Shades of Green: Towards a Typology of Adolescent Cannabis Use

Abstract

Despite the increasing number of studies on adolescent cannabis use, little is known about the different varieties of cannabis use identities among contemporary youth. In this study, we develop a qualitative typology of adolescent cannabis use to illuminate the multitude of drug use practices and how they intersect with various projects of the self. Drawing on 6 years of longitudinal interview data with a large group of Norwegian adolescents, who were followed from 12–13 years old to 18–19 years old, the analysis illustrates four categories of cannabis use: the coincidental, the occasional, the subcultural, and the compulsive. These typologies highlight the heterogeneous practices involved in adolescent cannabis use and how they are entangled in various youth identity projects. We show how these typologies develop throughout adolescence and how the use of cannabis involves various cultural and identity-bearing elements. Importantly, as cannabis is undergoing several contemporary shifts, linked to changing legislation, increasing commodification and greater embeddedness in popular culture, there is a need to look beyond the strict operationalization's of cannabis use as simply a form of deviance, a subcultural trait, or a normalized feature. This study enhances sensitivity to variations in adolescent cannabis use by highlighting the cultural complexity and fragmentation in young people's perceptions and practices of cannabis use.

Introduction

Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug worldwide, and adolescence is a particularly sensitive life phase regarding the initiation to cannabis use (EMCDDA, 2023; UNODC, 2023). During these transformative years, the use of cannabis can serve as a cultural tool to communicate identities during the transition from childhood to young adulthood (Bilgrei et al., 2022; Duff, 2003; Hammersley et al., 2001). Although the use of illicit drugs may be associated with sanctions and stigma because people often rely on “cultural repertoires” and their local “moral context” to demarcate symbolic boundaries and avoid undesirable labels (Copes, 2016; Lamont & Molnár, 2002), cannabis use can also be interpreted as an acceptable activity, of considerable reward and of limited longevity (Bell et al., 1998; Järvinen & Demant, 2011). As such, several theoretical concepts have been employed to further our understanding of the context of adolescent cannabis use, ranging from a focus on deviance (Peretti-Watel & Moatti, 2006; Peretti-Watel, 2003), subcultures (Holm et al., 2014; Sandberg, 2013), and the thesis of normalization (Hathaway et al., 2016; Parker, Aldridge et al., 1998; Parker, Williams et al., 2002).

While these perspectives have all been highly influential, they tend to portray adolescent cannabis use as relatively homogeneous practices, and rarely account for the complexity and diversity of identities related to cannabis use across various youth cultures. Importantly, as cannabis is undergoing several contemporary shifts, which are linked to changing legislation (Csete et al., 2016; Hammond et al., 2020), increasing commodification (Keul & Eisenhauer, 2019; Subritzky et al., 2016), more liberal attitudes (Burdzovic Andreas & Bretteville-Jensen, 2017; Pedersen & Von Soest, 2015), new modes of consumption (Blake & Nahtigal, 2019; Giroud et al., 2015; Knapp et al., 2019), and increasing embeddedness in popular culture (Bakken & Harder, 2023; Blackman, 2010; Manning, 2014), cannabis has ceased to describe a singular, stable object of analysis (Duff, 2017; Wanke et al., 2022). These developments necessitate a further exploration of the diverse meanings and cultural identities linked to adolescent cannabis use.

In this study, we draw on qualitative longitudinal interviews with a large and heterogeneous sample of young Norwegians, followed from 12–13 years old to 18–19 years old, to explore the various cultural expressions of which cannabis use is a part. We investigate the multitude of drug use trajectories during adolescence to map distinct patterns of cannabis use and how they reflect different projects of the self. The study provides added insight into the various ways cannabis is used, but most importantly, we highlight the ways in which young people themselves understand and create meaning related to their use of cannabis. We conclude that this self-understanding has important significance for their various drug use practices, both for individuals who use cannabis occasionally or in moderation and for those who engage in more frequent or intensive use.

Perspectives on Adolescent Cannabis Use: Deviance, Subculture, and Normalization

Within the social sciences, three major strands of research have made particular impact in explaining the context of adolescent cannabis use. That is, the notion of deviance (Peretti-Watel & Moatti, 2006; Peretti-Watel, 2003), the concept of subculture (Holm et al., 2014; Pedersen, 2009; Sandberg, 2013), and the thesis of normalization (Hathaway et al., 2016; Parker, Aldridge et al., 1998; Parker, Williams et al., 2002).

First, the notion of deviance, as articulated in Becker's (1953, 1963) seminal study of the process of becoming a cannabis user, involved a shift from earlier psychological attempts to identify traits that predisposed certain individuals to drug use to an emphasis on the process of socialization and the transfer of knowledge that made cannabis use desirable (Becker, 1953, pp. 235–236). Focusing on the evolution of a drug career (Järvinen & Ravn, 2014), Becker saw social interaction as a necessary prerequisite to becoming a cannabis user and believed that only through such a course of learning could an individual use cannabis in the right way, recognize its effects, and enjoy its sensations (Becker, 1953). Importantly, this process also involved a series of rationalizations and justifications (Becker, 1963) that enabled cannabis users to regard the activity as morally acceptable (Järvinen & Ravn, 2014). Building on this, Peretti-Watel and Moatti (2006) extend Becker's formulation by applying it to perceptions of risk, arguing that individuals who engage in risky behaviors, such as drug use, do not necessarily see themselves as at risk. Instead, they employ several techniques of neutralization to reject stigma or minimize their risky label (Peretti-Watel & Moatti, 2006; Peretti-Watel, 2003). This sort of risk denial thus extends neutralization theory (Sykes & Matza, 1957) and suggests that adolescent cannabis users tend to distance themselves from the perceived dangers of drug use, for example, by “scapegoating ‘hard drugs’ users [and] emphasize their ability to control it personally or compare cannabis to alcohol” (Peretti-Watel, 2003, p. 39). Thus, the sociology of deviance highlights the importance of neutralization techniques in maintaining behaviors that are deemed deviant (Maruna & Copes, 2005).

Secondly, the concept of subculture is based on a different premise. While deviance theory argues that actors retained a commitment to the dominant societal values and thus had a need to neutralize drug-related stigma (Maruna & Copes, 2005; Matza, 1964; Sykes & Matza, 1957), the concept of subculture, in contrast, suggests that actors reject the dominant social order and replace it with a new set of subcultural values (Sandberg, 2012b). Members of such subcultures are usually well aware of this difference (Gelder, 2005) and may exploit and relish these differences in creative portrayals of themselves (Hebdige, 1979; Sandberg, 2013). The link between adolescent drug use and subcultural participation has been highlighted by several scholars (Bobakova et al., 2012; Holm et al., 2014; Sandberg, 2013) and examined through structural-functionalist, Marxist, and postmodern perspectives (for an overview, see Blackman, 2010), with cannabis use being associated with particular musical preferences (Pawson & Kelly, 2014), subversive political values (Pedersen, 2009), and counterculture (Booth, 2005). While Golub and colleagues (2005) conceptualize drug subcultures as an “inter-related cluster of cultural elements associated with the consumption of an illicit drug in social settings (…) [that] can evolve or even disappear over time” (pp. 219–220), Sandberg (2013) argues that the cannabis subculture remains surprisingly stable—not as distinct groups of people, but as a set of rituals, stories, and symbols rooted in specific worldviews, often linked to broader cultural trends, that individuals and groups internalize, embody, and creatively express. Moreover, cannabis-related argot plays a crucial role in this subcultural continuity, serving as a socially constructed communication system that connects participants, shape use practices, and maintains boundaries from mainstream society (Johnson et al., 2006).

Thirdly, the thesis of normalization has likely been the most influential in terms of explaining the context of adolescent drug use during the past decades (Pennay & Measham, 2016). Unlike the above theories, the normalization thesis argues that drug use has become a normal part of leisure time and has moved from the “margins” of youth subculture into the mainstream of youth lifestyles (Parker et al., 1998). Backed by an extensive longitudinal study, the thesis highlights that the use of drugs has not only increased but also become socially and culturally accepted among the non-drug-using population (Parker, Aldridge et al., 1998; Parker, Williams et al., 1995). In a later publication, the authors claim that adolescent cannabis use has “already met the normalization criteria of availability, trying and use rates and cultural accommodation” (Parker et al., 2002, p. 960). Despite its influence, the thesis has faced several critiques regarding the extent of such a normalization process (Pennay & Measham, 2016; Reid, 2020; Shiner, 2009; Shiner & Newburn, 1996, 1997, 1999; Wibberley & Price, 2000). Critics have also stated that the thesis tends to oversimplify the range of relationships that young people have with illicit drugs (Blackman, 2004; Hathaway et al., 2016; Williams, 2016), suggesting a more differentiated understanding of the normalization thesis, whereby different types of drugs and different types of drug use may be normalized for different groups of young people (Bilgrei et al., 2022; MacDonald & Marsh, 2002; Shildrick, 2002). Additionally, drug users continue to face the risk of legal sanctions and experience stigma, which challenges the assumptions of the normalization thesis (Hathaway et al., 2011; Sandberg, 2013; Skliamis et al., 2022).

The Changing Contemporary Landscape of Adolescent Cannabis Use

While the above theories have provided valuable insights into the historical conditions of adolescent cannabis use, several scholars have expressed a need to refine these explanatory concepts in line with developments in contemporary youth culture (Dahl et al., 2025; Ekendahl & Karlsson, 2022) Currently, profound changes are reshaping the global cannabis landscape, driven by a dynamic interplay of evolving legislation, capitalist commercialization and influencer marketing, liberalizing social attitudes, novel consumption modes, and increasing cultural embeddedness. Consequently, scholars have argued for the need to reconceptualize cannabis, moving beyond the view of cannabis as a singular, static object of analysis, which has dominated the majority of studies on young people's cannabis use over the past decades (Blackman, 2010; Duff, 2017; Wanke et al., 2022). This involves recognizing the evolving interpretations, practices, and cultural complexities regarding cannabis use among contemporary youth, as well as how these unfold across jurisdictions and geographical locations. This approach departs from the reified conception of drug use as a singular, a priori phenomenon and, instead, embraces its discursively produced and historically situated nature, characterizing it as emergent, contingent, and subject to ongoing processes of meaning-making (Søgaard & Lerkkanen, 2021). Simply put, cannabis is not one thing (Wanke et al., 2022, p. 320), and its use and meanings cannot be assumed to be monolithic or homogeneous among youth, because diverse social and cultural contexts shape individual interpretations and practices (Mostaghim, 2019).

Accordingly, several scholars argue that social meanings and identity play significant roles in shaping both initiation into and abstinence from cannabis use during this important period of life (Bilgrei et al., 2022; Dahl, 2015; Fletcher et al., 2009; Hammersley et al., 2001; Lavie-Ajayi et al., 2022; Liebregts et al., 2015; Mostaghim & Hathaway, 2013). This perspective pays attention to the symbolic practices embedded in cannabis consumption (Sandberg, 2013) and how they are entangled in complex processes of identity formation (Duff, 2003). Such drug use identities are, however, negotiable and flexible, and they may shift over time (Dahl, 2015), highlighting the ambivalent and contextual nature of adolescent cannabis use (Hathaway, 2004). As Hammersley and colleagues (2001) argue, this perspective involves studying “how the boundaries of normality—and of deviance and problematic use—are defined, and how these definitions vary over time, context, and social identities” (p. 144).

In this article, we follow these broad lines of debate in the study of adolescent cannabis use and offer a nuanced view of the current identifications and the evolving meanings related to its use among a large group of Norwegian adolescents. The analysis emphasizes the heterogeneous practices of cannabis use during this age period and how they are sustained by a variety of cultural and social identities, thus placing the consumption of cannabis within the complex and fragmented landscape of youth cultural identification.

Methods

The study draws on data derived from 290 longitudinal qualitative interviews with Norwegian adolescents, which were completed in five stages from 12–13 years old in 2015 to 18–19 years old in 2021. The data are part of the multimethod youth study, Monitoring Young Lifestyles (MyLife), which is a prospective, longitudinal quantitative and qualitative study of youth development and substance use in Norway (Brunborg et al., 2019).

The first interviews were carried out in 2015, when the participants were 12–13 years old. Unlike most youth drug studies, which predominantly focus on older age groups, this study recruited participants at an earlier stage, prior to the typical onset of drug use. This methodological approach was designed to elucidate the distinct individual trajectories that may lead to various forms of substance use, their progression throughout adolescence, and their relationship to broader developments in young people's lives. The initial sample consisted of 118 students who were recruited from six schools located in dispersed geographical areas throughout Norway, including both urban and rural locations. Approximately half of the sample were girls. The second round of interviews was conducted in 2017, when the participants had reached 14–15 years old. These first two sessions were conducted as group conversations, with three to six students in each group, amounting to a total of 26 and 24 groups, respectively. The following three waves took the form of individual interviews and were conducted in 2018 (n = 95, 15–16 years old), 2019 (n = 80, 16–17 years old), and 2021 (n = 65, 18–19 years old). The use of both group and individual interviews allowed for sensitivity to the students’ collective understandings of cannabis use (Demant & Järvinen, 2006), as well as facilitating added privacy and, thus, a willingness to speak freely about such experiences when they grew older. Beginning in the third wave of interviews, the participants’ drug-related experiences became more prominent, and the individual interview setting allowed for an increased emphasis on individual representations of cannabis use. Notably, this study was conducted amid rising levels of cannabis use among Norwegian youth, following a period of relatively low and stable levels since the early 2000s (Bilgrei et al., 2021). According to the European School Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD), the proportion of 15- to 16-year-old Norwegians reporting cannabis use increased in 2019 (8.4%) and continued to rise in 2024 (10.3%) (Bye & Bretteville-Jensen, 2024).

Throughout the study, we relied on semistructured and age-adapted interview guides, which helped tailor the content of the interviews. These included questions on the participants’ views and experiences with various licit and illicit drugs, school and social lives, leisure activities, social media use, parental relationships, and future aspirations. During the first years of the study, the drug-related questions were mainly focused on cultural representations, ideas, and beliefs, rather than individual experiences. As the participants grew older, the interview guides were revised to reflect their increasing involvement with drugs, and we tailored each interview based on the experiences they described in previous interviews. After the interviews, we wrote field notes that included relevant developments for each participant, such as major life events, changes in close relationships, and initiation into and developments regarding substance use. We used digital audio-recorders, and all interviews were transcribed verbatim and imported into the qualitative analysis software, HyperResearch. The transcripts were organized chronologically to reflect the longitudinal aspect of the analyses and coded with themes pertaining to the interview guides, as well as the students’ own narrative emphases.

The longitudinal design of the current study involves a distinct emphasis on subjective meanings and the active crafting of social relationships, cultural practices and personal identities related to cannabis use (Neale & Flowerdew, 2003), as well as how they develop and change over time (Saldaña, 2003). This involved two analytical steps: first, the initial analysis involved identifying participants with a history of cannabis use during the period of study. During this process, we relied on both field notes and the coded data material—we extracted all codes related to the participants’ own cannabis use and read these against the field notes to compare and verify the information yielded by both data sources—and identified 25 students, of whom six were girls, who accounted for their own experiences with cannabis use during the study period. Interviews with these participants form the basis of our analysis. The second analytical step involved a fine chronological reading of both field notes and the uncoded interview transcripts for each of these participants, emphasizing similarities and differences in their cannabis use, as well as their wider interests and cultural likings. We grouped these participants into types on the basis of their common features based on how each individual represented a particular pattern (Stapley et al., 2022). This involved the grouping of the participants regarding both the extent of their cannabis use (how much, how often, and in which situations) and how they presented their consumption narratively in relation to more comprehensive stories of who they were and who they wanted to become. Drawing on Weber's notion of ideal types (Swedberg, 2018; Weber, 1978), we present these findings through four typologies of adolescent cannabis use. These typologies serve as analytical tools for interpreting the patterns of similarities and differences that emerged from our interview data. The categories are intended to function as conceptual abstractions of the youth cannabis phenomenon, rather than fixed or static categories.

Active informed consent was obtained from parents when their children were under 16 and from the adolescents themselves when they were over 16. The study received approval from the Norwegian Data Inspectorate (reference no.: 15/01495) after ethical evaluation by the National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (reference no.: 2016/137). We use pseudonyms, and all identifying information have been removed.

Results

The analysis highlights four typologies of adolescent cannabis use. We differentiate between coincidental, occasional, subcultural, and compulsive cannabis users. The findings illustrate the evolving, heterogeneous practices of adolescent cannabis use and how they are entangled with various identity projects among youth.

Coincidental Cannabis Use

Adolescents who belonged to the group of coincidental cannabis users were usually those whose use was limited to one or a few occasions. During early adolescence, most of these youth had negative representations of cannabis use and described negative consequences following its use. At the age of 15, Halvor described the following:

It's usually bad boys [who smoke cannabis]. Those who don’t care about others, drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, the whole package (…) I guess they’ve had some bad influences.

At the time, Halvor was a keen athlete, and the use of licit or illicit drugs did not fit his active lifestyle. He noted that “it includes a lot of negative side effects, so it's not for me.” However, when we met him again at 19, he recounted a recent episode at a friend's party:

We were a group of guys drinking, and one of them had brought some stuff. He said that he was going out to smoke [cannabis] and asked if anyone would like to join, and basically, I replied yes (…) It was quite spontaneous, but I’ve heard that if you were to try something, it's not the worst. So, the thought of doing it wasn’t new, but I haven’t done it anymore since.

In Halvor's account, he described the effects as calming but said, “I’m not going to start using it,” thereby stressing the experimental nature of his cannabis use. For him, use was limited to a certain episode, and it did not involve any rationale other than wanting to experience its effects. Importantly, Halvor also stated that the use of drugs was “not what I stand for,” thus affirming his moral identity as different from that of people who smoked cannabis. This type of identity work, in which he drew boundaries between himself and adolescents with a more widespread cannabis use, was effective in differentiating himself from the typical youth cannabis user.

Similarly, Tuva spoke negatively about cannabis use during the first round of interviews and reassured that she had no interest in experimenting with it. At the age of 16, however, the drug had become more prevalent among her peers, and she described several cannabis use opportunities. Her stance was a reluctant one, although she hinted at the possibility of future use: “I’ve always said no, but you never know. Still, I have no intention of doing it.” In this account, Tuva's attitudes towards cannabis use were seemingly changing. After her previous rejection of the drug, there was now an emerging ambivalence in that she appeared increasingly open to the possibility of use. When we met Tuva again at age 18, she said the following:

We were at a friend's house. I was a bit drunk, and someone was going out to try it [cannabis]. I really didn’t understand what was going on. I think I only went out to get some fresh air, pee, or something like that. Then, it just happened. I didn’t use much.

In this account, Tuva described her first experience with the use of cannabis, explaining that “it just happened.” Rather than being something she actively sought out, her cannabis use appeared to be an example of temporary, age-related experimentation and made possible by the drug's increasing availability among her peers. During the interview, Tuva distanced herself from the experience, stressing the experimental nature of her use, also noting that the effect was neither good nor bad. She did, however, experiment with cannabis on a few additional occasions, ultimately deciding to take a firm stance against the drug:

I just gradually realized that I didn’t see the reason why. People became paranoid, and I realized that it's fucking illegal. So, I didn’t understand why we were doing it. I got a real “stop” inside me. Now, I really hate it. I couldn’t imagine anything worse.

In Tuva's account, she emphasized the lack of positive effects from cannabis and the fact that she disliked what it did to others. She also used strong words to distance herself from the drug, thereby effectively renouncing any association with cannabis and its users. On the other hand, Vidar, who was 16 at the time, talked about the idea of using cannabis in a more laid-back way. His attitude seemed open for the occasion, and during the interview, he described his initial curiosity towards the drug:

Vidar: It's something you want to try. You’re curious to see what it's like.

Interviewer: What were you curious about, then?

Vidar: How it is, sort of, since they say it's great fun and relaxing.

Interviewer: They put in heavy advertising like that?

Vidar: Yes.

Later in the interview, Vidar described how the opportunity arose one night while hanging out drinking with his friends. However, the cannabis experience did not live up to the expectations. Vidar became tired and hungry, and he described the sensation as “strange” and “not particularly fun.” Still, he smoked cannabis a few more times, but when interviewed at age 19, he said that he had no urge to do so again.

Some of the adolescents limited the use of cannabis to one occasion due to bad experiences. Signe was one of these. At 16, she described her first and only experience with cannabis. She had recently visited a foreign country where cannabis was more common and was offered a chance to try it. She accepted the offer and explained what happened soon after: “I felt very dizzy, my vision was blurred, and I also felt nauseous (…) I don’t think I got high, I just got really nauseous … I’ve never felt that bad.” She threw up all night and described feeling bad throughout the next day. Up until that episode, she had not planned to try cannabis, and she stated, “I’ll never do it again. That's for sure.”

None of the coincidental cannabis users described a particularly positive experience with cannabis. Rather, it failed to provide them with the pleasurable sensations they had heard about, and for some, it also involved a negative mental and physical experience. Thus, in Becker's (1953) terms, the process of socialization and transfer of knowledge that would have enabled them to enjoy the sensations derived from cannabis use never occurred. Their experimentation with cannabis rather appeared to be a delimited rite of passage (Lavie-Ajayi et al., 2022), as something they saw as acceptable in specific social settings while being an adolescent, but not an activity they wanted to be culturally associated with later in life. This position was further reinforced by the fact that the effects they experienced from cannabis were not particularly positive, thus reaffirming their reluctant stance.

Occasional Cannabis Use

The group characterized as occasional cannabis users described a relatively limited consumption. It was infrequent, and they typically reserved their use for socializing with friends, at parties, and situations in which they also drank alcohol. Mira was one of these. At 18, she had tried cannabis a few times, mostly with her boyfriend, and described her own use with a sense of ease, positioning it as acceptable as long as it remained occasional:

When I’ve smoked [cannabis], I’ve done it with long intervals in between. And I’ve only done it with people who already were smoking and just had a couple of hits from them. I don’t go around and try to get hold of it myself.

Like Mira, Silje had only smoked cannabis when drinking alcohol. She explained that her use typically occurred “late at night because then you’re with people and they have it. I’ve only been offered it by others. I’ve never bought.” Several of the occasional users described social and situational aspects of their cannabis use in similar ways. They were usually part of youth groups that were involved in extensive partying, and the use of cannabis was a part of these rituals. Geir belonged to a popular group in his school and had many friends. During the interviews conducted at ages 15 and 17, he described his occasional but quite extensive cannabis use. However, by the age of 19, his interest had faded, and he casually articulated his change of opinion: “I don't have any ‘hate’ for it. It's just [that] I don’t see any reason to do it anymore. I get nothing out of it. It's just not something I need.” He continued his story and explained that he perceived the acceptability of cannabis use as dependent on how the drug was used and who was using it:

I would say it's [cannabis] accepted to an extent, but it depends on how you look, and the type of background you have. And when I say, “how you look,” it's like, if you look like a stoner and you smoke, it's definitely like, “Oh, you’re completely out of it.” But if you’re like, from my school or someone I know and smoke weed, then I would think like, “Yeah, he just gives a fuck” (…) But if you look weary, and you’re doing it all the time, it's a different story.

In his account, Geir subtly described how he perceived the various meanings involved in adolescent cannabis use. In doing so, he differentiated between acceptable and unacceptable modes of use based on frequency. Interestingly, he also emphasized the symbolic aspects involved, which for him, served as an important yardstick in evaluating whether use was within acceptable limits. This type of symbolic boundary work was also important in the way he regulated his own cannabis use.

Narrative statements about acceptable and unacceptable modes of cannabis use were a consistent feature within this group. At 18, Vetle made a distinction between use and what he called abuse: “Abuse is when you use it because you feel that you must, or you’re addicted in a way. While use is when you just use it sometimes, if you feel like it.” Similarly, in his interview at age 19, Sondre used the setting to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable forms of cannabis use: “It's shitty to do it alone. Just a few close friends, definitely not in the city or something like that. And the weather should be good.” On the one hand, Sondre deemed smoking cannabis alone as “shitty.” On the other hand, he maintained that using cannabis was appropriate when done with close friends and in a somewhat secluded setting, away from the public eye. Thomas also drew similar boundaries. When interviewed at the age of 16, he had no experience with cannabis use but still differentiated between daily and moderate use:

I think cannabis is quite dangerous, but if you use it in moderate amounts, it's probably not as dangerous as if you smoke daily or every week, but I think that in the end, it won’t be enough. That's when it starts to get really dangerous.

During this interview, Thomas was skeptical of cannabis use and did not think highly of the typical cannabis culture, portraying users as people who “think their cool when they do it” and “grow it themselves and sell to others at our school.” However, when interviewed 1 year later, Thomas had tried cannabis a few times and said he thought it was “OK, but not really my thing.” In contrast to the previous interview, he now described alcohol as more dangerous than cannabis and supported cannabis decriminalization, although he emphasized that he was not heavily invested in the issue. As such, Thomas seemed informed about the cannabis subculture but did not embrace its most prominent features. This was typical of many of the occasional cannabis users. They were knowledgeable about the various subcultural cues, such as smoking rituals, and the cultural narratives and symbols involved, but they were not heavily invested. Rather, they rejected the most prominent cultural and identity-bearing elements of the cannabis subculture.

The occasional cannabis users in this study emphasized how their use was infrequent and limited to particular social settings. This corresponds with Parker's definition of recreational drug use, which emphasizes “the occasional use of certain substances in certain settings and in a controlled way” (Parker, 2005, p. 206). Accordingly, these adolescents made distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable modes of cannabis use, positioning regular use, solitary use, or use driven by “need” or addiction as negative, while positioning occasional and controlled use as acceptable. In a survey examining self-regulation rules for cannabis use, Skliamis and colleagues (2021) similarly found that occasional cannabis users were more selective about choosing settings for use and more concerned with self-regulation than daily users. In our study, this type of “controlled loss of control” (Measham, 2004) was supported by stories of how, when, and in what situations they smoked cannabis. This balancing act, however, required competence in recognizing which rules and practices of cannabis use held value within their social world, as well as the ability to present themselves as knowledgeable while simultaneously drawing boundaries towards the stereotypical stoner identity (Lamont & Molnár, 2002; Schwencke et al., 2024). With a kind of “ease” (Khan, 2021), the occasional cannabis users seemed to know how to interact within these situations and to negotiate their drug use identities as competent, socially conditioned, and guided by controlled pleasure.

Subcultural Cannabis Use

While the occasional cannabis users disavowed the most prominent cultural and symbolic features of the cannabis culture, some of the adolescents embraced the values and identities found within this subculture. One of these was Eirik. At an early age, he stood out from the other adolescents in the sample. He was politically engaged and devoted much of his spare time to expanding his ideological interests, which were related to anarchism, spirituality, and environmental protection. Drug policy was among his political interests, and at the age of 14, he articulated an interest in drugs “from a theoretical and philosophical standpoint.” Eirik was aware of his cultural difference and embraced it, with his long hair and resistance to typical youth fashion. At 16, his subcultural identity also involved an outspoken fascination with drugs:

Alcohol doesn’t interest me at all. I don’t drink. And I don’t really see the point of using drugs just for fun. I only use cannabis occasionally. For me, it's more about gaining new perspectives on things.

In his account, Eirik rejected the use of alcohol and the typical partying characteristic of his adolescent peers. For him, the use of drugs rather involved an intellectual development, in which he could explore an altered state of consciousness. This philosophical endeavor was part of Eirik's identity project, recounting that he had an “alternative lifestyle,” dreaming of travelling to exotic places and living an unconventional life on the margins of society. Cannabis was part of this cultural assemblage, and when interviewed again at the age of 18, Eirik described cannabis use as “a way of expressing oneself and a symbol of disrespect of authorities.” This account illustrates how the use of cannabis was embedded in his evolving negotiation of an adolescent identity. His drug use offered a certain mode of expression (Blackman, 2010), used in creative performances of the self (Duff, 2003; Hammersley et al., 2001), by drawing symbolic boundaries and signaling opposition to mainstream society (Sandberg, 2013).

An additional feature of those devoted to the cannabis subculture was how they presented themselves as possessing a certain type of drug-related knowledge. This sort of subcultural capital (Thornton, 1995) was related to their presentation as skillful cannabis users. They were “in the know,” highlighting their expertise in the drug and mastery of the rituals, stories, and symbols involved in the cannabis subculture (Sandberg, 2013). One of those was Harald. When we met him at the age of 15, he had recently tried cannabis for the first time. He recounted that he was curious about the effects, although he was hesitant due to the potentially negative consequences: “Initially, I was quite skeptical, so I spent almost half a year searching [the internet] and reading about it. When I first tried it, I was really confident.” When we met Harald again 2 years later, his use of cannabis had escalated, and he now smoked several times a week. His dedication to the cannabis subculture became prominent when asked about his recent cannabis experiences:

Recently, it was the 20th of April, the international day for weed smoking. So, you kind of look forward to it, and you just want to smoke all day. We were a bunch of friends who got together and smoked a lot, got very stoned and just walked around. The weather was really nice, all sunny, so we just had a great day.

In this account, Harald displayed his subcultural capital by referring to 420, a cultural trope referring to cannabis consumption at a specific date, place, or time of the day (Kang et al., 2019). This subtle cue was part of his knowledge of the cannabis subculture. Additionally, Harald talked about specific places in which the smoking occurred, which further illustrates the social rituals involved in his cannabis use:

We started hanging out at the old kindergarten, and it was pretty fun. At first, it started with some friends. Then, we brought different friends, kind of. Then, they brought friends, and eventually, there were like 20 of us showing up there just to smoke weed.

The social gatherings Harald described were partially due to a necessity, as they offered a somewhat secluded area for cannabis use. However, these gatherings were also highly ritualistic in that he described specific ways of interacting, noting that “you can compare it to when older people sit and drink wine.” Through these shared cannabis rituals, Harald and his friends celebrated their subcultural values and norms.

Trygve grew up in a suburb with a local reputation for social problems and drug use. At the age of 17, he had started high school in a different part of town and told that: “I’ve smoked cannabis an awful lot of times.” During the interview, Trygve reflected on his own identity development after he started high school, detailing his role in providing cannabis at his new school:

Interviewer: So, your new classmates hadn’t tried it before?

Trygve: Well, I wouldn’t say I introduced it. There were a few in the class who had tried it before, but now, there are several.

Interviewer: Are you the one providing it then?

Trygve: Uh, in a way, yes [laughs].

Trygve described his dealing in a casual way. For him, it was not motivated by a desire for financial gain but, rather, a desire to help his friends. This social supply of cannabis (Coomber et al., 2016), which is characterized by subcultural idealism and noncommercial values (Berger et al., 2023; Sandberg, 2012a), was evident in the way Trygve explained his initiation to dealing: “Well, they wanted to try it [cannabis], and I was the one with the contacts.” Thus, his entry to the illicit drug economy was marked by the symbolic importance of supply within friendship groups, rather than being financially motivated.

The adolescents who embraced the cannabis subculture were characterized by oppositional and countercultural values, and their use of the drug served as a symbolic tool to signal distance from mainstream society. This cultural difference, which was marked by specific rituals, symbols, and stories (Sandberg, 2013), influenced and informed their practices of cannabis use, as well as the meanings associated with them (Pawson & Kelly, 2017). In contrast to the participants who used cannabis occasionally, these adolescents relished their differences and were actively engaged in crafting social identities that communicated subcultural participation.

Compulsive Cannabis Use

On the excessive end of the use spectrum, a small group of individuals, all of them boys, portrayed what we categorize as compulsive cannabis use. Their narratives of use shared the following traits: instant liking of its physical effect, strong urge for continuous use, and rapid escalation in frequency. In contrast to the others, these adolescents described limited sense of agency in the process. Reflecting a more disrupted self-identity, the compulsive users rather framed it as linked to their status as “problem children” due to external factors such as limited parental support and early encounters with the police and service apparatus. One of these was Emil. When we first met him, he seemed like the average 12-year-old, although his responses were far from average:

Interviewer: What's the first that comes to your minds if I say hash?

Emil: I think about my dad. He used to smoke hash, but I don’t see him anymore. We haven’t met for several years.

Classmate: Where does he live?

Emil: I don’t know … nor is he allowed to know where I live.

During the interview, Emil portrayed a childhood marked by instability. He had moved several times and described family members with an extant drug use, such as his father, whom he no longer had any contact with. At this age, Emil saw the use of cannabis as a symbol of addiction and misery. However, by the time we met him a year later, he had already used cannabis several times. Emil vividly described the sensation:

My buddy had this small lump of hashish. It smelled like shit, but it also smelled familiar, like my dad (…) I only inhaled twice when I felt it. Everything went calm. It was like moving from the busy streets to the quiet woods. My body, head, thoughts—just quiet. It was amazing!

Emil emphasized how the physical experience resulted in an instant liking for cannabis. Despite his young age, he described this first encounter as marking the start of his escalating cannabis use: “It was the best feeling in the world, and I felt I needed it so bad, but the feeling has become more and more about needs and needing.” Similar stories of early initiation and instant appeal were echoed by others in this group. Sigurd portrayed his first experience: “The high—it was just really nice. I felt something I hadn’t felt before. I felt relaxed, like I was floating.” Sigurd went on to explain how these pleasant feelings contrasted his usual “troubled” and “sad” state of mind, how he missed living with his mum and brother and how he “absolutely hate[d] being under the care of child protection.” As such, their stories portrayed the effects from cannabis as allowing an escape from their internal and external problems. Additionally, it offered a justification of their continual use. Sigurd explained: “From that moment on, I wanted more. Like, I became addicted to how it made me feel, how it made me feel better.” As illustrated by Sigurd and Emil, their use of cannabis escalated rapidly—from positive experiences, into a more dependent nature.

Another example was Jørgen. At the age of 14, he recounted how he had already lived in several foster homes and experienced encounters with the police. Jørgen underscored his tendencies to end up in problems, stating that: “I attend a lot of parties, and I always end up doing all these stupid things because I just act. I never think things through.” By the age of 15, Jørgen had started using cannabis, and by 16, his drug and alcohol use had escalated further, which was evident in the following update on recent events in his life: “I’ve mostly hung out at a friend's place, and we’ve smoked weed for like three months straight.” Although Jørgen's cannabis use offered him a sense of belonging, positioning him as culturally “in the know” (Thornton, 1995), his story was less characterized by agency as compared to the more subculture-oriented users. This was a consistent trait among the compulsive cannabis users and can be seen as an attempt to neutralize their drug use by redirecting attention to issues outside of themselves. Sigurd explained, “With the stuff I’ve been through, it just kind of ends up that way. It was much pretty [a] given.” Sigurd's deterministic view may thus suggest that he relied on his marginalized social position as an explanation for his drug use. Emil also referred to his vulnerable identity when accounting for his own experiences:

One of the first days after I started [high school], Kenan approached me and asked if I smoked weed. He invited me to share a joint, and I felt we became good friends immediately … But soon after, I was picked up by the gang, and I’m 100% sure Kenan told them, “Emil, he's weak. He's a guy we can use.” (…) It started as a blast, with them picking me up at home, at school, smoking weed in their car, dining out, stacks of cash. It felt like a music video, and the protection and having money, it felt good, but one day, the atmosphere changed. They handed me a gun and said I had to start pushing. And I did. From then on, I pushed 24/7.

At the age of 19, Emil had spent the past years navigating the bottom of the illegal and violent drug economy, and he currently struggled with a severe drug addiction. In contrast to Trygve, who was involved in the social supply of cannabis (Coomber et al., 2016), Emil became enmeshed in a violent street culture, which he largely described as a response to his social and structural disadvantage. This narrated pathway to early marginalization (Berger et al., 2023), through stories of relative exclusion and social problems (Bourgois, 2003), was a common denominator among this group. While we do not propose that escalating use is necessarily determined by struggles caused by external factors—we propose that it is part of how they make sense of their own identity in relation to those struggles. Our findings thus suggest that this category of use intersects with more disrupted self-identity projects. By eroding their agency in the escalation process, narratives of marginalization may act as a valuable justification for compulsive cannabis use.

Discussion

This study of cultural variations in adolescent cannabis use illustrates the diverse practices associated with young people's drug use and how they are sustained by stories that help construct a variety of youth identities. Drawing on a large set of qualitative longitudinal data, we theorize these variations across four typologies: coincidental, occasional, subcultural, and compulsive cannabis use. In alignment with Weber's ideal types (Swedberg, 2018; Weber, 1978), this typology represents an analytical tool with which to interpret the empirical patterns of similarities and differences identified in our interview data. The suggested categories are best viewed as an abstraction of the youth cannabis phenomenon, rather than fixed and stable classifications. Still, we hold that these typologies offer insights into the meanings that young people ascribe to cannabis use and shed light on the complex processes that may lead to the further escalation, moderation, or cessation of drug use during this decisive period in young people's lives.

First, the coincidental cannabis users in this study were characterized by limited consumption. During early adolescence, these participants held negative cultural perceptions of cannabis use and distanced themselves from future experimentation with the drug. However, as they grew older, cannabis use became a prominent feature among their peers, and they gradually came to see it as an acceptable but temporary transgression during adolescence. Their lack of positive drug effects did, however, reinforce their lack of cultural identification with the drug and its users, resulting in a limited, temporary, and coincidental experience. Second, the occasional cannabis users saw their use as a continuation of their youth identities, which were characterized by relatively extensive partying, ample social networks, and being culturally “in the know.” This cultural sensitivity also involved in-depth knowledge of the appropriate ways of engaging with the drug, which typically involved limiting their use to specific social situations. Thus, this group differentiated between acceptable and unacceptable modes of use, sustained by symbolic boundaries that helped negotiate their drug use identities as competent, socially conditioned, and guided by controlled pleasure. Third, the subcultural cannabis users in this study were characterized by cultural differences, in which their drug use served as a symbolic tool to signal distance from mainstream society. This subcultural identification, guided by specific rituals, symbols, and stories, influenced and informed their practices of cannabis use, guiding them towards a pattern of extensive consumption. Finally, the group of compulsive cannabis users differed from the others by describing trajectories marked by a greater “loss of control.” Notably, they also navigated their drug use within distinctly different repertoires of meaning, often framed through experiences of limited parental support, encounters with the police, and interactions with social services. As a result, their disrupted identity framing—reflected in their downplaying of agency—served to justify early initiation and escalating cannabis use.

By highlighting the diversity of experiences and associated identities among adolescent cannabis users, the findings of the current study add to the categorizations found in earlier research. However, instead of perceiving adolescent cannabis use as either a form of deviance, a subcultural trait, or a normalized feature, we see the practices of young people's drug use as complex and heterogeneous expressions of individual dispositions, cultural identifications, and processes of social belonging. This approach acknowledges the complexity of young people's drug use and the need for analytical frameworks that account for its diverse forms and meanings. The typologies presented in this study thus offer a nuanced understanding of adolescent cannabis use, recognizing the complex interplay between individual, structural, social, and cultural factors that shapes drug-related trajectories during this important life phase. Concurrently, as cannabis is currently undergoing several contemporary shifts, in which its use is being subject to multifaceted processes of renewed interpretation, negotiation and meaning-making (Blackman, 2010; Duff, 2017; Mostaghim, 2019; Søgaard & Lerkkanen, 2021; Wanke et al., 2022), it is important to conceptualize cannabis as a dynamic and evolving subject of analysis.

The use of qualitative longitudinal data from a heterogeneous sample of adolescents has allowed us to demonstrate variations in adolescent cannabis use. That is, our study participants were recruited at an early age, before they had any experience with the use of illicit drugs, and the only selection criterion was that they were students at the selected schools, ensuring gender, ethnic, geographical, and socioeconomic variation in the sample. This has helped us unpack a variety of adolescent trajectories regarding illicit drug use, as well as how such practices can be mapped onto adolescents’ wider cultural identifications and how they evolve over time. In contrast to most studies on adolescent cannabis use, which typically rely on samples with people who already have experience with the drug, our prolonged study of ordinary youth highlights the evolving nature and significant variation in young people's understandings of cannabis. This approach frames adolescent drug use as a dynamic and multifaceted process shaped by personal, social, and cultural factors. Importantly, it underscores the need to recognize and highlight the diverse drug use practices that contribute to the ever-changing landscape of contemporary youth cultures.