The symbiotic tensions of the regulatory–carceral state: The case of cannabis legalization

Abstract

Recent scholarship has emphasized the need to develop a polymorphic conceptualization of the regulatory state. This article contributes to this theory-building project by outlining a research agenda for exploring the symbiotic interactions and tensions between the regulatory and carceral morphs of the state. Using the case study of cannabis legalization reforms in the United States, we argue that the legitimation deficits of the carceral state stimulate the proliferation of new regulatory frameworks for governing social problems that were traditionally handled by the criminal justice system. We demonstrate how the polymorphic approach illuminates the ways in which the regulatory and carceral morphs of the state compete for influence over shared policy domains, but also complement and reinforce one another. Thus, rather than precipitating the demise of the carceral state, cannabis legalization reforms sustain a bifurcated governance structure perpetuating long-standing patterns of using drug law as a means for racialized social control.

Blowing in the Wind: Cannabis Legalization, Insiders, and Methodological Insights from British Columbia

“…This transference inevitably required additional and more expansive forms of control. Reforming cannabis policy may result in governments that expand regulation into areas previously managed by penal forms of power (Aaronson & Rothschild-Elyassi, 2021). This observation emerged in the four themes identified through this research.…”

“…15 The economics of cannabis use provides another window into other more subtle forms of control. States have adopted several adaptive strategies to extend authority over legal cannabis (Aaronson & Rothschild-Elyassi, 2021), such as limiting access to licenses, pursuing policies that undermine small growers, or preventing access to new products. An immediate concern is how cannabis regulation may sustain rather than disrupt illicit cannabis markets.…”

“…This was reported by participants and has been demonstrated through a review of educational material from Canadian provinces and territories, which continue to promote "messaging that is predominantly infused with traditional risk-based rhetoric about cannabis" (Watson et al 2019: 474). Stigmatization cannot be divorced from the policing of cannabis and the focus on public health first and access second (Aaronson & Rothschild-Elyassi, 2021). More work should consider the ways in which illusory reform, identified by Cohen (1979;1985), perpetuates what it claims to supplant.…”

Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities in the Cannabis Industry

“…he legalization of cannabis has emerged as a significant global phenomenon, eliciting a range of regulatory responses aimed at navigating the complex socio-economic and public health landscapes. As various jurisdictions endeavor to craft policies that protect public health while curbing illegal markets, understanding the multifaceted impacts of these regulatory frameworks becomes essential (Aaronson & Rothschild-Elyassi, 2021;Adams et al, 2021;Amroussia et al, 2020;Borodovsky et al, 2021;Hall & Lynskey, 2020;Robinson et al, 2020;Rosic et al, 2021;Wadsworth et al, 2022). The evolution of cannabis regulation presents a unique case study in regulatory science, a discipline that seeks to optimize policy outcomes through evidence-based strategies and systematic analysis.…”

Medicalising the menace? The symbiotic convergence of medicine and law enforcement in the medicalisation of marijuana in Minnesota

“…However, recent work has contested this binary framework, demonstrating how criminalisation and medicalisation form an overlapping matrix by which each expands its control through the techniques and discourses of the other (Rafalovich, 2020; cf; Showalter, 2019). To address the institutional shifts involved with medical marijuana legalisation, Aaronson and Rothschild‐Elyassi (2021) propose a ‘polymorphic approach’ for understanding the ‘symbiotic tensions’ between the regulatory and carceral state in shaping the governing structure for marijuana and users. This approach reveals how expansion of the regulatory apparatus serves to reinforce the authority of the carceral through a bifurcation of the governing structure, reproducing racially unequal policing and access issues by maintaining distinct user subjects (e.g.…”