For Medicinal Purposes: Whose Advice Exerts Authority on Medical Marijuana?

Abstract

Citizens are embedded in legal systems in which the authority of different experts is normally given preference over citizens' opinions about medical marijuana and other medical issues. Yet, citizens may reject expert authority if they consider themselves to be competent based on their knowledge or social position. Thus, we are led to ask: In the context of direct democracy, what forms of expert authority—if any—does a historically privileged subset of citizens recognize when reasoning about medical marijuana? Our analysis is based on rich‐qualitative data that analyzes how white male citizens reason about a medical marijuana ballot initiative in Arizona. By using a comprehensive content coding of citizens' arguments about the ballot initiative, we analyze how this privileged subset of citizens reasons about following or ignoring various authorities on the issue of medical marijuana. The article uses an exploratory abductive analysis of secondary semi‐structured interview data to understand citizens' reasoning on this issue and to expand theories of expert authority in direct democratic settings. We find a variety of different ways in which white male citizens accept or reject expert medical authority on medical marijuana in the context of Arizona Proposition 203 (2010).