Film Review of Grass for SOC 1010

Grass did a good job of using statistics and numbers to persuade the viewers to adopt an “anti-prohibition” standpoint on marijuana.  The use of government costs on drug wars was very influential in portraying the “outlandish” and “desperate” attempts of the US Government to control the issue and spread anti-drug propaganda.

The film’s use of verbiage and editing in portraying the government exposed its own propagandist goals.  While those opposing the enforcement of anti-marijuana laws were described as “skeptical,” and “impartial.”  Officials enforcing the laws were described as emotionally driven (i.e. “furious,” “saw the entertainment industry as degenerate”, etc..) which leads the audience to believe that marijuana laws are based solely on misinformation and misdirected malcontent.  At the same time, when anyone was shown broadcasting something anti-marijuana, there were several cut scenes showing the errors of these “supposedly trustworthy” media sources.  The outtakes attempt to portray the uncertainty, ineptness and general buffoonery of these officials and media representatives.

Grass follows the stigmas of marijuana from social pre-deviance to crime, while at the same time trying to claim that its government enforced criminalization is, in itself, deviant.  The movie claims that, at one time, marijuana was socially acceptable.  According to our textbook (pg. 118), “a stigma is a negative label that devalues a person and changes her or his self-concept and social identity.”  The film portrays the negative stigma towards marijuana and its use as deriving from bigotry, prejudice, and/or racism.  In this way, the film argues that the negative stigma of marijuana is founded on the negative stigmas of prejudice.  It’s a veritable I’m not stupid, YOUR stupid” argument which most likely only appeals to those who already have a preference towards one side or the other.

Crime is defined as, “a violation of societal norms and rules for which punishment is specified by public law.”  The use of marijuana did become a crime and did become punishable by public law.  The movie argues that it should have never happened in the first place and that the law itself is criminal because of its inefficiency in being enforced.  It argues that the vast expenses incurred by the war on marijuana could be construed as a crime against society.


In summation, the film begs the viewers to ask who the “real” criminals and deviants are, the government or the marijuana users.  Unfortunately, the argument also seems to be propaganda vs. propaganda and there seems to be little impartial evidence to support either side.