Toward a Typology of Normative Drug Users Based on Levels of Functioning, Justifications and Types of Use

• DOI: 10.1177/0022042620911615
• Author: Keren Gueta,Moran Chassid-Segin,Natti Ronel
• Published date: 01 July 2020
• Date: 01 July 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042620911615

Journal of Drug Issues

2020, Vol. 50(3) 242 –258

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022042620911615

journals.sagepub.com/home/jod

Article

Toward a Typology of Normative

Drug Users Based on Levels of

Functioning, Justifications and

Types of Use

Moran Chassid-Segin1, Keren Gueta1,

and Natti Ronel1

Abstract

The study explores 29 individuals who described themselves as functioning normatively while

using drugs on a regular basis. They defined their use as intensive, constant, and playing a

significant part in their normative lives. The content analysis revealed a typology consisting of

four different types of normative users: the socially connected users, the better coping users,

the ambivalent users, and the recovering users. This typology was created on the basis of three

axes: level of functioning, justification of use, style of use. Our typology highlights the differences

between normative users with varying patterns of drug usage and levels of functioning, ranging

from users who claim that drug use causes them no harm to those who acknowledge that drug

use has significantly damaged their functioning. This typology places particular emphasis on

normative users who are experiencing a range of difficulties and need specific forms of therapy

to preserve their normative lives.

Keywords

normative functioning users, drug normalization, drug typology, justification of use, drug discourse

Introduction

The use of nonmedical drugs was banned by international conventions and legislation in the first

half of the 20th century on the basis that it can lead to nonnormative behavior which might then

penetrate the normative functioning population (Degenhardt et al., 2011). However, the more

recent normalization of drugs is a process through which drug use has become a normative and

accepted behavior and a legal phenomenon (Hathaway et al., 2016). Eight states in the United

States have legalized cannabis since 2012 (Hall & Kozlowski, 2018), and Canada has recently

become the second country in the world to legalize the use of cannabis (Cox, 2018). Israeli law

has partially legislated changes in substance use with an amendment to the Dangerous Drugs

Ordinance, known as “non-discrimination policy,” that came into effect on April 1, 2019. The

amendment turns first possession and cannabis use offenses into administrative offenses with

fines that do not lead to a criminal record (Israel Anti-Drug Authority [IADA], 2011).

1Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

Corresponding Author:

Moran Chassid-Segin, Department of Criminology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel.

Email: segin.m@gmail.com

911615JODXXX10.1177/0022042620911615Journal of Drug IssuesChassid-Segin et al.

research-article2020

Chassid-Segin et al. 243

The legalization of drugs strengthens the normalization process and opposes the stigma of

drug use as deviant (Sznitman & Taubman, 2016). The legalization of recreational marijuana

offers important social justice benefits (Jensen & Roussell, 2016; Kilmer, 2017), saves public

money spent on law enforcement (Aldrich & Mikuriya, 1988), and increases revenues through

taxation (Carliner et al., 2017). However, there are claims that it may increase drug use, damage

users’ health, and increase mental health problems (Hall & Kozlowski, 2018; Hall & Lynskey,

2016). The literature on drug effects has focused on two extreme views. Studies on recreational

drug use have not presented the actual use as problematic but have focused on users who define

their use as recreational and nondisruptive to their everyday life (Cruz, 2015; Raven, 2012).

Studies on problematic use, on the contrary, have demonstrated a range of damages caused to

drug users (Hall & Degenhardt, 2009; Horwood et al., 2010; Stern et al., 2010; Weiss et al.,

2017). Drug use is thus presented as challenging, and users are regarded as being for or against

normalization (Williams, 2016).

The current study focuses on the gap between these two extreme views in an attempt to create

a typology that demonstrates a range of normative drug users who live a normative life and expe-

rience different levels of functioning. This typology examines the potential harm caused by drug

use alongside the ability to function normatively. It highlights different perceptions about drug

use among normative users and moves away from a binary, positive/negative understanding of

how users’ experiences affect their awareness of substance use. It may influence drug policy and

help the planning of suitable interventions for these users.

Drug Normalization, Normative Functioning, and Drug Use Justifications

Drug use normalization is a process whereby drug use becomes less stigmatized and more

accepted as normative behavior (Pennay & Moore, 2010). Studies on drug normalization have

examined the boundaries of illicit drug use in postmodern society (Cruz, 2015; Mostaghim &

Hathaway, 2013; Parker, 2005). This process is mainly associated with the use of cannabis

(Asbridge et al., 2016), which has become more widespread over the past 15 years. Cannabis

use has been perceived by users as a normative act like drinking coffee (Sandberg, 2012) and

as a common experience because “everyone smokes cannabis” (Rudzinski et al., 2014, p.

601).

Normalization is considered a multidimensional tool kit that highlights the way in which the

consumption of illicit drugs by, in particular, conventional “ordinary” young people has grown in

importance within postmodern societies (Parker, 2005, p. 206). These “ordinary” people are a

specific population of drug users, referred to as the “invisible population,” who perform well at

work, within their families, and in their social lives. They are just as likely to be of either gender

and come from all social and educational backgrounds (Parker et al., 1998). Their patterns of use

tend to be different from those of drug addicts (Draus et al., 2010), and they often do not even

describe themselves as users (Fletcher et al., 2009).

The intensity of normalization and the frequency of risk denial techniques suggest that can-

nabis users often justify their use (Sandberg, 2012). Sykes and Matza (1957) described a set of

“techniques of neutralization” (p. 667) used by juvenile offenders to justify or excuse their delin-

quent behavior. Neutralizations of deviant behavior are techniques that help to minimize respon-

sibility for the behavior so that there is no, or less, guilt (Kaptein & Helvoort, 2018). Sykes and

Matza’s techniques of neutralization include the denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial

of victim, condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties.

This theoretical interpretation has been extended and other techniques of neutralization

offered. Aldridge et al. (2011) referred to the neutralization theory with regard to recreational

drug use and argued that cannabis use does not interfere with normative functioning and can

therefore be acceptable in society. Peretti-Watel (2003) suggested that cannabis users use