Cannabis Culture

CRJ0010.1177/1748895812445620SandbergCriminology & Criminal Justice 4456202012

Article

Criminology & Criminal Justice 0(0) 1–17 Cannabis culture: A stable © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: subculture in a changing world sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1748895812445620 crj.sagepub.com

Sveinung Sandberg University of Oslo, Norway

Abstract In criminological and sociological studies of illegal drugs, the thesis of normalization suggests that when a drug goes from being a marginal to a widespread phenomenon, theoretical and methodological approaches that rely on subculture theory fall short. This article argues that normalization theory fails to recognize the existence of a distinct cannabis culture because it has a traditional understanding of subcultures as ‘groups of people’. The article suggests that a definition of subculture as a collection of rituals, stories and symbols is better for understanding contemporary subcultures and especially the cultural aspects of cannabis use. The conclusion is that although many use cannabis, it still signals opposition and cultural difference. A subcultural theoretical framework is thus crucial to understand illegal drug use. The study is based on qualitative interviews with 100 cannabis users in Norway.

Keywords Cannabis, narrative, normalization, ritual, subcultural theory, symbol

Introduction Peter was a cannabis smoker in his mid-20s. He was from a village originally, but he was now a student in the city. He told us he had always felt like a ‘natural oppositional’. ‘All that stuff about feeling like an outsider in a small, narrow-minded town. It made me sympathize with oppositional-type stuff’, he said. In a recent study of cannabis users in Norway, many expressed similar attitudes. One said, ‘We were curious. It was exciting. We wanted to test boundaries … rebel a bit.’ Another cannabis user expressed this even more clearly, ‘If it was forbidden, we’d do it.’ It seemed that an oppositional attitude was widespread among cannabis users. At first many would say that cannabis was ‘nothing

Corresponding author: Sveinung Sandberg, Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, PO Box 1096, Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 2 Criminology & Criminal Justice 0(0) much to talk about’ or ‘that everybody uses’, but as the interviews proceeded and more detailed accounts emerged, use of cannabis was described quite differently. Cannabis users described both explicitly – but more often indirectly, subtly, hidden in asides – how use of the substance was woven into an attractive subculture. The use of illegal drugs in general, and cannabis in particular, has increased in the last few decades. Commenting upon these trends, Howard Parker and his colleagues developed a theory about the normalization of adolescent recreational drug use. They argued that a subcultural theoretical framework was no longer fruitful for understanding illegal drug use. Using the same formulation in the original and in the ‘revisited’ version of normalization theory, they stated that when drug trying has ‘moved from being a small minority to majority activity subcultural theory struggles’ and that normalization theory ‘sits uncomfortably with subcultural explorations’ (Aldridge et al., 2011: 206; Parker et al., 1998: 156). Michael Shiner (2009), on the other hand, has argued that subcultural insights from the classic studies of illegal drug use still provide insights necessary to understand contemporary drug use (see, for example, Becker, 1963; Goode, 1970; Johnson, 1973; Young, 1971). This study reaches a similar conclusion. The general criminological and sociological theorizing on subcultures however, needs further theoretical development to fit contemporary use of cannabis. A previously published article from this study reveals how cannabis users have three discursive repertoires (Sandberg, 2011). One of these emphasizes the fascinating difference of both users and the drug. Many cannabis users, for example, stated that cannabis was used by ‘free-thinking, open people’ and triggered creativity. This was the most frequent discursive repertoire and that which positively determined the symbolic value or meaning of the drug. It will therefore be at the centre of the discussion in this article. It should not be left out however, that there are also other, more defensive, ways to talk about the drug. The article discusses the theoretical understanding of subcultures and suggests a shift of emphasis to understand cannabis culture. As defined here, cannabis culture consists of a collection of rituals, symbols and stories to which all users must relate. These different elements of cannabis culture are linked, and they are embedded in values such as ‘natural’, ‘organic’, ‘authentic’ and ‘oppositional’. The thesis is twofold. First, a concept of ‘subculture’, and more specifically ‘cannabis culture’, is necessary to understand the use of cannabis today. Second, to understand this subculture it is crucial to see how it is col- oured by the time period when cannabis was introduced and by the subcultures that introduced it. To be more specific, contemporary smoking rituals, cannabis symbols and users’ stories cannot be understood without seeing how they are embedded in the hippie and bohemian cultures of the 1960s and 1970s.

Is Cannabis Normalized? Cannabis is by far the most frequently used illegal drug in the world. Globally there are at least 150 million users annually. In Norway 40 per cent of men and 29 per cent of women have used cannabis by their late 20s, and in the Oslo region 30 per cent of men in their late 20s used the substance last year (Pedersen, 2008). The real propor- tion is probably somewhat higher, because marginalized groups, such as heavy users

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 Sandberg 3 of illegal drugs, are typically underrepresented in general survey studies. It is not surprising then that normalization dominates criminological and sociological interpretation of cannabis use. It is commonly understood that cannabis use has been in a process of normalization from the margins to the mainstream. In the social science literature this was supported by statistics revealing an increase in illegal drug use in the 1990s, and it is known as the thesis of normalization (Aldridge et al., 2011; Parker et al., 1998). According to Parker and his colleagues (2002) there are five key dimensions of normalization of illegal drug use: increased availability and access; increased drug trying rates; increased drug-usage rates; accommodating attitudes towards ‘sensible’ recreational drug use (especially by non-users); and a degree of cultural accommodation to illegal drug use. Although the thesis of normalization clearly has it strengths, and captures some important changes in the drug field, there are also shortcomings. One of the main criticisms of the thesis has been that it exaggerates the increase and extent of illicit drug use (Shiner and Newburn, 1997, 1999). In Norway, it has been argued that those who use illegal drugs still have particular characteristics and that a process of normalization does not describe them adequately, they do for example have other socio- economic characteristics and other popular cultural references (Pape and Rossow, 2004; Pedersen, 2009). Shiner (2009) argues that in the UK there is no reason to believe that the increases in drug use have taken the sudden or spectacular form that normalization theory suggests. There has been a slow evolution rather than a structural shift in drug use (for the full discussion, see Aldrigde et al., 2011; Measham and Shiner, 2009; Shiner, 2009). Another problematic aspect of normalization theory is the use of concepts such as ‘risk society’ (Beck, 1992) and ‘late modernity’ (Giddens, 1991). It is claimed that: ‘Rapid social changes in so many facets of everyday life have conspired to make growing up today “feel” far less secure and more uncertain for far longer’ (Parker et al., 1998: 151). Drug use is ‘about using “time-out” to self-medicate the impact of the stresses and strains of both success and failure in “modern” times’ (Parker et al., 1998: 152). These assumptions about the link between use and general societal changes are neither empiri- cally demonstrated in their data, nor is it clear that the contemporary ‘feeling’ of being insecure is stronger than it has been at any other time in history. Moreover, in an effort to disclaim subcultural approaches, Parker and his colleagues (1998: 158) argue that: ‘Our drug users are essentially extending the same decision-making processes to illicit drugs as others do in respect of cigarette smoking or drinking alcohol or indeed horse riding, hang gliding or mountaineering.’ However, rational decisions about drug use, ‘recognizable cost–benefit assessments’ (1998: 154), or the presence of a ‘rational, consumerist, decision-making process which dis- tinguishes between drugs, their effects and dangers’ (Parker et al., 2002: 948) should not be interpreted as indicators of normalization. Similar decision-making processes are described in the ‘subcultural’ historic period (see, for example, Becker, 1953; Johnson, 1973; Young, 1971), and there is no reason to assume that drug use with subcultural characteristics, cannot be ‘rational’, consumerist or involve a decision- making process. Cannabis users in this study for example, distinguish between cannabis and harder drugs, and have a lot of knowledge about effects and dangers.

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 4 Criminology & Criminal Justice 0(0)

Lifetime drug use (or even use in the last year) may not be the best way to measure cultural normalization. An illegal drug is not necessarily in a process of normalization, even though more people may have tried it or even use it occasionally. Drug users still face the threat of legal sanctions and experience stigma that challenges the assumptions of the normalization thesis (Hathaway et al., 2011). Any discussion of normalization should reflect how use is interpreted and understood. To quote Shiner and Newburn (1997: 519):

At the heart of the normalisation thesis … is a confusion between normalcy and frequency … Normative behaviour is not necessarily the most frequently occurring pattern, but is that which conforms to popular expectation … From this perspective, what young people think is at least as important as what they do.

Cannabis users in this study, for example, typically felt stigmatized by mainstream society (Sandberg, 2011) and tried to conceal use from their families. As demonstrated later there were also many other indications that they regarded their cannabis use as a symbolic marker of difference rather than something ‘normal’. Shiner and Newburn (1997, 1999) have previously argued that normalization is problematic because users are aware of, and have to respond to, judgements about the wrongfulness of using drugs. I suggest that normalization is also problematic because cannabis users still view use of the drug as somehow oppositional, and refer to a relatively stable cannabis culture. Addressing normalization theory is important and policy implications of misunder- standing the cultural role of cannabis are critical. The thesis of normalization has domi- nated research and popular perception of illegal drugs for the last two decades (Measham and Shiner, 2009). It can easily be played into a long tradition of sensationalist media coverage of illegal drugs (Shiner, 2009). Although it was never the intention, exaggerating actual use of cannabis or processes of cultural normalization can thus fuel a moral panic on illegal drugs, and justify the ongoing war on drugs, at least in the ‘hands of ideo- logical opponents’ (Erickson and Hathaway, 2010).

Subcultural Theory In the western world cannabis has long been a marker of an identity and a culture that resists majority norms (Booth, 2004). Its use has been associated with special kinds of music, milieus and lifestyles. Cannabis played a key role in the jazz scene of the 1920s and 1930s, and along with LSD it became the preferred drug of the 1950s Beat generation. However, it was in the wake of the youth rebellion of the 1960s and the advent of hippies that the substance took root in broader groups throughout the western world. Rastafarian culture and ideology were important in the first decades (Hamid, 2002), and today cannabis plays a key role in hip-hop culture (Golub, 2005). These subcultures explicitly position themselves as being oppositional to the norms of society at large, and they provide space and legitimacy for alternative and oppositional attitudes and understandings, often expressed through style, clothes and language (Hebdige, 1979).

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 Sandberg 5

The term subculture refers to the particular values and lifestyles of special groups. One definition often employed is:

Subcultures are groups of people that are in some way represented as non-normative and/or marginal through their particular interest and practices, through what they are, what they do and where they do it. They may represent themselves in this way, since subcultures are usually well aware of their differences, bemoaning them, relishing them, exploiting them, and so on. But they will also be represented like this by others, who in response can bring an entire apparatus of social classification and regulation to bear upon them. (Gelder, 2005: 1, emphasis in original)

Subcultural groups thus embrace and foster difference, but are also labelled by others. This can explain the delicate balance between attraction and exclusion often seen in subcultures. Subcultural forms of expression have fascinated generations of researchers. Early contributions came from the Chicago School, by authors such as Albert Cohen, David Matza and Howard Becker (see Plummer, 1997). The key term was deviance. From the early 1970s, the British Birmingham School (headed by researchers such as Stuart Hall, Phil Cohen and Paul Willis) provided a series of new contributions (see Turner, 1990). Their focus was on resistance. The idea in both schools was that oppressed groups, most often of working-class background and resisting middle-class values, formulated an active and alternative set of values. The subculture was regarded as a cultural response to a marginalized position. Subcultural theory has been subject to criticism, including the contention that many people participate in several subcultures, and their degree of identification with them var- ies (Bennett and Kahn-Harris, 2004; Muggleton and Weinzierl, 2003). Irwin (1977) argued that subcultural theory overlooks the everyday, and exaggerates the stability of the subculture and its members’ allegiance to it. Furthermore, a term such as subculture, that seeks to group individuals’ risks exaggerating their shared traits (Bennett and Kahn- Harris, 2004: 6–18). The importance of this criticism can be further demonstrated by this study. Normalization theory fails to recognize cannabis culture because it employs a traditional understanding of subculture rooted in subcultural strain theory (see, for example, Parker et al., 1998: 20) and emphasizes personal characteristics of users at the cost of the symbolic and social meaning of the substance (see, for example, Parker et al., 1998: 156). A new emphasis on the fragmentation of youth cultures led a number of researchers to replace subculture with other concepts. Inspired by Bourdieu’s (1987) concept of cultural capital, Thornton (1995) described a field-specific ‘subcultural’ capital used by clubbers in the UK. Subculture researchers with a more postmodern orientation have used other concepts, such as ‘scenes’ (Irwin, 1977), ‘tribes’ or ‘neo-tribes’ (Maffesoli, 1996), ‘lifestyle’ (Miles, 2000; Reimer, 1995) and ‘temporary sub-stream network’ (Weinzierl, 2000). The aim of the post-subculture tradition has been to capture the fragmentation, flow and ambivalence of contemporary subcultures, and hence avoid understanding culture as static and homogeneous. Nevertheless, some post-subculture approaches have kept an emphasis on ‘groups of people’ (‘tribes’, ‘network’), or only replaced ‘groups of people’ with individuals. The post-subculture tradition’s answer to fragmentation, flow and ambivalence became a thesis about the individualization of subcultures.

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 6 Criminology & Criminal Justice 0(0)

The use of cannabis today seems to be too widespread and its users too diverse to consti- tute a ‘traditional’ subculture (Matthews, 2003: 2). At the same time, however, it is obvious that cannabis use is symbolic consumption, woven into socially and culturally organized difference. I will argue that the term subculture can capture important aspects of contemporary cannabis use, but it must be given a slightly different meaning than earlier. Most importantly, a concept of subculture must be disentangled from the overwhelming emphasis on groups of people, without turning to the post-subcultural thesis of individualization. Consumption, drug use and lifestyle have always been social and must be analysed accordingly.

A Collection of Rituals, Stories and Symbols In this study, subculture does not refer to a group of people. Instead, it is used as an analyti- cal tool to grasp a culture that transgress individuals. Johnson (1973: 9) defined drug subcultures as ‘those conduct norms, social situations, role definitions and performances, and values that govern the use of illegal drugs’. This is a good definition, but as with most researchers in the subculture tradition, Johnson still ended up studying groups of people and their characteristics. In the drug research field, as in criminology and sociology more generally, it seems difficult to avoid having individuals as the main research unit. In an attempt to make culture the main research unit, this article defines subculture thus:

A subculture is a collection of rituals, stories and symbols. They revolve around certain perceptions of the world and are often linked to general cultural currents in society. To a greater or lesser extent, people and groups internalize and embody parts of the subculture. They also exploit the subculture in creative portrayals of themselves.

This understanding of subculture is consistent with Swidler’s (1986) expression ‘culture as a tool kit’, but it also includes the embodiment of culture captured by Pierre Bourdieu’s term habitus. In Bourdieu’s more deterministic approach, early life course experiences are especially significant (Bourdieu, 1990: 54), as are regularly repeated experiences (Bourdieu, 1977: 87). Habitus restricts the cultural creativity that Swidler (1986) describes. Such an understanding of subculture is inspired by the Birmingham School’s emphasis on the semiotics of cultural practice (Turner, 1990). The relative stability of cannabis culture discussed later also sits well with both Chicago and Birmingham subcultural theory. At the same time, the definition tries to avoid the overwhelming emphasis on individuals and groups of people in traditional subcultural studies. In short, the present study tries to capture the subcultural aspect of cannabis use without identifying clearly delimited groups of people (the traditional subcultural approach) or claim that it has all been individualized (the post-subculture approach). The aim is to seek out the dominant cultural and symbolic meaning of cannabis.

Method The data collected for this study were part of an extensive investigation of cannabis use in Norway 2006–2010 (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2010). Interviews were collected to get an overview over cannabis practices and economy. The sample is a theoretical sample

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 Sandberg 7

(Glaser and Strauss, 1967) of 100 cannabis users, and includes many people from a wide variety of subgroups, such as cannabis dealers, hip-hop’ers, students, cannabis activists, unemployed, employed and so on. We deliberately tried to get a wide variety of cannabis users and only a few of the participants knew each other. Many participants also some- times used other illegal drugs and most drank alcohol. Cannabis users were recruited through our own social networks, through university students, with some help from a pro-cannabis organization, through an Internet ad and some smugglers and large dealers were contacted in prison. Six key participants were interviewed more than once, and 20 were interviewed in groups. Everyone we interviewed had used cannabis for a long period of time, some sporadically and recreation- ally, others regularly and more heavily. Some said they had problems with cannabis, but no one was recruited from clinical settings. Most participants were white ethnic Norwegians. Eighty-eight participants were men and 12 were women. The fact that most were white ethnic and the gender imbalance must be considered when interpreting the data. The white bias can for example explain some of the references to the hippie movement as opposed to the influence of Rastafari, although that culture is also present. The male bias may have exaggerated the oppositional element, but these things are difficult to say. The majority of participants were in their 20s and 30s, but nine participants were in their 50s or 60s (see Table 1). They were among the first generation of cannabis users in Norway at the end of the 1960s. About a third of participants were working, a third were students and a third were on unemployment or other state benefits. Twenty-five participants described their use as partly medical, and 20 had experience in cannabis cultivation. Most of the participants sold the substance, but regarded this as favours for friends. The sample also includes 20 larger-scale dealers and smugglers. Fifteen were in prison when they were interviewed. Most of the incarcerated participants were serving sentences for drug-related offences, but not all the cases were related to cannabis. The interviews lasted from one-and-a-half hours to three hours. They were semi- structured and quite flexible in thematic focus. The interviews were transcribed and coded in NVIVO, a qualitative data processing program. This program allowed us to see patterns that otherwise might have vanished in such a large amount of data. The coding schemata have 134 codes, the most relevant of which for this article are: ‘cannabis rituals’ (descriptions of rituals), ‘cannabis symbols’ (descriptions of symbols) and two codes that reflected many of the most important stories, ‘cannabis ideology’ and ‘justifications’

Table 1. Age of participants in study

Age No. 18–24 18 25–29 42 30–39 24 40–49 7 50–59 5 60 + 4

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 8 Criminology & Criminal Justice 0(0)

(the latter two codes have many sub-codes). All codes were chosen after about half of the interviews were done. Cannabis use in Norway has traditionally been lower than in the UK, and prevalence rates have remained at a medium to low level by European standards (EMCDDA, 2010). However, with the recently and relatively high level of use in Norway (Pedersen, 2008), one would expect the cultural processes of normalization to have an impact there as well. There is no reason that normalization theory’s assumptions about the link between prevalence of use and processes of normalization should be specific to the UK setting. There are still some difficulties comparing the UK-study (Aldridge et al., 2011; Parker et al., 1998) with the present one. First, Scandinavia is a different social context and normalization theory is ‘historically and culturally context specific’ (Aldridge et al., 2011: 217). Second, the thesis of normalization addresses adolescent drug use and the attitudes of non-users, but we do not have any information about non-users in our study. Third, the participants in this study were older, some were dealers and they had a longer and more developed engagement with illegal drugs (at least with respect to cannabis) than in the first UK study (Parker et al., 1998). In the last study however (Aldridge et al., 2011), many are of about the same age. Despite important differences in the sample, there may still be something to learn from this study outside the Norwegian context. Most importantly, normalization theory’s understanding of subculture, emphasizing groups and individual characteristics, makes it difficult to see drug subcultures. A traditional theoretical approach to subcultures can exaggerate the normalcy of a subcultural practice. The ‘tipping point’ between subcultural practices and normative practices are of course difficult to decide, but this study suggests that if analysed as symbols, rituals and stories, not people, cannabis use can still be seen as a marker of fascinating cultural difference.

Cannabis Symbols A symbol is a sign, an object, an event or a material object that refers to or represents something other or more than itself (Turner, 1967). In cannabis culture there are many symbols, including dreadlocks (matted coils of hair) and other objects indicat- ing Rastafarian ideology, clothes made of hemp or a chillum – a particular smoking device (the verb to chill is now also slang for relaxing in many languages). The cannabis sativa plant itself is of special significance, however. It is often featured on clothes, compact disc and record covers, posters, internet sites and literature about cannabis. In complex ways the cannabis plant captures what cannabis culture is all about. The cannabis plant is a more important symbolic marker in cannabis culture than equivalent raw materials in other drug cultures. A heroin user does not give special value to images of opium poppies, nor do cocaine users embrace the image of coca leaves, and wine drinkers have a quite relaxed relationship with the symbolic value of grapes. The cannabis plant is seen where cannabis is used and it seems to indicate a bigger imaginative universe (see also Hamid, 2002). The importance of the cannabis plant must be considered in relation to the emphasis on organic and natural practices in cannabis culture. The plant is a green herb, and it grows in the wild and

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 Sandberg 9 looks harmless, unlike the ‘synthetic’ image associated with some other drugs, for example amphetamines and cocaine. Images of the ‘natural’ cannabis plant are therefore a crucial part of cannabis culture, and the plant is symbolically associated with values reaching far beyond itself. Some may argue that cannabis symbols and culture are a thing of the past. If we understand subcultures as ‘groups of people’ (Gelder, 2005), those critics may be right. However, if we understand subculture as a collection of symbols, rituals and stories, the cannabis culture is still vital. This subculture may not dominate the life of most cannabis users, but it is highly influential and almost impossible to avoid when people use or try to understand their use of cannabis. For example, across age and level of use among participants in this study, the cannabis plant was still a highly potent symbol, as were cannabis rituals.

Cannabis Rituals As early as the 1970s, Zimmerman and Wieder (1977) outlined these three basic rituals for cannabis use:

1. Everyone who has cannabis is expected to share. 2. The joint or pipe is passed round to all those present. 3. Smoking cannabis together obliges one to further social interaction.

Rituals and symbols are important elements in a subculture. They are also tightly interlinked. Anthropology understands the ritual as ‘prescribed formal behaviour for occasions not given over to technological routine, having reference to beliefs in mystical beings or powers’ (Turner, 1967: 19). Sociology has emphasized the importance of habits, traditions and everyday rituals (Goffman, 1967). Primarily, it is the sociological understanding of rituals and symbols that has been used in drug and alcohol research. Harding and Zinberg (1977), for instance, understood ritual as a stylized and prescribed behaviour associated with the use of a drug. Still, these drug-use rituals can be interpreted as referring to ‘mystical’ beings and powers. Strong, stable rituals form the core of all cultures. They are important because they maintain discipline, bring people together and give the participants a sense of belonging (Durkheim, 1976). Mattis, a young man we interviewed, recounted an episode when he sat smoking together with four friends. All of them brought something to smoke and they all rolled joints. There was no rush; some began smoking and the joints were passed round. In the end, the five friends were sitting in a ring passing round five joints. Mattis started laughing as he recalled the event. All of them were acting on reflex, all of them wanted to share, and all of them knew that the joint was supposed to be passed round. The episode underlines the obvious and automatic character of the most fundamental ritual associated with cannabis smoking: cannabis must be shared. This ritual is of course not always strictly followed by cannabis users. Still, sharing is a crucial part of the symbolic meaning of the drug, and the subculture associated with it.

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 10 Criminology & Criminal Justice 0(0)

Sharing takes place by passing round a joint or pipe to everyone present. Another cannabis smoker explained:

Interviewer: Is having others around you important when you smoke? Interviewee: That ritual is really important. Most people roll joints and then the bowl comes out and everyone puts a bit in. It is then rolled and passed round, always to the left … Interviewer: Everyone puts a bit of their hash in?1 Interviewee: Yes, that’s the polite thing to do. You toke it and pass it on. It rotates. It is a great ritual lots of people really like. Interviewer: What are the unwritten rules of the ritual? Interviewee: If you’ve got some cannabis, you have to chip in. If there’s a joint, it’s rude to sit with it for too long, and it’s rude to whine to get it quicker. It’s coming your way.

Everyone we interviewed, from the most excluded to the more resourceful and highly educated, mentioned the ritual that cannabis must be shared. Even a group of marginalized street cannabis dealers (interviewed for another study), deeply involved in a violent street culture, acknowledged this ritual (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2009). The same rituals were described in all parts of the country and by all age groups: if there is a joint, it has to be passed round. If you have cannabis, it has to be shared. If someone rolls a joint, everyone has to chip in. If there are a number of people present, it is impolite for smaller groups to smoke alone. Daniel mentioned an expression coined to refer to selfish hash smokers:

Bogarting is an important expression. It’s from Humphrey Bogart. A lot of people think it’s about hogging the joint for ages, but it’s actually about taking many tokes. He took deep drags, you could see the cigarette getting shorter. When the joint gets 1–2 mm shorter each time, and then it comes to you and maybe goes down 2 cm, the others will notice it. It’s really rude.

Daniel is not entirely correct here, Bogarting usually means taking an unduly long time with a joint (he had it hanging from the mouth), but the point is the same. This expression is common and also appears in popular culture, such as the Fraternity of Man track ‘Don’t Bogartme’ (1968, Easy Rider, soundtrack, Reprise). It demonstrates how flouting cannabis rituals provokes negative reactions, as the core of cannabis culture has been transgressed. These rituals of using cannabis seem to have remained stable since the introduction of the substance to Norway in the 1960s. The social function of rituals is to express and amplify values and norms (Collins, 2004). Goffman emphasizes that rituals place a focus on feelings, thereby producing a shared reality. Subsequently, solidarity is created, symbolizing membership to the group. Rituals contribute to group identity, which creates social bonds and strengthens personal relations (Collins, 2004). It is in the light of such processes that using cannabis should be seen. It is a ‘tie sign’ (Goffman, 1961). Rituals associated with cannabis use express, fixate and amplify values and norms. They help preserve social bonds, so that close relations are developed.

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 Sandberg 11

Cannabis rituals are not just a variant of more general norms pertaining to the use of legal or illegal drugs. A cigarette is not normally shared with others; if it is, it usually indicates a close relationship between those involved, such as between lovers. Nor is it usual for people to drink from the same pint at a pub. But a joint or pipe is usually shared with total strangers – at parties, at friends of friends, or outside pubs. Passing something from lip to lip emits strong signals of togetherness and friendship. Smoking the same joint is therefore a more potent marker of solidarity, group belonging and difference than buying rounds at the pub or offering cigarettes to other smokers. Another widespread cannabis ritual is the rule that the roller of the joint or the one who does the pipe gets first go. This was usually expressed through the expression: ‘den som mekker’n trekker’n’ (the one who rolls it, tokes it). From Finmark in the far north of Norway, in the east and west and in towns and villages alike the expression resonated. It was a part of users’ colloquial language, and when they tried to explain what it meant, some people started giggling. Everyone we talked to was familiar with this rule and the principle has also been described in Pilcher (2005). This ritual differs from the usual principle of guests first. It would be unthinkable for the host at a supper to take first serving. But cannabis culture has its own rules that are not derived from general norms of hospitality and drug and alcohol use. These rituals are by no means obvious. As Becker (1953) mentions, one must master the social codes to become a competent user of cannabis. In the words of a more contemporary subcultural approach: one who lacks the skills associated with cannabis culture, or does not know or follow the prescribed rituals, loses subcultural capital (Thornton, 1995) in the cannabis culture and thus the social rewards provided by using cannabis. The rituals of cannabis are well established and such norms apply whenever cannabis is smoked. They do not imply any permanent ties to the cannabis culture, but when using the drug, these rituals tie cannabis users’ hands. Cannabis culture, therefore, is better understood as a collection of symbols, rituals and stories, than as a ‘group of people’.

The Stories of Cannabis Culture Cannabis culture cannot be understood by symbols and rituals alone. An analysis of the subculture must also include language and stories. Stories organize social experiences so they are comprehensible and provide meaning. Gelder (2005) emphasizes that a subculture rests on certain stories. One could easily go further and argue that the subculture is primarily created and reproduced through its tales about itself. They uphold and fortify both cannabis symbols and rituals, and they keep the subculture together. Cannabis users are, like everyone else, bound by the social stories available to them when they try to imbue their use of the substance with meaning (Gubrium and Holstein, 2003; Holstein and Gubrium, 2000). Jonas was 30 and people in his village did not know he smoked cannabis. He liked it there, but he made fun of his fellow villagers’ attitudes towards drugs: ‘You see, people have moonshine on tap, more or less. But hash, that’s drugs!’ But he knew ‘better’. He felt rather like an ‘outsider in the village’. When he joined the army he met other cannabis smokers. Together they used cannabis in their free time and at work. He explained

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 12 Criminology & Criminal Justice 0(0) that it was ‘a reaction to the authoritarian command system’. For Jonas and most others in this study, smoking cannabis was related to some kind of desire to be an outsider. Cannabis users often argued that they had more insight than most other people. They believed they understood things that others did not. Thornton (1995) describes this as being in possession of ‘secret knowledge’, and considers it an important part of subcultures. One such typical story relates the ignorance and myopia of the authorities. Many participants told about encounters with ‘state propaganda’ at school, for example:

Interviewee: Christ, we were sure that what we’d heard about hash and drugs was lies and propaganda. Everyone was visited by one of those ex-druggies at school and born-again heroin addicts. The police came and showed us examples of drugs. I remember well a campaign at the police station called ‘From Bagatelle to Hell’. Have you ever heard about it? Interviewer: Mmm. [Nods.] Interviewee: Although some of it was probably true, the portrayal of the reality and the repercussions were so different from our experiences. We had zero confidence in the information that came from above.

Encounters with anti-drug campaigns are a recurring theme in the stories of cannabis users. The moral in these stories is typically that information from school and the police is untrustworthy. Some of the cannabis users believed they had discovered the ignorance of the authorities years before they started using the substance. Some even went so far as to say that this was the reason they started using cannabis, because they wanted to prove the state propaganda wrong. The cannabis plant is the anchoring symbol of cannabis culture. In the same way, describing cannabis as ‘organic’ or as a ‘plant’ is an important story. One cannabis user recounted that many cannabis smokers also accepted mushrooms, saying, ‘There is an important boundary between the chemical and the natural.’ We asked what was natural, to which he replied: ‘Cannabis and mushrooms are natural and a lot of people dream about trying cactuses and things like that. But there’s not much of that about in Norway. So it’s usually cannabis, and mushrooms maybe once a year.’ Cannabis users regard cannabis as a ‘natural’ product. Mushrooms are also accepted, whereas ‘chemical’ drugs, such as cocaine and amphetamines, are not. This opposition between what is natural and what is chemical can be interpreted as embedded in a larger moral and cultural opposition between nature and culture, or as a criticism of modern society. These and many other of the stories from Norwegian cannabis users are hardly new. Becker (1963) described a number of them at the beginning of the 1950s in the USA (Shiner, 2009: 22), and Peretti-Watel (2003) finds many of the same stories as Becker in France. Keesing (1974) emphasized that cultures are the symbolic forms people use to experience and express meaning. All cultures are based on stories that continuously create or recreate them. The stories of cannabis culture emphasize that cannabis makes users relaxed and non-violent, is ‘natural’, gives users’ insights they would not otherwise get and makes them creative and more sympathetic. They are deeply embedded in the stories

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 Sandberg 13 of the radical social movements of the 1960s and 1970s (Sandberg and Pedersen, 2010). The stories mentioned above are not exhaustive (and neither are the rituals or symbols), but they indicate the presence of a strong and stable cannabis culture that has been neglected by normalization theory.

Confirmation through Rejection A culture is reified by revealing a set of characteristic features. However, many cannabis users in this study embraced only parts of the cannabis culture described above, or they even actively rejected it. Knut said, ‘It’s a joke when you’re growing up, you mustn’t start wearing batik because then you’ll start smoking hash.’ He continued:

That batik alternative, the mysticism of the Orient – I’ve never quite got my head round it. But that mate of mine, who smoked too much, he got way involved in anthroposophy and the mystical early 20th-century mix up of religions which they were doing in Germany and around Steiner. I’ve never thought all that mysticism was interesting.

He had selected other parts of cannabis culture that he liked, most importantly surf culture and he was fascinated by the forbidden, but he wanted to keep other aspects at a distance, especially the religious side. Other cannabis users started by saying, ‘I’m no hippie, but …’, or they explained how they expanded or challenged cannabis rituals and symbols. Many users also ridiculed key stories in cannabis culture. The simple interpretation of such statements is that they challenge the main argument in this article. However, if most users, even the ‘naive’ ones, know the most important symbols, rituals and stories, it indicates that these cultural elements are still an important part of the symbolic universe surrounding the drug. If the conversation were about any- thing other than cannabis, interviewees would not start by stating, ‘I’m no hippie’. Cannabis culture limits possible interpretations of cannabis use and is cultural patterns and resources on which large groups can draw, or even reject, in creative portrayals of themselves. Different groups embrace different parts of cannabis culture and use it to varying degrees. Nonetheless, as demonstrated in this study, a kind of ordered or organized difference is fundamental for the symbolic meaning of the drug.

A Stable Subculture in a Changing World The rituals, symbols and stories of contemporary cannabis culture are shaped by and interwoven with the ideology of the social and cultural movements of the 1960s and 1970s. In most western countries, cannabis was introduced and fostered by young people whose project was political opposition. They were often out of step with the values of the wider culture. The introduction of cannabis coincided with great cultural changes in this period. Although medical cannabis use has become more important (Pedersen and Sandberg, 2012), the influence of the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s is still important when contemporary cannabis smokers use and try to understand their use of cannabis.

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 14 Criminology & Criminal Justice 0(0)

Pockets of cannabis culture are replicas of the culture as it was 40 years ago, with the same popular cultural references and the same political ideology. As a rule, however, the link is more subtle and complex. A plant dominates the symbolic universe, and sharing rituals emphasize solidarity and intimacy and reject the idea of property. Key notions in the stories of cannabis culture are non-violence or peacefulness, natural or organic practices, extending one’s horizons and finding oneself, alternative religiosity, a relaxed lifestyle and the rejection of chasing after careers and work. If one were to sum up the values of the hippie and bohemian counter cultures of the 1960s and 1970s (see, for example, Young, 1971), the list would be rather similar. It is thus difficult to see the symbolic meaning of cannabis without seeing the way in which it has grown from the cultural currents of the time of its introduction. This breaks with the picture often painted of subcultures. They are often regarded as cultural innovations and associated with new cultural trends. In the 1960s and 1970s, cannabis culture represented just such a change. Often such subcultures are short-lived, but cannabis culture did not vanish. It is durable and stable, which is why it today appear as retrospective and nostalgic. To understand contemporary cannabis culture, a subcultural theoretical framework is both fruitful and necessary. However, some changes in the traditional understanding of subculture must be made. Contemporary cannabis culture can easily be missed if it is defined as ‘groups of people’ rather than as a collection of symbols, rituals and stories that govern the use of cannabis. The Chicago and Birmingham Schools examined extreme, homogeneous subcultural groups, and their understanding of subcultures has influenced most research into drug subcultures. A traditional view of subcultures is problematic generally, and especially so when normalization theory applies it to the widespread use of cannabis (Aldridge et al., 2011; Parker et al., 1998). Although the cultural patterns in cannabis culture are clear enough, it may be less clear who ‘partici- pates’ in the culture and how devoted they are to it. Using drugs is not necessarily the defining trait of a person or a group. People move between several subcultures (Muggleton, 2000) and they must balance subcultural affiliations with their affiliation to society at large.2 Some cannabis users nevertheless fully enter cannabis culture. They are the closest one can come to the group of people Gelder (2005) and traditional subculture theory describe. For some, cannabis has become very important, almost a lifestyle. Most cannabis smokers are not captured by this description however. Using cannabis is not their master status (Hughes, 1945) and cannabis culture is not their primary life project. They observe or ignore cannabis rituals, and they play with the symbols. They use the symbols, rituals and stories of cannabis culture creatively, continually attempting to interpret and reinterpret their own lives. They also draw on other cultural elements, and they interweave cannabis culture with street culture, modern music, surf or skate culture or new philosophy and literature. Cannabis users may be ‘normal’ and not solely devoted to cannabis culture. Many users also state that cannabis is ‘not a big deal any more’ as a first response to questions about the substance. However, as one digs deeper, it is apparent that the rituals and symbolic meanings of cannabis still revolve around difference. So do the stories. Cannabis symbols, rituals and stories are interlinked, almost as a homology (Levi-Strauss, 1963; Willis, 1978), and they emerge from the social context of the 1960s and 1970s. It may be

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 Sandberg 15 that many people use cannabis, but when they do it, it is part of a role-playing that fun- damentally signals opposition and some kind of rebellion. This is also what dominates when cannabis users reflect about or try to understand their use. Normalization is thus not the best way to describe what goes on when people use cannabis.

Conclusion The thesis of normalization is indicative of a more general and somehow problematic way ‘to do’ social science. Criminology and sociology is pre-occupied by change and new cultural trends are systematically favoured at the expense of cultural stability. Changes in society motivate research and rhetoric of change fuels theorizing. In both academic journals and mass media, social science is usually either a presenter or an inter- preter of changes, which is also how projects are frequently framed to funders. Of course, contemporary cannabis practices, stories and symbolism are not exactly the same as in the 1960s and 1970s. As Derrida (1988) points out, when context changes, the meaning also changes. Cannabis culture seems to be more fragmented now, and maybe it does not dominate people’s lives in the way it used to either. It is hybridized with other cultural influences and medical use has become more important. However, when trying to understand the symbolic meaning of cannabis use, at least in Norway, stability is more striking than change. That may be more surprising than any thesis of change.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Norwegian Research Council (research grant 196608). Thanks to Willy Pedersen whom I worked on this research with.

Notes 1. In Scandinavia cannabis is usually consumed in the form of hashish, not marijuana. 2. This is not only the case for contemporary cannabis culture. It is a common mistake to exaggerate the homogeneity of subcultures, and it is probably more readily done with previous subcultures than contemporary ones.

References Aldridge J, Measham F and Williams L (2011) Illegal Leisure Revisited. London: Routledge. Beck U (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE. Becker H (1953) Becoming a marihuana user. American Journal of Sociology 59: 235–242. Becker H (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: The Free Press. Bennett A and Kahn-Harris K (2004) After Subculture: Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Booth M (2004) Cannabis: A History. London: Bentham Books. Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu P (1987) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu P (1990) The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Collins R (2004) Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Derrida J (1988) Signature event context. In: Graff G (ed.) Limited Inc. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, pp. 1–25.

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 16 Criminology & Criminal Justice 0(0)

Durkheim E (1976) Elementary Forms of Religious Life. London: George Allen & Unwin. EMCDDA (2010) Annual report 2010: Cannabis. Available at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/ online/annual-report/2010/cannabis/3 (accessed 6 December 2011). Erickson PG and Hathaway AD (2010) Normalization and harm reduction: Research avenues and policy agendas. International Journal of Drug Policy 21: 137–139. Gelder K (2005) The Subcultures Reader. London and New York: Routledge. Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge, MA: Polity. Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company. Goffman E (1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Harmondsworth: Pelican Books. Goffman E (1967) Interaction Rituals. New York: Pantheon Books. Golub A (2005) The Cultural/Subcultural Contexts of Marijuana Use at the Turn of the Twenty- First Century. New York: The Haworth Press. Goode E (1970) The Marijuana Smokers. New York: Basic Books. Gubrium JF and Holstein JA (eds) (2003) Postmodern Interviewing. London: SAGE. Hamid A (2002) The Ganja Complex: Rastafari and Marijuana. Oxford: Lexington Books. Harding WM and Zinberg NE (1977) The effectiveness of the subculture in developing rituals and social sanctions for controlling drug use. In: Du Toit BM (ed.) Drugs, Rituals and Altered States of Consciousness. Rotterdam: AA Balkema, pp. 111–133. Hathaway AD, Comeau NC and Erickson PG (2011) Cannabis normalization and stigma: Contemporary practices of moral regulation. Criminology and Criminal Justice 11: 451–469. Hebdige D (1979) Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Routledge. Holstein JA and Gubrium JF (2000) The Self We Live By: Story Identity in a Postmodern World. New York: Oxford University Press. Hughes E (1945) Dilemmas and contradictions of status. American Journal of Sociology 50: 353–359. Irwin J (1977) Scenes. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Johnson BD (1973) Marijuana Users and Drug Subcultures. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Keesing RM (1974) Theories of culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 3: 73–97. Levi-Strauss C (1963) Structural Anthropology. Vol. 1. New York: Basic Books. Maffesoli M (1996) The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society. London: SAGE. Matthews P (2003) Cannabis Culture. London: Bloomsbury. Measham F and Shiner M (2009) The legacy of ‘normalization’: The role of classical and contemporary criminological theory in understanding young people’s drug use. International Journal of Drug Policy 20: 502–508. Miles S (2000) Youth Lifestyles in a Changing World. Buckingham: Open University Press. Muggleton D (2000) Inside Subculture: The Postmodern Meaning of Style. Oxford: Berg. Muggleton D and Weinzierl R (eds) (2003) The Post-Subcultures Reader. Oxford: Berg. Parker H, Aldridge J and Measham F (1998) Illegal Leisure: The Normalization of Adolescent Recreational Drug Use. London: Routledge. Parker H, Williams L and Aldridge J (2002) The normalization of ‘sensible’ recreational drug use: Further evidence from the North West England Longitudinal Study. Sociology 36(4): 941–961. Pape H and Rossow I (2004) ‘Ordinary’ people with ‘normal’ lives? A longitudinal study of ecstasy and other drugs among Norwegian youth. Journal of Drug Issues 34: 389–418. Pedersen W (2008) Hasjbruk Hos Unge Voksne. Tidsskrift for Den norske lægeforening 128: 1825–1828.

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014 Sandberg 17

Pedersen W (2009) Cannabis use: Subcultural opposition or social marginality? A population-based longitudinal study. Acta Sociologica 52(2): 135–148. Pedersen W and Sandberg S (2012) The medicalization of revolt: A sociological analysis of medical cannabis users. Sociology of Health & Illness. In press. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467- 9566.2012.01476.x. Peretti-Watel P (2003) Neutralisation theory and the denial of risk: Some evidence from cannabis use among French adolescents. British Journal of Sociology 54(1): 21–42. Pilcher T (2005) Spliffs: The Last Word in Cannabis Culture? London: Collins & Brown. Plummer K (1997) The Chicago School, Vol. 1–4. London: Routledge. Reimer B (1995) Youth and modern lifestyle. In: Fornäs J and Bolin G (eds) Youth Culture in Late Modernity. London: SAGE, pp. 120–144. Sandberg S (2011) Is cannabis use normalized, celebrated or neutralized? Analysing talk as action. Addiction Research & Theory. Epub ahead of print 12 December 2011. DOI: 10.3109/16066359.2011.638147. Sandberg S and Pedersen W (2009) Street Capital: Black Cannabis Dealers in a White Welfare State. Bristol: Policy Press. Sandberg S and Pedersen W (2010) Cannabiskultur. Oslo: Norwegian University Press. Shiner M (2009) Drug Use and Social Change: The Distortion of History. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Shiner M and Newburn T (1997) ‘Definitely, maybe not’: The normalisation of recreational drug use amongst young people. Sociology 31(3): 511–529. Shiner M and Newburn T (1999) Taking tea with Noel: The place and meaning of drug use in everyday life. In: South N (ed.) Drugs: Cultures, Controls and Everyday Life. London: SAGE, pp. 139–159. Swidler A (1986) Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review 51: 273–286. Thornton S (1995) Club Cultures: Music, Media and Sub-Cultural Capital. Cambridge: Polity Press. Turner G (1990) British Cultural Studies: An Introduction. London: Unwin-Hyman. Turner V (1967) The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. London: Cornell University Press. Weinzierl R (2000) Fight the Power: A Secret History of Pop and the Formation of New Substreams. Vienna: Passagen-Verlag. Willis P (1978) Profane Culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Young J (1971) The Drugtakers: The Social Meaning of Drug Use. London: MacGibbon & Kee. Zimmerman DH and Wieder DL (1977) You can’t help but get stoned: Notes on the social organization of marijuana smoking. Social Problems 25(2): 198–207.

Biography Sveinung Sandberg, PhD, is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Sociology and Human Geography at the University of Oslo. He is author of Street Capital: Black Cannabis Dealers in a White Welfare State (with Willy Pedersen) and several journal articles in areas such as street culture, illegal drugs and social movements.

Downloaded from crj.sagepub.com at University of Colorado Denver on August 29, 2014