Abstract
The medicalisation of marijuana has occurred rapidly, albeit nonuniformly, across the US and around the world over the past 3 decades. This paper centres on the medicalisation of marijuana in Minnesota—which has one of the most restrictive programs in the country—as a case for evaluating the negotiation of institutional boundaries with the shift from criminalisation to medicalisation after nearly a century of criminal prohibition. Drawing upon Foucauldian discourse analyses of the medical and law enforcement associations’ position statements and legislative hearings that shaped medical marijuana policy in Minnesota, this paper demonstrates a symbiotic convergence between medicine and law enforcement through the deployment of shared discursive strategies in their opposition to medical marijuana that reinforce marijuana’s criminalised status by solidifying the boundaries between proper medicine and dangerous drugs. Criminal justice and medical institutions draw upon one another’s definitions, logics, and practices in a mutually constitutive manner, while still maintaining distinct user subjects and institutional interventions for each based on the user’s access to state-approved forms of marijuana. The consequences for the governing of marijuana in Minnesota are explored, as well as the broader implications for the sociological study of medicalisation and criminalisation with respect to the governance of drugs and health.