With his second book focused on the world of cannabis, author David Paleschuck takes a deep dive into the word cannabis …
as well as “marijuana” and the entire historical/cultural debate over the long-stigmatized plant.
Cannabis vs. Marijuana: Language, Landscape and Context looks at cannabis terminology and how it influences policy and legislation, from the perspectives of industry professionals, scientists, lawmakers, consumers and the general public.
Marijuana Venture spoke with Paleschuck about his newest book and what he learned while researching the intricacies of an evolving language.
Marijuana Venture: What inspired you to write Cannabis vs. Marijuana: Language, Landscape and Context?
David Paleschuck: Language is powerful — it shapes how we perceive, discuss and legislate cannabis. It’s a double-edged sword; it can marginalize a community as much as it can create one. I wrote Cannabis vs. Marijuana because the ongoing terminology debate lacked depth, balance and historical context. The words we use affect everything from stigma to policy. This book is my attempt to bridge that gap and bring clarity to a complex, evolving conversation — not just for the industry, but for the general public as well. To normalize the plant and build bridges with policymakers, researchers, doctors, and scientists, we must use thoughtful language instead of reinforcing outdated stereotypes with slang and euphemisms.
MV: Did you focus your research on people with significant ties to cannabis/marijuana, or also those with passing knowledge?
Paleschuck: Both. I wanted to capture perspectives from those deeply entrenched in the industry — cultivators, policymakers, advocates and brand owners — as well as everyday consumers who might use the terms interchangeably. The difference? Industry insiders were more precise and passionate about the language, while casual users often echoed misconceptions. That gap was fascinating — and telling. The book includes 78 quotes from the industry’s brightest minds on the topic. Their insights add credibility and depth to the discussion.
MV: Language feels more fluid today, especially with social media’s influence. Do you agree, and does that play a role in the cannabis space?
Paleschuck: Absolutely. Social media has democratized language, allowing slang and formal terms to coexist and evolve in real-time. In cannabis, this creates an interesting tension: the industry is professionalizing, favoring terms like “cannabis” over “weed.” Yet, platforms like TikTok keep slang alive and well. This duality mirrors cannabis itself — rooted in tradition, yet constantly evolving.
MV: How does the nomenclature debate affect hemp and marijuana industries?
Paleschuck: The debate highlights a lack of understanding among the public and policymakers. Legally, hemp and marijuana are distinct under federal law, but they’re both cannabis. Attempts to separate “cannabis” (marijuana) and “hemp” often lead to confusion. Educating consumers — and policymakers — on these nuances is critical for informed conversations and markets. The layers of complexity include slang and colloquial definitions, legal definitions and botanical classifications — all of which vary. Bridging these gaps will ensure more consistent and accurate dialogue.
MV: Do you think “marijuana” could become an outdated term within the next decade?
Paleschuck: It’s possible. “Marijuana” carries historical baggage rooted in racism and prohibition. As the industry matures and prioritizes inclusivity, the preference for “cannabis” is growing. Trends suggest “marijuana” may fade into history, though it’s unlikely to disappear completely given its cultural significance. Like everything else, it could experience a resurgence, be reappropriated, or evolve into something new. Language, after all, is never static.
MV: Where do slang terms like weed, grass, ganja, herb, pot, etc., fit into the lexicon?
Paleschuck: Slang reflects the culture and context of cannabis use. “Weed” is the everyman’s term, while “ganja” nods to Rastafarian roots. These words humanize cannabis and connect it to its cultural past. However, they’re often sidelined in professional or legislative contexts, where “cannabis” reigns supreme. Slang’s staying power lies in its ability to evolve and adapt, maintaining relevance across generations.
MV: Do you have a personal favorite euphemism?
Paleschuck: I’ve always had a soft spot for “jazz cabbage.” It’s absurd, charming, and somehow perfectly captures cannabis’ creative, rebellious spirit. I like “broccoli,” too. All of a sudden, I’m in the mood for a salad!
MV: What conclusions did you come to after completing Cannabis vs. Marijuana?
Paleschuck: Everything is contextual. The words we use with friends might differ from those we use with parents, the police, or policymakers. That said, language is as much a battleground as legislation or policy. Words like “cannabis” or “marijuana” aren’t neutral — they’re steeped in history, politics and prejudice. Using the right language is a small but crucial step toward normalizing cannabis. For instance, shifting from “recreational use” to “adult use” or from “strain” to “cultivar” demonstrates how even minor adjustments can reshape perceptions.
MV: Did the research change your mind on anything?
Paleschuck: Yes, it deepened my appreciation for how much work remains in destigmatizing cannabis. Language isn’t just descriptive — it’s transformative. Small changes in vocabulary shift perceptions and pave the way for progress. For example, replacing “use” with “consume” and emphasizing intentionality in language reframes how we discuss cannabis and its role in society.
MV: What’s next for you?
Paleschuck: Continuing the conversation. I’m exploring how these linguistic shifts play out globally and working on projects that dive deeper into branding and cultural perceptions. I’m also developing a new book focusing on consumer trust while consulting with brands to help them navigate this dynamic industry authentically and purposefully.
This interview was edited for length and clarity.