
Marijuana and Otherness
Introduction
Recently, the U.S. public shifted its position on marijuana with a majority of Americans now favoring the legalization of marijuana for both medical and recreational use (Caleas, 2017). This represents a major shift away from the illegalization of marijuana which emerged in the mid-20th century. One potential explanation of the change towards the illegalization of marijuana and, then, the change towards the legalization of marijuana concerns the concept of otherness. Specifically, when the consumption of marijuana was considered something that only others, or those not in the mainstream, did, then there was a change towards the illegalization of the practice. Historically, illegal drugs have been part of the stigmatization of otherness. In the case of marijuana, however, this situation has begun to change. There are many reasons for this and some of the most significant of them will be discussed here. The focus, however, will be on the role that the entertainment industry and its products have played. Of course, no discussion of the topic can ignore the effects of the legalization of marijuana in many parts of the world. Even the United States, whose drug laws are in many respects antiquated and backward, the process of widespread legalization appears to have begun.
One of the primary reasons that the mainstream perspectives on marijuana have changed so much during the course of history is the perceived negative and positive influences of the drug. As will be discussed in more detail below, the cannabis plant was first used to make materials, such as shoes. When the psychedelic properties of marijuana were discovered, the plant became more popular. At this time, there were no movements towards the criminalization of marijuana. In fact, the criminalization of marijuana began in the West during the Medieval period, in which religious organization who largely controlled nation states had major influences on the criminalization of mind-altering substances. In the U.S., the early 20th century featured increased criminalization of marijuana. The focus of the current paper is on how the media influenced public perceptions on marijuana.
One recent study on how Americans’ attitudes toward marijuana have changed over time is revealing. Beginning in 2002, which may be around the time in which much of the hysteria over the drug war had started to die down, both a rise in marijuana use and a decline in the perception of its risk have been steady, if rather slowly, occurring. In 2002, for example, only about 10% of the population reported using the drug; by 2014 this number had increased to over 13% (Lubin, 2016). It should be kept in mind that not everyone who uses a drug will admit to such use, even if guaranteed anonymity, for example in a poll (Lubin, 2016). These findings provide a foundation on which to base an exploration of the media impacts on public perceptions of marijuana and marijuana legislation. It is clear that the early and mid-20th century was the thrust of the criminalization efforts against the consumption of marijuana, while the turn of the 21st century featured the countermovement against such criminalization. This will be the focal timeline for the purpose of the current paper, serving to guide the research and conclusions researched. Thus, this paper will explored both time periods.
The current paper is aimed at exploring the relationship of otherness and the media in the two major shifts on the legality of marijuana consumption in the 20th century U.S. The history of marijuana uses and the legality of marijuana in the U.S. is investigated first in this paper. This investigation reveals two major shifts, one towards criminalization and one towards legalization of marijuana in the previous century. After that, specific facts about marijuana are explored. Finally, an exploration of how marijuana is shown on television media is conducted to determine how various television programs may have contributed to the two identified shifts in public perceptions of marijuana. The current paper features the argument that a major reason for the shifts in marijuana legalization during the 20th century was the portrayal of marijuana use as being part of an otherness culture and, then, becoming part of mainstream culture near the 21st century.
History of Marijuana Use
Cannabis was first used not as a therapeutic or recreational drug. Rather, cannabis was first used for the construction of materials, such as shoes, bags, rags, and cloth (Hudak, 2016). In fact, some of the first cannabis products were sandal-like feet coverings in China in 5500 BC. Cannabis seeds were also consumed, rather than the actual plant consumed during this time period. It was only when cannabis was introduced to Europe at around 500 BC that the psychedelic effects of the drug began to be sought after through the consumption of cannabis and cannabis oil (Hudak, 2016). Since then, the use of marijuana across the West has faced a number of legal barriers and challenges. Beginning in the 9th century, negative perceptions of marijuana began to emerge in the West in particular (Hudak, 2016). Many theological groups during the Medieval Era in Europe began advocating against marijuana, particularly for its psychedelic effects. The drug was viewed as mind-altering and unnatural, which led to marijuana use being outlawed in many states in Europe during this period. In contrast, the East was much more accepting of marijuana during this time (Hudak, 2016). In fact, marijuana became popular in China as a therapy for a number of ailments and symptoms. In the 17th and 18th centuries in the West, some of the positive effects of marijuana were discovered. This contributed to positive perspectives of marijuana, especially in the British colonies in North America and the early U.S. However, by the 20th century, many groups viewed marijuana primarily as inducing mind-altering effects and as the drug has very high potential for abuse (Hudak, 2016). The drug was outlawed in all states at least at one point in the 20th century U.S.
Despite the negative perceptions of marijuana in the U.S. during the 20th century, progress was being made during this time at developing an understanding of the chemical composition of marijuana and of its specific impacts on the body and mind (Hudak, 2016). By the end of the 20th century, many of the positive effects of marijuana had been revealed, which led to major progress towards the legalization of marijuana, especially as a therapeutic drug. The positive medical impacts of marijuana that have been discovered will be discussed in the next section. With such impacts better understood, many medical groups advocated in favor of marijuana being used for medical purposes, especially in patients with chronic illnesses or severe pain (Booth, 2015). The decriminalization of marijuana began in the 1970s in the U.S. with many individual states drastically reducing or even eliminating penalties for marijuana use. By the beginning of the 21st century, seven states began allowing medical marijuana. By 2017, seven states had not only began allowing the consumption of marijuana with a medical prescription but also began allowing the consumption of marijuana for recreational purposes. Most other states have either decriminalized marijuana consumption or legalized medical marijuana consumption (Hudak, 2016). At the federal level, marijuana remains illegal to possess, consume, or grow, although the enforcement of federal laws against marijuana consumption was heavily reduced during the Obama administration.
Globally, there is some variation in the legality of marijuana (Booth, 2015). Marijuana is legal in most countries around the world. In many cases, however, there are restrictions on its legality. For example, many countries restrict marijuana to being used for medical purposes only. Marijuana can be legally obtained and used with a prescription in Greece, Croatia, Australia, Italy, Macedonia, Poland, Mexico, and Israel. One town in Denmark (Freetown) has legalized marijuana, but in the rest of the country, it remains illegal. Spain and South Africa allow for “private consumption”. Many or most of these countries, however, do not actively enforce laws against personal consumption of the drug. The situation is a bit of a mess in the United States, with several states having legalised marijuana, even for recreational use; but with a federal government that not only views the drug as illegal, but actively enforces this view even in some of the states that have declared it legal. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom has followed American practice to some extent on the issue of enforcement (though not on legalization) (Meza, 2017).
Marijuana Facts
Marijuana can be consumed in many different forms with drastically different impacts depending on the type and method of marijuana consumption. The primary effects of marijuana stem from cannabinoids, which are chemicals that react with the two receptors, CB1 and CB2, in the cannabinoid system (Whiting et al., 2015). THC is the cannabinoid that primarily elicits the psychedelic effects of marijuana, as well as most of the negative effects of marijuana consumption. For example, the consumption of THC reduces memory capacity and makes it more difficult to recall memories in both the short-term and long-term (Whiting et al., 2015). The primary means to increase one’s intake of THC is to smoke marijuana. Thus, consuming marijuana via smoking is considered the worst way to consume marijuana.
Other cannabinoids have highly therapeutic effects without many of the psychedelic effects Whiting et al., 2015 (Zuurman et al., 2009). In fact, a number of cannabinoids have been found to inhibit pain receptors, decreasing certain types of pain. Moreover, certain cannabinoids have been found to decrease severely reduce the severity of epilepsy, even reducing the number of seizures that someone with epilepsy has severely (Zuurman et al., 2009). Various other conditions and negative symptoms have been found to be reduced significantly by the consumption of certain cannabinoids. The consumption of marijuana via extracted oils and through skin absorption decreases the absorption of THC and increases the absorption of beneficial cannabinoids compared to smoking marijuana (Zuurman et al., 2009). Therefore, individuals who consume marijuana via extracted oils reap many of the benefits of marijuana consumption, while avoiding most of the negative effects of marijuana consumption. In addition, there is strong research suggesting that there is a very little risk of addiction to marijuana (Davis & Fattore, 2015).
Approximately 19 million people in the U.S. (or 7% of the population) report using marijuana either occasionally or every day. Since 2007 the number of users has grown by over 4 million people. Nearly 34% of people who live in states in which marijuana is legal for medical purposes to report using the drug. Despite these changes, it remains the case that the U.S. very strictly enforces federal law against marijuana possession and consumption. An incredible 48.3% of all drug arrests in the country involve marijuana. These seem absurd for a number of reasons. One is that the drug has been shown not to increase violent tendencies. Another is that millions of people die each year from alcohol consumption, but literally, no one dies from using marijuana (Smith, 2017).
Marijuana and Otherness
The concept of otherness is heavily involved reliant on between-group distinctions. For example, two groups who are largely unfamiliar with one another will consider one another as others in many cases. The importance of this in investigation the legalization of marijuana historically is that it may be the case that marijuana criminalization may have depended at least in part on certain mainstream or majority groups considering certain periphery or minority groups as others; without the consumption of marijuana being considered acceptable in the majority group, it was considered part of the other group and, therefore, was criminalized. The media, of course, plays a major role in determining what is mainstream and in gauging what is mainstream. Therefore, it is worth exploring the criminalization and, then, the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. in relation to the concept of otherness and the media.
Considerations of certain minority groups and cultures as being other is not a harmless classificatory practice. It has and has had, definite implications and consequences for members of the respective groups. As Stasznak notes, it is power relationships that are crucial for these implications and consequences:
The asymmetry in power relationships is central to the construction of otherness. Only the dominant group is in a position to impose the value of its particularity (its identity) and to devalue the particularity of others (their otherness) while imposing corresponding discriminatory measures … Dominated out-groups are Others precisely because they are subject to the categories and practices of the dominant in-group and because they are unable to prescribe their own norms. (2008)
Before turning to look at how marijuana and marijuana use fits into the framework of otherness, it is necessary to clarify certain aspects of this passage. When Stasznak says that the dominated out-groups are unable to prescribe their own norms he does not mean that they lack the capacity, taken in themselves, to do this. The point is rather that they lack the lack the power or hegemony to resist the imposition of the norms of the in-group upon them. It was noted above that the sort of domination at issue with respect to otherness has historically been a violent and oppressive kind of domination. However, this need not be the case. Power comes in many forms; and brute, physical oppressive power is only one of many such forms. Children in school seem instinctively to form groups that include some and exclude others, for example. This need not involve violence. This point is significant because, as we will see, the sort of otherness at issue with the consumption of, or association with, marijuana is—setting aside issues concerning law-enforcement—typically a non-violent sort of discrimination.
Marijuana is also associated, whether accurately or not, with a certain sort of lifestyle that is perceived as degenerate. Decent people do not partake of drugs, we are told. Only criminals and degenerates do this. Stasznak speaks of the “construction” of the other. This is significant, for the relevant asymmetries are not simply given by nature, as it were; and they need not be grounded in reality. Even a fairly obvious misperception—for example, that only degenerates use drugs such as cannabis—can have powerful effects in constructing otherness. This point has important ramifications for the larger argument of the paper. For insofar as self/other dichotomies are grounded in erroneous beliefs or perceptions one may expect that they will be exposed in time as fraudulent. This is precisely what appears to be happening with the association of marijuana, and marijuana use, with otherness.
The view of the marijuana user as “other” is largely a product of relatively recent phenomena. In the United States, it is primarily a consequence of the “war on drugs” that was declared in the 1980s and 1990s. It is arguable that this “war” was, at least in part, designed to disenfranchise certain groups, such as racial minorities (Agozino, 2000). Whether or not this is so, however, the fact remains that public perception was such that the drug user, even of “light drugs” such as marijuana, came to be perceived as other.
It is a complex question how such users were perceived prior to the declaration of war on drugs. It is well-known that in the 1960s and 1970s there was a counterculture that was defined, in part, by its willingness and eagerness to partake of certain drugs. What is not clear is whether this counterculture ever had enough members, relative to the total population, to have made it the case that drugs users were not considered “other”. As a means of addressing this and related questions, the present section will look at some features of the so-called “counterculture” (notice the implication in the very term that those to whom it applied were “other”), prominently including events such as Woodstock and films such as Hair. Before getting to that, however, we need at least a working definition of the term “counterculture”.
The counterculture is commonly taken to be a group of people and practices that existed from roughly 1964 to 1972 in the United States (though not only there). There were many motivations present in those associated with the counterculture, but opposition to the Vietnam War was probably foremost among them. It is for this reason that the peace sign came to symbolize the culture or the movement. Other activities and trends opposed by the counterculture were racial segregation and discrimination, sexual Puritanism, and materialism. There was also, of course, a strong association of the movement with drug use; prominently, though not exclusively, marijuana. The term “hippie” was used to construct members of the counterculture as “other”.
The counterculture movement divided the country. To some Americans, these attributes [those of the counterculture] reflected American ideals of free speech, equality, world peace, and the pursuit of happiness. To others, the counterculture movement reflected a self-indulgent, pointlessly rebellious, unpatriotic, and destructive effect on America’s traditional moral order. (Counterculture, 2010)
What finally destroyed the movement was the end of the Vietnam War—together with some progress on other issues, such as women’s and minorities’ rights—and the gradual fading of influential figures on the scene.
Moreover, two popular culture phenomena of the time well illustrate aspects of the counterculture movement, as well as tying it to our principal topic—the gradual erosion of the construct of the marijuana user as other. The first of these is Woodstock. Woodstock was a music festival that took place in the U.S. in 1969. A number of independent reports suggest that as many as 99% of its attendees used marijuana during the three-day event. The sheer size of the festival was remarkable, with as many as 500,000 people attending over the course of the event. The relative nature of otherness was remarked upon above. It is illustrated by the fact that anyone attending Woodstock who refused to use marijuana would him- or herself be constructed and regarded as other. In “mainstream” society the drug was still considered something that only degenerates partook of. Perhaps because everyone was high Woodstock was almost completely peaceful (Woodstock, 2017). Some have taken the fact that half-a-million people could be gathered in one place for so long without much in the way of the violent incident as proof that marijuana is not nearly as harmful to societies as other drugs may be.
Woodstock has held again in 1994, and still again in 1999. In the first of these events, attendance was about the same as the original, but the weather ruined the event to some extent. While attendees had to be much more careful with their drug use in this sequel—it took place, after all, during the height of the “wars” on drugs and crime—Woodstock 1994 was generally as peaceful and non-stressful as the original. The same cannot be said for the 1999 version, which popular media portrayed as a violent affair. As one commentator remarks of Woodstock 1994: “Does Woodstock ’94 mean the return of the ‘60s? Certainly not. But I do believe it sounds the death knell of the ‘80s, at least in terms of attitudes toward drug use” (Curtley, 1994).
Attitudes are definitely changing, but they seem to be changing primarily among young people. As one author notes, “A new report, seeking to understand if perceptions about marijuana use are changing with the greater liberalization in the U.S., has found the most significant effect to be among eighth- and tenth-graders” (Sandal, 2017). This may be because attitudes in older people have been shaped by the Puritanical approach to drugs in general that was prevalent until recently, as well as the fact that many older people were influenced by the government and the media—both of whom in effect sought to scare people on the issue of illegal drugs largely as a form of social control.
To determine how legalization has affected public perceptions of marijuana, however, a thorough exploration of recent findings is required. Recent studies indicate that, as one would expect, attitudes and practice are changing most in states that have legalized, or partially legalized, the drug. As was the case during the earlier period, change in attitude toward marijuana is most pronounced among younger people (Vogel, Rees, McCuddy, and Carson, 2015). In the state of Washington, for example, which legalized the for adults recently, younger teens report both higher usage and less perception of risk associated with marijuana. At least one researcher, however, reports change across the country—that is, even in states that have no legalized the drug. “Across the country, there has been a decreased perception of risk and an increase in marijuana use among adolescents” (Searman, 2016).
A clinical study of stigmatization found that marijuana (and alcohol) use is no longer seen as “other” to the extent that it once was. It found that only two types of students tended to face ostracization or discrimination with respect to alcohol or marijuana use. The first is students who obviously drink to excess and do not seek help for their problem. The second is students who do the same with marijuana. The key finding is that moderate use among young people is no longer stigmatised as it once was. The authors summarise their article by noting that: “In conclusion, study findings indicated that college students may have more favorable opinions of those who use marijuana compared to those who use alcohol” (Brubaker, Nabors, Pangallo, and Shipley, 2012). This is a remarkable fact if we bear in mind that college students typically do not have negative attitudes toward the consumption of alcohol. However, it may be partly a consequence of the fact that excessive alcohol use leads to many negative outcomes—becoming physically ill (or even requiring hospitalization), becoming violent, engaging in sexual assault, and so forth—that are not associated with even a high degree of use of marijuana.
Most of the results reported in this section thus far concern young people. Something should be said concerning how adults stigmatize drugs like marijuana (if they do). While stigmatization has not disappeared, there is evidence that it is attached primarily to so-called “hard drugs” such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin. For example: “Results suggest that non-illegal drug users reported high levels of stigmatization toward users of all drugs, but stigmatization was less pronounced when it came to drugs [such as marijuana]” (Palamar, Kiang, and Halkitis, 2012). Of course, this result was obtained prior to the trend toward legalization, so that must be kept in mind.
The television series Weeds was created and aired well before the trend toward the legalization of marijuana in parts of the United States. It began as the story of a widow who was left, after her husband’s death, with a large mortgage and two sons to care for—but no job. She begins to sell marijuana to pay her bills. The woman, Nancy Botwin, is initially involved only in selling to her upper- and upper-middle-class friends and acquaintances. A particularly controversial aspect of the show, at the time it was on the air, was the involvement of her sons in her illegal business in California (though it should be admitted that Nancy worked to prevent this for as long as she could). Over time Nancy and her family become increasingly involved in criminal activity, sometimes committing crimes that go well beyond selling marijuana in seriousness. Eventually, she is caught and imprisoned. Nevertheless, there is a sense in which she was successful overall. She managed to maintain her family’s living-style over a period of many years with considerable success and ingenuity.
Created by Jenji Kohan, the show was very successful both in terms of a number of viewers and in terms of critical response and awards (though the critical response was not consistent over the course of its eight seasons). As indicated above, Weeds began (in 2005) well before the trend toward legalization had begun to gather steam. It is arguable that this television program did as much as any other film or television series to combat the image of marijuana users as “other”. One critic explains this as follows:
What should viewers take away from this show once their TV is off? Although marijuana might not seem like a topic to explore seriously with all the new campaigns to legalize it, and all the data showing the world that it’s not a harmful substance, Weeds definitely makes a bold statement about how this new world’s mind is developing in comparison to previous generations and years. It is possible that all the show’s viewers already have this perception and acceptance of drugs, but more likely than not, that was not the case. (Nof, 2014)
A key point in this passage that should be emphasized is the difference between this and previous generations. It has already been argued that part of the move away from viewing the consumption of marijuana as “other” is simply the fading of what was arguably brainwashing in the 1980s and 1990s; brainwashing which sought to paint all drug users as evil and dangerous, irrespective of their drug of choice.
The normalization of marijuana, if one may call it that, did not end with Weeds. At this point, “Marijuana culture is everywhere on TV now” (Taroy, 2016). Two examples are HBO’s High Maintenance, a series about a legal pot dispensary, and MTV’s Mary & Jane, a marijuana oriented comedy (though the latter was canceled after a single season). A look at how television has portrayed marijuana use different over the decades will provide additional evidence for the thesis of the paper.
In the 1980s, a popular comedy show Different Strokes portrayed one of the character’s potential involvement with marijuana as something like apocalyptic. Indeed, Nancy Reagan (who began the wildly unsuccessful “just say no” approach to combating the drug problem) was a guest star on the show in 1983. Marijuana was portrayed very negatively in other popular shows such as Dinosaurs, Roseanne, and Home Improvement. Gradually, however, perhaps beginning with Judd Apatow’s Freaks and Geeks, a more realistic approach toward dealing with marijuana began to become popular. Probably the most dramatic example of a television series that normalized marijuana use was That ‘70s Show. In many episodes of this popular series, characters would be shown sitting in a circle engaging in stoned pontification. Granted, no one was shown actually smoking the drug, but it was quite clear to any moderately intelligent or frequent viewer what was going on (Taroy, 2016).
A positive consequence is that, as important as Weeds was (and its importance will be further underlined below), there was already a fairly strong, though recent, tradition in American television of portraying marijuana use as, if not positive, at least neutral, and often comically so. One important difference, of course, is that Weeds featured not merely the consumption of the drug, but also its illegal sale and distribution. This aspect of the show may have been unique, at least at the time it was on the air. The remainder of this section will briefly examine an academic study on how Weeds affected attitudes toward marijuana and other drugs in college students.
Based on this analysis, it seems likely that if Weeds had been set in the inner city, and if its main characters had been black rather than white, viewers would have had a much less positive reaction to it. Of course, this tells us less about people’s attitudes toward marijuana than it does about their racist views and confused sociological conceptions concerning why people turn to selling drugs. Second, the students were influenced by how little violence and other forms of discontent were exhibited in the show as a result of marijuana consumption (2013, p. 76). This does say something about marijuana, since it is well-known that it does not tend to make people violent as, perhaps, cocaine does. Third, some of the participants in the study viewed the events portrayed in Weeds as being far removed from reality. It is possible that people would enjoy, and approve of, the show less if they thought it showed a realistic possibility. Finally, Pentecost herself agrees with the broad thesis of the present paper, remarking at the end of her study that “With new legalization laws being passed, ‘pot culture’ may slowly be coming out of the shadows in the United States, but surely a new perspective on it was introduced with the advent of the television show Weeds” (2013, p. 81).
Conclusion
Featured in the current paper is an exploration of the many factors that have contributed to the criminalization and, then, the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. Most notably is the gradual movement towards individuals having the liberty to consume drugs that have not been found to be harmful and have many positive impacts, especially health impacts. The focus of the paper has specifically been on the effect that television shows such as Weeds on the extent to which there has been a gradual lessening of the tendency to view marijuana users as “other”. The notion of otherness is defined in section 1 using Staszak’s important work on the topic. There are two key components in the definition. One is the distinction between an in-group and an out-group. The other is the subordination and disenfranchisement of the latter by the former. Otherness most often results in the domination, or another form of abuse, of the “others” by those who are not other. It is and has always been, a form of subjugation of the powerless by the elites. Marijuana users are viewed as “other” inasmuch as the drug is illegal, and because people (again, primarily in the United States) have been conditioned to associate any use of illegal drugs with degradation and evil. Section 2 described the counterculture against the background of which the changes depicted in the paper took place. In section 3 the issue of the legal status of marijuana was explored. It argues that attitudes are changing, in part due to the movement toward legalization, though the changes are most pronounced among the young. Section 4 looks directly at Weeds and the ways in which it has contributed toward the lessening of the tendency to stigmatize marijuana users and to regard them as “other”.
References
Agozino, B. (2000). Theorizing otherness, the war on drugs and incarceration. Theoretical Criminology, 4(3), 359-376.
Booth, M. (2015). Cannabis: a history. Macmillan.
Brubaker, M., Nabors, L., Pangallo, J. & Shipley, H. (2012). Stigmatization of adolescents who use alcohol and marijuana. Counseling.org.
Caleas, J. (2017). More Americans than ever want marijuana legalized. Fortune Magazine.
Canby, V. (1979). Review of Hair. The New York Times, 14 March.
Counterculture. (2010). Counterculture. Saylor.org.
Curtley, B. (1994). Woodstock’s drug message. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly, 6(32), 1-2.
Davis, C., & Fattore, L. (2015). Gender differences in cannabis addiction and dependence. In Cannabinoid Modulation of Emotion, Memory, and Motivation (pp. 283-325). Springer, New York, NY.
Frank, P. (2017). What 1970s counterculture can teach us about resistance today. The Huffington Post, 8 March.
Frosh, S. and Baraitser, L. (2003). Thinking, recognition and otherness. The Psychoanalytic Review, 90, 771-789.
Hudak, J. (2016). Marijuana: a short history. Brookings Institution Press.
Lubin, G. (2016). Americans have radically changed their views on weed over 25 years. Business Insider, 2 September.
Meza, S. (2017). Where is marijuana legal? Peru the latest country to legalize. Newsweek, 18 November.
Nof, A. (2014). ‘Weeds’: How tv affects modern society. The Artifice.
Palamar, J., Kiang, M. & Halkitis, P. (2012). Predictors of stigmatization towards use of various illicit drugs among emerging adults. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 44(3), 243-251.
Pentecost, E. (2013). Pop culture in pop culture: How college students negotiate their perceptions of drug use through Weeds.
Sandal, T. (2017). As marijuana use increases, societal perceptions are altering. Digital Journal.
Searman, A. (2016). Teens’ views on marijuana change after legalization. Scientific American, 27 December.
Smith, P. (2017). Up in smoke: A timeline of marijuana use in the U.S.
Staszak, J-F. (2008). Other/otherness. In R. Kitchin and N. Thrift (eds.) International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Taroy, D. (2016). How tv learned to stop worrying and love its weed. Fast Company.
Vogel, M., Rees, C., McCuddy, T. & Carson, D. (2015). The highs that bind: School context, social status and marijuana use. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 44, 1153-1164.
Whiting, P. F., Wolff, R. F., Deshpande, S., Di Nisio, M., Duffy, S., Hernandez, A. V., … & Schmidlkofer, S. (2015). Cannabinoids for medical use: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Jama, 313(24), 2456-2473.
Woodstock. (2017). Woodstock 1969: 99% of the crowd was smoking marijuana. Ministry.com of Cannabis.
Zuurman, L., Ippel, A. E., Moin, E., & Van Gerven, J. (2009). Biomarkers for the effects of cannabis and THC in healthy volunteers. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 67(1), 5-21.
