We explore the legalization of the cannabis industry in the US, and point at the conflicted path through which this emerging industry has traversed. In particular, we highlight how this industry has navigated controversy to become one of the fastest growing industries in the world. The paper also offers a theoretical model that explains the role played by social movements to propel and shape early antagonism towards increasing protagonism. Evidence of the latter is seen in the form of cannabis laws (...) passing at the state level in the US. We posit that resource mobilization and shaping effects were instrumental in laying the grounds for legalization. A detailed timeline of the legalization for over one and a half centuries is also provided. Our synergistic approach integrates a historical perspective with social movement theory to address a relatively new and under examined phenomenon in the emerging US legal cannabis industry and ensuing ethical implications. (shrink)

This article is based on a case study of a long-term public controversy over the construction of a highway bypass. Two principal variants of the bypass were proposed. One of them began gradually to appear preferable, increasingly attractive for experts, but remaining only on paper. In the meantime, however, the other variant became more realistic, pushed through mainly by local politicians and actually constructed. This article shows how purification of science from politics played a key role in the development and (...) ending of the case. Initial expertization of the case switched to its sharp politicization, when people got frustrated from protraction and indecisive evidence of accumulated expertise. This turned to be fatal for those who consistently staked everything on “pure facts.” This article concludes by outlining some general consequences of such a development for both democratic decision making and the political relevance of expertise. (shrink)

Brak transparentności procesów decyzyjnych typowy dla demokracji liberalnych oraz związany z nim kryzys zaufania obywateli wobec instytucji politycznych to jedne z głównych przyczyn sukcesów odnoszonych przez stronników demokracji nieliberalnej. Zdaniem krytyków liberalizmu zbyt wiele decyzji współcześnie delegowanych jest do ciał nienadzorowanych demokratycznie. Zwolennicy koncepcji demokracji deliberacyjnej formułują różne remedia na tę sytuację. Nie czynią tego jednak stronnicy najpopularniejszej obecnie z wersji demokracji deliberacyjnej – podejścia systemowego do deliberacji. Autor artykułu twierdzi, że podejście to może legitymizować „niedemokratyczny liberalizm” – jedną z (...) przyczyn kryzysu demokracji liberalnej. Celem artykułu jest prezentacja i ocena stosunku zwolenników podejścia systemowego do roli odgrywanej w procesie politycznym przez nienadzorowane demokratycznie gremia eksperckie. (shrink)