Cannabis, att legalisera eller inte : Kvalitativ innehållsanalys av debatten om att legalisera cannabis
(2020) SOPA63 20201School of Social Work
- Abstract
- The aim of this study was to examine and understand the ethical reasoning and the fundamental values of the underlying argumentation for or against a legalization of cannabis in Sweden. My empirical of this study was 20 debate articles from known newspapers in Sweden where they debate cannabis legalization. From the articles I took out themes that was reoccurring, the themes I found where, “Care and Criminality”, “Individual versus Society” and “The perception of the user”. I chose ethical reasoning and concepts that are related to my material and that has a relevance to social work. I then paired the themes that I found in the articles with the ethical reasoning and concepts, to be able to analyze the arguments. The result of the study... (More)
- The aim of this study was to examine and understand the ethical reasoning and the fundamental values of the underlying argumentation for or against a legalization of cannabis in Sweden. My empirical of this study was 20 debate articles from known newspapers in Sweden where they debate cannabis legalization. From the articles I took out themes that was reoccurring, the themes I found where, “Care and Criminality”, “Individual versus Society” and “The perception of the user”. I chose ethical reasoning and concepts that are related to my material and that has a relevance to social work. I then paired the themes that I found in the articles with the ethical reasoning and concepts, to be able to analyze the arguments. The result of the study showed that there were two sides of the debate, one side that wanted a legalization of cannabis to outcompete the criminal networks and make it easier for the abusers to seek for help. The other side did not think that legalization would outcompete the criminal networks, because they belived that the networks would find other ways to provide for them self. The study also showed a shift in the debate and there were no longer ethical duty to follow, which means that there are not anything apparent in the debate and therefor the debaters needed to use consequence ethics and argue about the consequences if cannabis can have good or bad impacts on individuals and society. In the study I saw that the social democracy discourse has been the current discourse in the debate, but that the neoliberalism has come in and challenged it. The neoliberalism was seen in the side of the debate that is for a legalization of cannabis and there arguments were often from an individual perspective. Unlike the other side, their arguments were instead from a society perspective and arguing about society problems that will appear with a legalization. For example the side that was against a legalization of cannabis thinks that the consequence by the stigmatization of using cannabis makes less numerous individuals tries to consume it. But the other side of the debate means that stigmatization leads to difficulties for the abusers to search for help. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9027822
- author
- Bjelke, Rebecca LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- SOPA63 20201
- year
- 2020
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Cannabis, legalization, criminalization, drug policy, Sweden
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9027822
- date added to LUP
- 2020-09-01 16:40:31
- date last changed
- 2020-09-01 16:40:31
@misc{9027822,
abstract = {{The aim of this study was to examine and understand the ethical reasoning and the fundamental values of the underlying argumentation for or against a legalization of cannabis in Sweden. My empirical of this study was 20 debate articles from known newspapers in Sweden where they debate cannabis legalization. From the articles I took out themes that was reoccurring, the themes I found where, “Care and Criminality”, “Individual versus Society” and “The perception of the user”. I chose ethical reasoning and concepts that are related to my material and that has a relevance to social work. I then paired the themes that I found in the articles with the ethical reasoning and concepts, to be able to analyze the arguments. The result of the study showed that there were two sides of the debate, one side that wanted a legalization of cannabis to outcompete the criminal networks and make it easier for the abusers to seek for help. The other side did not think that legalization would outcompete the criminal networks, because they belived that the networks would find other ways to provide for them self. The study also showed a shift in the debate and there were no longer ethical duty to follow, which means that there are not anything apparent in the debate and therefor the debaters needed to use consequence ethics and argue about the consequences if cannabis can have good or bad impacts on individuals and society. In the study I saw that the social democracy discourse has been the current discourse in the debate, but that the neoliberalism has come in and challenged it. The neoliberalism was seen in the side of the debate that is for a legalization of cannabis and there arguments were often from an individual perspective. Unlike the other side, their arguments were instead from a society perspective and arguing about society problems that will appear with a legalization. For example the side that was against a legalization of cannabis thinks that the consequence by the stigmatization of using cannabis makes less numerous individuals tries to consume it. But the other side of the debate means that stigmatization leads to difficulties for the abusers to search for help.}},
author = {{Bjelke, Rebecca}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Cannabis, att legalisera eller inte : Kvalitativ innehållsanalys av debatten om att legalisera cannabis}},
year = {{2020}},
}