Framing Cannabis Regulation Models: Between Competition and Complementarity
Context and objective: Over the past decade, there has been an unprecedented surge in cannabis legalization. Several studies on the issue focus on its regulatory dimension, fostering debates on how best to regulate the production, sale and consumption of cannabis. Fewer studies focus specifically on the discourse surrounding cannabis legalization. Of these, no research to our knowledge attempts to link discourse analysis to conceptualizations of its regulation. This article aims to fill this gap. Question and methods: I ask the following research question: How are various understandings of cannabis regulation reflected in discourse on cannabis legalization policies? I perform comparative framing analysis of parliamentary debates and committee briefs in Quebec (proposed bill 2) and Ontario (proposed bill 36) as part of the reformulation of their initial legalization policy. The analytical grid for framing analysis is built from a typology of cannabis regulation models laid out by Beauchesne (2020). Results and implications: I first show that the nature of the frames used and regulation models they reflect vary across cases and policy actors. Second, I show that several regulation models are mobilized within discourse in a competitive and complementary fashion. Ultimately, this paper underlines how framing of drug policies is strategic in nature, in a realm of debates where multiple visions of the issue attempt to prevail.