Every patterned, objectified, and structured society comes with laws and regulations. The system of rules that cannot be created and enforced without sociopolitical or economic standing of the people, and their reaction towards the system. Recently, the proposed act of the legalization of recreational use of marijuana has recently become a significant transition in Canadian society. When sociologist looks closely to the legalizations for recreational marijuana, they wonder why marijuana become a legal activity and how people think about marijuana use and its regulating laws. And questions can be answered and understood by classical theories, sociological thinking, and legal consciousness.
The famous sociologist, Karl Marx, developed the theory which features the differences between a power of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, often referred to as the powerful (e.g., the rich) and powerless (e.g., the poor) (SOC216, January 15). The Marxist theory also mentions the idea of base and superstructure, which are codependent one another, but ironically enforce a class division. The base refers to the relations and means of productions, and the superstructure maintains and legitimates the base through law, politics, religion, education, mass media, family, or other forms of societal structures.
Through a Marxist perspective, the law (or superstructure) is constantly changing and being amended to fit the current society; however, this is a tactic to allow the higher class to thrive. In regard to the legalization of marijuana, Marxist idea of base and superstructure is clearly visible through the strict laws and regulations related to the sale, possession, production, and distribution (Cox 2018). For example, the act allows adults to possess the marijuana, however, it controls the allowed amount of consumption, the allowed method and locations to access the marijuana, as well as the quality of marijuana (Cox 2018). Even though legalization seems to be a progressive act, the act is still in accordance with the common goal of abiding with the upper class. The similar phenomenon occurred in the 19th century. The factory acts were supposed to protect the workers, ironically the working day becomes more intense, which means capitalism wins at the end (SOC2016, January 15). The criminal penalties for violating the regulation are extensive and result in jail. Such penalties are seen as reinforcing the inequality between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The marijuana market has been described to come about as another corporation, run mostly by the provincial government. The market deals with all the economic elements such as pricing, supply, and demand. Everything has a reinforcing effect on the base coming from the superstructure of the marijuana market. Laws are subject to be changed when a means of capital is needed. For example, accountants come up with the value of the Canadian pot industry, the projection would suggest 2.1 to 2.3 billion dollars in retail sales only in Ontario by the first year (Crawley 2017).
Unlike Marx’ class division, Durkheim questioned “how do we survive as a society?” or “what makes or keeps society?”. Durkheim developed the concept of social solidarity and collective consciousness (SOC216, January 22). The collective consciousness is a unifying force within society by operating the set of shared beliefs, ideas, or moral attitudes (SOC216, January 22). Durkheim believed interdependence between individuals forms the basis of social solidarity (SOC216, January 22). The regulations are a reflection of the shared belief from the conscience collective and are subject to change as shared norms change (SOC216, January 22).
The legalization of marijuana questions the recreational use of marijuana should be considered as illegal activity or not. According to the 2018 cannabis report, forty-eight per cent of cannabis consumers say they use cannabis to improve their mood. In addition, various surveys or studies suggest that a large majority of Canadian attitudes towards legalizing marijuana was supportive. Since the shared norms and collective conscience seems to accept marijuana use, therefore should not be considered as an illegal activity. However, the main difference between Marxian and Durkheimian perspectives are found in terms of punishment. Durkheimian theory views the petalites (e.g., fines or incarnation) associated with going against the collective conscience is a constructive and earned punishment. Performing a crime violates the validated framework and therefore cause a passionate response that is voiced collectively to provide consequences.
The legal consciousness refers to what people do and says about law every day (SOC216, February 5). In other words, how the person understands and interprets the law; for example, “is the law everywhere equally distributed?”, “To what degree do individuals understand their lives through legal processes and concepts?”, or “Is there law everywhere?”. (SOC216, February 5). The concept of legal consciousness is neither solely ideational nor individual trait; rather, legal consciousness is a type of social practice, which reflecting and forming social structure (SOC216, February 5).
Legal consciousness is found among Canadian’s different interpretation upon the legalized recreational use of marijuana and its regulating laws. According to the people’ comments in the article (Israel 2017), some individuals are not surprised about the fact that the government is moving towards a monopoly on marijuana use. Some individuals were concerned with a possible drug overdose, the age limit for consumption, health risk relating to marijuana, and even comparing the situation with Philippines (i.e., how the president of the Philippines deal with drug use) (Israel 2017). However, others trust the role of Canadian law and government in terms of marijuana use. Unsurprisingly, people position themselves differently towards the law and how the marijuana market should be operated. Therefore, legal consciousness is influenced by various aspects of intersectionality and observed in the legalization of marijuana.
In conclusion, Canada has achieved the legalization of the recreational consumption of marijuana. Sociological questions in legalization are answered and analyzed by Marxian perspective, Durkheimian perspective, and the legal consciousness. Marxian perspective interprets the legalization as the law (e.g., superstructure) changed due to the change of the means of production (e.g., base). Durkheimian perceptive view the newly created social norms among Canadian favored the legalization of recreational marijuana use. Finally, the different argument in terms of legalization in Canadian society was recognized as a legal consciousness.
Bibliography
Cox, Chelsea. 2018. “The Canadian Cannabis Act Legalizes and Regulates Recreational Cannabis Use in 2018.” Health Policy 122(3):205–9.
Crawley, Mike. 2017. “What Is the Legal Weed Market Really Going to Be Worth in Ontario? | CBC News.” CBCnews. Retrieved February 3, 2019 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/marijuana-ontario-price-market-sales-1.4298311).
Deloitte. 2018. “A society in transition, an industry ready to bloom. 2018 Cannabis Report”
Ferreras, Jesse. 2018. “Pot Is Legal, but That Doesn't Mean Canadians Think Other Drugs Should Be: Ipsos Poll.” Global News. Retrieved February 2, 2019 (https://globalnews.ca/news/4561760/canada-legalize-all-drugs-marijuana/).
Israel, Solomon. 2017. “The Incredible Edible Mystery: Makers of Marijuana-Infused Foods Await Regulations | CBC News.” CBCnews. Retrieved February 3, 2019 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-legalization-marijuana-edibles-1.4079341).