Cargando…

Argumentation in anonymous online discussions about decriminalising cannabis use

AIMS: In October 2019, a citizens’ initiative to decriminalise cannabis use started a large debate about drug policy in Finland. This study examines online discussions about the initiative to supplement the current knowledge about citizens’ drug opinions. The focus is especially on argumentation tec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hämäläinen, Lasse, Lahti, Emmi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8899051/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35308109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14550725211027383
_version_ 1784663817875095552
author Hämäläinen, Lasse
Lahti, Emmi
author_facet Hämäläinen, Lasse
Lahti, Emmi
author_sort Hämäläinen, Lasse
collection PubMed
description AIMS: In October 2019, a citizens’ initiative to decriminalise cannabis use started a large debate about drug policy in Finland. This study examines online discussions about the initiative to supplement the current knowledge about citizens’ drug opinions. The focus is especially on argumentation techniques that are used to support or object to the decriminalisation. DESIGN: Methodologically, the study is based on discourse studies, new rhetoric, and argumentation analysis. The data of 1,092 messages were collected from a popular Finnish anonymous discussion forum Ylilauta. RESULTS: Online discussions about the legal status of cannabis are highly polarised. Decriminalisation is often both supported and resisted in a strong and affective manner, and even hate speech is not rare in the data. Statements made by both discussion parties often lack any argumentation or are based on fallacies, especially ad hominem arguments. Some discussants refer to scientific studies and expert statements, even though such references are usually inaccurate. Cannabis is compared to alcohol more often than to other illegal drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The emotional responses and inadequate argumentation might be partially explained by the general nature of online discussions and the culture of the investigated website, but also by the powerful stigma related to illegal drugs and insufficient knowledge on the subject. A future objective is to create a societal atmosphere where the complex question of the legal status of cannabis could be discussed more neutrally and rationally.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8899051
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88990512022-03-17 Argumentation in anonymous online discussions about decriminalising cannabis use Hämäläinen, Lasse Lahti, Emmi Nordisk Alkohol Nark Research Reports AIMS: In October 2019, a citizens’ initiative to decriminalise cannabis use started a large debate about drug policy in Finland. This study examines online discussions about the initiative to supplement the current knowledge about citizens’ drug opinions. The focus is especially on argumentation techniques that are used to support or object to the decriminalisation. DESIGN: Methodologically, the study is based on discourse studies, new rhetoric, and argumentation analysis. The data of 1,092 messages were collected from a popular Finnish anonymous discussion forum Ylilauta. RESULTS: Online discussions about the legal status of cannabis are highly polarised. Decriminalisation is often both supported and resisted in a strong and affective manner, and even hate speech is not rare in the data. Statements made by both discussion parties often lack any argumentation or are based on fallacies, especially ad hominem arguments. Some discussants refer to scientific studies and expert statements, even though such references are usually inaccurate. Cannabis is compared to alcohol more often than to other illegal drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The emotional responses and inadequate argumentation might be partially explained by the general nature of online discussions and the culture of the investigated website, but also by the powerful stigma related to illegal drugs and insufficient knowledge on the subject. A future objective is to create a societal atmosphere where the complex question of the legal status of cannabis could be discussed more neutrally and rationally. SAGE Publications 2021-08-10 2021-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8899051/ /pubmed/35308109 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14550725211027383 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Research Reports
Hämäläinen, Lasse
Lahti, Emmi
Argumentation in anonymous online discussions about decriminalising cannabis use
title Argumentation in anonymous online discussions about decriminalising cannabis use
title_full Argumentation in anonymous online discussions about decriminalising cannabis use
title_fullStr Argumentation in anonymous online discussions about decriminalising cannabis use
title_full_unstemmed Argumentation in anonymous online discussions about decriminalising cannabis use
title_short Argumentation in anonymous online discussions about decriminalising cannabis use
title_sort argumentation in anonymous online discussions about decriminalising cannabis use
topic Research Reports
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8899051/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35308109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14550725211027383
work_keys_str_mv AT hamalainenlasse argumentationinanonymousonlinediscussionsaboutdecriminalisingcannabisuse
AT lahtiemmi argumentationinanonymousonlinediscussionsaboutdecriminalisingcannabisuse