Sharon R. Sznitman
Dr. Sznitman received her B.A. in sociology from the University of Manchester and her M.A. and Ph.D. in sociology from Stockholm University. She then completed a Postdoctoral Research Fellowship at Annenberg Public Policy Centre at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2010 Dr. Sznitman joined the School of Public Health at the University of Haifa where she is a senior lecturer.
Dr. Sznitman’s most recent research mainly focuses on medical cannabis use and policies in Israel and in cross-national contexts. Her research focuses on how both medical and recreational users use cannabis to ease mental and physical pain. Her research also focuses on reaching a better understanding for how public attitudes influence medical cannabis policy development and implementation in Israel and abroad, and in turn how medical cannabis policies (mainly through the media) influence the general population and its attitudes not only to medical cannabis but also recreational cannabis use. Medical cannabis policies are developing rapidly in many jurisdictions across the world, with implications for medicine, public health, business and policy. Dr. Sznitman’s research provides an important platform from which these expected effects can be determined and how societies may best respond.
Session
Aim: Cannabis policy developments worldwide typically follow separate tracks for medical and non-medical use, even in jurisdictions pursuing both forms of legalization. As these parallel regulatory frameworks evolve, understanding how stakeholders negotiate and maintain boundaries between these domains becomes crucial for effective policy development. Using Swiss cannabis policies as a case study, this study examines how stakeholders engage in boundary work related to medical and non-medical cannabis regulation and research.
Methods: The current study uses thematic content analysis to analyze qualitative interview data collected from 18 stakeholders working in the field of cannabis policy in Switzerland (e.g. scientists, policymakers, pharmacists, physicians, cannabis producers, former and current employees of the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH).
Results: The study revealed two distinct forms of boundary work employed by stakeholders. First, conceptual boundary work emerged through stakeholders' use of discursive methods to legitimize medical cannabis as a scientific subject while positioning non-medical cannabis within the social/political domain. Second, structural boundary work is manifested through institutional mechanisms, particularly in relation to health insurance reimbursement and pharmacy distribution. While insurance reimbursement served as a key structural element distinguishing medical from non-medical cannabis use, the use of pharmacies as distribution points in non-medical cannabis policy pilot studies was identified as problematic, potentially undermining the intended boundary between medical and non-medical domains.
Conclusions: This study shows the complexity stakeholders face in their attempts to maintain boundaries between medical and non-medical cannabis systems. The findings highlight how relying on scientific discourse to legitimize medical cannabis, while keeping non-medical cannabis in the social/political sphere, may create artificial distinctions that do not reflect the complex reality of cannabis use. If policymakers aim to reduce blurred boundaries, they need to carefully consider how policy elements (such as pharmacy-based distribution channels for non-medical cannabis) may undermine intended separations between domains. Additionally, expanding insurance coverage for evidence-based medical cannabis use could help clarify the distinction between medical and non-medical use. Finally, enhanced education is needed, particularly for future healthcare professionals who may prescribe cannabis, to help them navigate these complex discursive and structural boundaries in practice.