Looking for invisibility and
listening for silence in marijuana
legalization discourse in the
District of Columbia
Research Questions

What silences exist in text and talk about marijuana
in the District of Columbia, following its approval of
medicinal marijuana ballot initiatives?
How do these silences contribute to the current state
of public discourse regarding the transition of
marijuana from an illegal drug of abuse, to a doctorrecommended treatment option?
Historical Context


D.C. Council
Members enacted legislation in May 2010
authorizing the establishment of
regulated medical marijuana
dispensaries in the District of Columbia.
On Monday, July 26, members of
Congress allowed the measure to become
law without federal interference.
 The law amends the Legalization of
Marijuana for Medical Treatment
Initiative, a 1998 municipal ballot
measure which garnered 69 percent of
the vote yet was never implemented.
Until 2010, D.C. city lawmakers had been
barred from instituting the measure
because of a Congressional ban on the
issue.
Source: www.NORML.com

Methodology

 Discourse Analysis of the “Legalization of Marijuana
for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1999” and the
“Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment
Amendment Act of 2010”




Categorization
Metaphor
Lexicon
“Noisy silences” and geosemiotic invisbility
Analyzing text

 Texts are the spoken or written instances of
language-in-action through which discourses are
manifested, the concrete linguistic structures in
which social understandings and ideologies are
embedded (Hodge & Kress, 1993)
 Critical Discourse Analysis is not a uniform or
homogeneous method, but rather an inherently
interdisciplinary activity that may draw on various
theoretical backgrounds and methodological tools
(Weiss & Wodak, 2003)
Legislative Language

 The substance of the statute, in keeping with its dual role
as an act of language and an act of law, constitutes a text
of a very special character… The words may be
ambiguous, incomplete, or not even an accurate
representation of the legislature's intention. But unless
amended or repealed, the words must stand as they are.
They are authoritative as words.
 Unlike many other kinds of communicative competence,
legislative communicative competence is not simply
"picked up"; it is a learned communicative skill or craft
which produces a craftbound discourse (Maley 1987)
Speech Act Theory

Controlling actions by words;
here is the key to the
understanding of legislative
language.
(Maley 1987)
Speech Act Theory

 The Mayor, pursuant to section 14 of the
Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment
Initiative of 1999 (Act), effective July 27, 2010 (D.C.
Law 18-210; D.C. Official Code §§ 7-1671.01, et. seq.
(2011 Supp.)), hereby gives notice of the adoption on
an emergency basis an amendment to title 22 of the
District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR)
that adds a new subtitle C entitled “Medical
marijuana.”
Categorization

 Categorization of drugs (Tupper 2008)
1. acceptable/legal drugs
2. bad/illegal drugs
3. medicines
 Medicalization of drugs as treatments (Steen 2010)
 “As pharmakoi, drugs are inherently contradictory
substances, potentially both toxins and treatments.
With drugs “malediction and benediction always call
to and imply one another” (Derrida)
Marijuana and Metaphor

 The ideological force of metaphors is emphasized by
Lakoff and Johnson, who assert that metaphors play
a central role in the construction of social and
political reality (1980).
 Schön argues that ―generative metaphors are tropes
that can impose significant analytical constraints on
framing policy solutions to intractable social
problems (1993).
Marijuana as Malevolent Agent

 Over the past century, the
most salient metaphor that
has grounded
understandings of and
policy responses to drugs is
that of ―drugs as
malevolent agents. By this
conceptualization, drug use
is understood primarily as a
moral issue and people who
use drugs are conceived of
as wicked and deserving
punishment (Marlatt, 1996).
Marijuana as Medicine

 Our contemporary conception of
drug use “encompasses two
broad areas of meaning:
medicinal preparations and
chemically similar compounds
consumed primarily for
hedonistic purposes…”.
 These two subcategories of
usage—the therapeutic and the
recreational—are most often held
in diametric opposition under the
law. The former behavior is
condoned, while the latter
typically is “characterized as
drug ‘abuse’”, deserving of
punitive sanctions. (Sheratt 2007)
Lexicon

Collocation within the phraseme:
Marijuana- shall have the same meaning as provided in
section 102(3)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act.
Medical marijuana- means marijuana cultivated,
manufactured, possessed, distributed, dispensed,
obtained, or administered in accordance with the Act
and the rules issued pursuant to section 14 of the Act.
Halliday, M.A.K., 'Lexis as a Linguistic Level', Journal
of Linguistics 2(1) 1966: 57-67
Lexicon cont.

Collocation
Instances
Example
Total instances of marijuana
393
[+medical]
marijuana
327
“A caregiver shall only
possess and dispense
medical marijuana to a
qualifying patient”
[-medical] marijuana
66
“The United States
Congress has determined
that marijuana is a
controlled substance and
has placed marijuana in
Schedule I of the Controlled
Substance Act.”
Lexicon

bud
cannabis
cheeba
chronic
dank
dope
ganja
grass
green
hemp
herb
Mary Jane
MJ
Maryjuana
Marjihuana
marijuana
mull
pot
sensimillia
sensimilla
shit
THC
twig
wacky tobaccy
weed
yarndie
Invisibility and Silence
“Visibility”

5710
VISIBILITY
5710.1 A dispensary or cultivation center shall not
permit medical marijuana or paraphernalia to be visible
from any public or other property not owned by the
dispensary or cultivation center.
“Sign Advertising”

5800
SIGN ADVERTISING
5800.1 Advertisements relating to the prices of medical marijuana
shall not be displayed in the window of a registered establishment.
5800.2 Advertisements relating to medical marijuana shall not be
displayed on the exterior of any window or on the exterior or
interior of any door.
5800.3 No sign advertising medical marijuana on the exterior or
visible from the exterior of any registered establishment or
elsewhere in the District shall be illuminated at any time.
“Names”

5500.3
A dispensary or cultivation center
registered under the Act shall not use or display a trade
name, corporate name, or sign bearing the words
“pharmacy”, “apothecary”, “drug store”, or other
phrase that implies that the practice of any health
profession occurs on the premises.
“Prohibited Statements”

5801
PROHIBITED STATEMENTS
5801.1 A registered cultivation center or dispensary shall not use any
picture or illustration that depicts a child or immature person, or objects (such
as toys), suggestive of the presence of a child, and any statement, design,
device, picture, or illustration designed to be especially appealing to children
or immature persons.
5801.2 A statement that is known by the dispensary or cultivation center to
be false or misleading with respect to advertised price charged to the qualified
patient, ingredients of medical marijuana, source of manufacturer, or
statements as to health benefits, shall be prohibited.
5801.3 A statement that encourages the use or purchase of medical
marijuana without a registration card shall be prohibited.
Further Steps

 How will the legalization of medical marijuana
appear in school substance abuse literature?
 Shifting away from text and towards interactional
sociolinguistics, where do noisy silences occur in
doctor-patient communication?