Abstract：
Recent studies have explored how professionals draw boundaries to reach workable solutions in conflictual and contested areas. Yet they neglected to explore the relationships and dynamics between how boundaries are demarcated in rhetoric and in policy. This article examines these relationships empirically through the case of medical cannabis (MC) policy-making in Israel. Drawing on interviews with key stakeholders in the MC policy field, formal policy documents, and observations of MC conferences, this article sheds light on the dynamics between rhetorical boundary-work and what we term regulatory boundary-work, namely setting rules and regulations to demarcate boundaries in actual practice. Results show how certain definitions of and rationales for a discursive separation between \"medical\" and \"recreational\" cannabis and between cannabis \"medicalization\" and \"legalization\" prevailed and were translated into formal policy, as well as how stakeholders\' reactions to this boundary-work produced policy changes and the shifting of boundaries. Both rhetorical and regulatory boundary-works emerge as ongoing contested processes of negotiation, which are linked in a pattern of reciprocal influence. These processes are dominated by certain actors who have greater power to determine how and why specific boundaries should be drawn instead of others.
摘要：
最近的研究探索了专业人员如何划定界限，以在冲突和有争议的领域达成可行的解决方案。然而，他们忽略了探索如何在言辞和政策中划定界限之间的关系和动态。本文通过以色列的医用大麻（MC）政策制定案例，对这些关系进行了实证研究。借鉴与MC政策领域主要利益相关者的访谈，正式的政策文件，以及MC会议的观察，本文揭示了修辞边界工作和我们所说的监管边界工作之间的动态关系，即在实际操作中制定规则和条例来划定界限。结果表明，“医疗”和“娱乐性”大麻之间以及大麻“医疗化”和“合法化”之间的话语分离的某些定义和理由如何盛行并转化为正式政策，以及利益相关者对这一边界工作的反应如何产生政策变化和边界转移。修辞和监管边界工作都是作为正在进行的有争议的谈判过程而出现的，它们以相互影响的模式联系在一起。这些过程由某些行为者主导，他们有更大的权力来决定如何以及为什么应该划定具体的界限，而不是其他行为者。
