Research PaperThe role of leisure and delinquency in frequent cannabis use and dependence trajectories among young adults
Introduction
It has been argued that cannabis has become normalised, referring to the process of social and cultural accommodation of recreational drug use as becoming part of everyday life for young people, for both users and non-users (Parker et al., 1998, Parker, 2005). Normalisation has been defined by six indicators: higher access and availability; increased drug trying rates; increased regular use rates; a degree of cultural accommodation among adolescents; trying and use extending to the adult population; and more liberal policy shifts (Parker, 2005). Basically, these indicators can be reduced to two dimensions: (1) growth in drug demand and supply, and (2) increasing levels of social and cultural acceptability. In contrast to normalisation, a subcultural perspective focuses on social formations, where drug users belong to a certain social group not bound to conventional or mainstream society. From a subcultural perspective, cannabis use could be understood as part of political opposition or as signifier of rejecting mainstream values (cf. Pedersen, 2009, Sandberg, 2013). Alternatively, and in line with the normalisation perspective, Duff and Erickson (2014) argue that cannabis use, since it has become an accepted feature of mainstream adolescents and young adults, should be assessed in terms of lifestyle and leisure rather than subcultural connections.
Researchers from several countries found support for the normalisation thesis (e.g. Duff, 2003, Duff, 2005, Parker et al., 2002), showing that the choice to use cannabis is a rational consideration of costs and benefits and users do not belong to a deviant subculture; they are bound to mainstream society, and their lifestyles are rather conventional (Duff et al., 2012, Hathaway, 1997, Pearson, 2001, Shukla, 2006). Others criticised the normalisation thesis for simplifying youth’ choices about drug use (Shiner & Newburn, 1997) and underemphasising the role of the (wider) social context of drug use attitudes and choices (Measham and Shiner, 2009, Pennay and Moore, 2010). Hathaway, Comeau, and Erickson (2011) showed that, notwithstanding indicators of normalisation, Canadian adult users had internalised stigma and experienced a mainstream perspective about cannabis as deviant.
The normalisation thesis is also criticised for being too broad and relying on a too simplistic distinction between recreational and problematic drug use (Shildrick, 2002). Moreover, scholars recently called for attention to social and structural contexts of cannabis use (Duff et al., 2012, Measham and Shiner, 2009, Pennay and Moore, 2010). A recent follow-up of the sample that had been the basis for the original normalisation thesis (Parker et al., 1998) provided some revision (Aldridge, Measham, & Williams, 2011). The follow-up study showed that as participants aged, they continued using drugs, yet through considering costs and benefits fitting their use around their (new) responsibilities, including jobs and children. The authors concluded that normalisation continued, yet acknowledged some critics, e.g. the meaning attributed to drug experiences and the role of structural factors in rational choice. The lives of these young adults were more in common with moderate alcohol use than with dependent drug use. Many studies on normalisation have focused on recreational party drug use, and far less on frequent cannabis use (Järvinen & Ravn, 2014). The debate would thus benefit from further examinations of the normalisation of cannabis. This qualitative longitudinal study in frequent cannabis users focuses on two aspects: the extent to which cannabis use is regulated to leisure time, and to what extent frequent cannabis users live conventional lives, away from delinquent or otherwise deviant subcultures.
Classic studies demonstrated cannabis users are not a homogeneous group; most use recreationally and have various motivations to use (Becker, 1963, Goode, 1970). They choose when and where to use (Erickson, 1989, Hathaway, 2003, Zimmerman and Weider, 1977): mostly in private venues, with peers or partners and in suitable situations and moods, applying informal rules for regulation (Reinarman & Cohen, 2007). Rather than the leisure activity itself, the social setting (i.e. persons sharing leisure time) is associated with changes in cannabis use (Schaub, Gmel, Annaheim, Mueller, & Schwappach, 2010). Adolescents who regularly use cannabis have more selective lifestyles than occasional users, spending more time at a friends’ place, concerts or clubs (Miller and Plant, 2002, Peretti-Watel and Lorente, 2004). Although an association between going out and occasional rather than regular cannabis has been reported (Peretti-Watel & Lorente, 2004), a partying lifestyle has commonly been linked to increased adolescent cannabis use (Ciairano et al., 2008, Thorlindsson and Bernburg, 2006). Frequent users holidaying in Ibiza were more likely to increase than diminish their frequency of use (Bellis et al., 2000, Briggs and Turner, 2012). In contrast, sports participation relates to less cannabis use (Lisha and Sussman, 2010, Terry-McElrath and O‘Malley, 2011, Thorlindsson and Bernburg, 2006), although not in all studies (Peretti-Watel & Lorente, 2004).
Only few recent qualitative studies devoted attention to why and when adults frequently use cannabis, particularly to changes in use. Hathaway (2004) showed that long-term frequent cannabis users predominantly use to relax, feel good and enjoy music or television. Increased use was often associated with more personal freedom, and decreased use with more responsibilities. Users generally considered positive aspects to outweigh negative aspects of their use (Hathaway, 2003). This was corroborated in a study among regular cannabis using adults (Osborne & Fogel, 2008). Respondents used cannabis while engaged in various leisure activities (e.g. socialising, watching movies, doing sports, and playing computer games); they did not report dependence problems or compulsive use, and rational decisions to use were generally accompanied by moderate use. Cannabis was used to enhance “leisure activities and manage the challenges and demands of living in contemporary modern society” (Osborne & Fogel, 2008: p. 562). Similarly, other studies concluded that cannabis is not a central aspect in the lifestyle of adult frequent users, and users are generally not part of a ‘drug subculture’ (Pearson, 2001, Shukla, 2006). Instead, cannabis use was largely a leisure time activity to disengage from daily stress, and is generally subordinate to other roles and responsibilities. Moreover, the majority is not involved in criminal behaviour apart from acquiring and using cannabis. Previous studies reporting a link between regular cannabis use and criminal offences and convictions (Bennett et al., 2008, Derzon and Lipsey, 1999, Fergusson et al., 2002) are hampered by the illegality of the drug, as it is suggested that most offences are related to possession and use (Fergusson et al., 2003, Pedersen and Skardhamar, 2010). The more lenient Dutch policy allows deeper investigation of this association, as use is not liable to prosecution and the possession and sale of cannabis in so-called coffee shops for personal use are tolerated (Wouters, Benschop, & Korf, 2010).
The link between leisure and young adult cannabis use has received some attention, and although changes in cannabis use have been found to be associated with to changes in life circumstances (Hathaway, 2004, Shukla, 2006), it is largely unknown how changes in leisure develop over time and how they are related to transitions in cannabis dependence, as most studies are retrospective, have been limited to adolescence, focused on use and not dependence, or generated quantitative data. This study aims to contribute to the existing literature on normalisation and the relationship between frequent cannabis use, dependence and leisure over time. More specifically, this study will gain insights in the extent to which frequent cannabis use is socially accepted in a country known for its liberal cannabis policy (i.e. the Netherlands), and is stripped of subcultural and deviant associations. The existence of coffee shops makes cannabis readily available. This offers a great opportunity to assess whether easy supply (being part of the first dimension of normalisation) also implies that cannabis use (in our case: frequent cannabis use) is socially and culturally accepted in wider society (the second dimension of normalisation), comparable to alcohol use for example.
We prospectively studied the course of cannabis use and dependence in 47 young adult frequent users over 3 years using qualitative in-depth interviews. First, we explore how frequent users construct their leisure time and how changes in cannabis use interact with changes in leisure, and vice versa. We also assess the centrality of cannabis in their lives, and the absence of (subcultural) delinquency, which would be expected from the nominalisation thesis. Dutch coffee shops allow users to easily acquire cannabis without any specific knowledge or subcultural affiliations. However, the cultivation of cannabis has neither de jure nor de facto been legalised in the Netherlands (albeit that growing up to five marihuana plants for personal use is tolerated). Moreover, successfully growing cannabis, either as a small-scale activity for own use or for large-scale purposes, requires specific knowledge and expertise that is gathered and shared through connections with other growers (Decorte, Potter, & Bouchard, 2011).
Second, we distinguish dependent from non-dependent frequent cannabis users and investigate to what extent leisure activities and the importance of cannabis in their lives differ, and to what extent their leisure pursuit explains cannabis dependence transitions. Obviously, dependent users, by definition (see: Method), would be expected to neglect social and work-related activities in favour of cannabis use and experience reduced control over their use. The normalisation thesis understands cannabis use among youth as a rational choice, yet this only applies to recreational use (Aldridge et al., 2011). Problematic use is considered as non-recreational use, interfering with everyday functioning (cf. Kronbæk & Frank, 2013). From this rationale, while a cost–benefit consideration would apply to frequent non-dependent users, different considerations would be expected in the case of frequent dependent users. However, cannabis dependence is not a homogeneous condition (McBride, Teesson, Slade, & Baillie, 2010). Therefore, it is important to examine whether and how frequent dependent users differ in leisure from frequent but non-dependent users and trajectories. Furthermore, understanding the relationship between leisure and cannabis dependence trajectories helps target prevention and treatment specifically at frequent users at high risk of dependence, as most frequent users limit cannabis use to their leisure time (Liebregts et al., 2013a).
Section snippets
Method
In a qualitative study the dynamics underlying changes in cannabis use and transitions in cannabis dependence were investigated. Participants were selected from a cohort study with a quantitative approach including 600 frequent cannabis users (≥3 days cannabis use per week in the past 12 months) with follow-up assessments at 1.5 and 3 years (see for details Liebregts et al., 2011, van der Pol et al., 2011). Briefly, participants were recruited in coffee shops and through respondent-driven
Cannabis use: when, where and why
The amount of leisure time varied, but most interviewees had professional obligations (work/study) and cannabis use was mainly a leisure activity (Liebregts et al., 2013a). Most interviewees thus used cannabis only at the end of the day, when daily tasks were finished. Some said not to use late at night, because cannabis would bother their night's rest, whereas others believed they slept better ‘stoned’ or ‘high’.
All participants spoke about inappropriate settings for use and emphasised not to
Discussion and conclusion
The majority of frequent cannabis users in our study live a ‘conventional life’, including professional obligations, a social life, going out and participating in sports. While participants’ lives were not without delinquency, these included mainly minor delinquency. More important, delinquency was commonly not related to or induced by cannabis, and convictions were all except one not associated with cannabis use. These findings suggest support for the normalisation thesis. Moreover, while for
Funding
This work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (grant number 31160009).
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
References (58)
- et al.
Ibiza uncovered: Changes in substance use and sexual behaviour amongst young people visiting an international night-life resort
International Journal of Drug Policy
(2000) - et al.
The statistical association between drug misuse and crime: A meta-analysis
Aggression and Violent Behavior
(2008) Party drugs and party people: Examining the ‘normalization’ of recreational drug use in Melbourne, Australia
International Journal of Drug Policy
(2005)- et al.
Arrests and convictions for cannabis related offences in a New Zealand birth cohort
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
(2003) - et al.
Cannabis careers revisited: Applying Howard S. Becker's theory to present-day cannabis use
Social Science & Medicine
(2014) Dutch coffee shops and trends in cannabis use
Addictive Behaviors
(2002)- et al.
Relationship of high school and college sports participation with alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use: A review
Addictive Behaviors
(2010) - et al.
The legacy of ‘normalisation’: The role of classical and contemporary criminological theory in understanding young people's drug use
International Journal of Drug Policy
(2009) - et al.
Heavy cannabis use among UK teenagers: An exploration
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
(2002) - et al.
Cannabis use, sport practice and other leisure activities at the end of adolescence
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
(2004)