Introduction to the Special Issue on Cannabis Legalization: Cannabis Policy at the Twilight of Prohibition
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The title of this special issue is borrowed from our colleague Matt Reid, who catalogued the range of cannabis stigmas that persisted even as prohibition appeared to be receding (Reid, 2020).Indeed, cannabis policy has changed rapidly over the past decade.This not only has created opportunities for meaningful reform but also led to a variety of new problems and challenges.This special issue brings together articles from various international contexts to address some of these emerging issues.It is difficult to observe the march of cannabis liberalization across the globe without concluding that cannabis prohibition is unraveling.Long-time opponents of reform have joined the boards of cannabis companies, cannabis advertising adorns billboards and social media sites, and cannabis is increasingly seen as a commercial good rather than a dire existential threat to civilization.Because of this perceptual shift, one might assume that cannabis-related issues will become less relevant to social scientists and legal scholars.However, there are indications that suggest this is not the case.From countries that prohibit cannabis use to those where legalization is decades old, a series of ironies, unintended consequences, and adverse outcomes continue to plague cannabis policy.One issue is that contemporary cannabis research often emphasizes Northern jurisdictions where liberalization dominates the policy debate.However, Western and especially U.S.-inspired models of drug control have led to considerable harm in the global South.These harms persist.For example, in this issue, Nelson and Klantschnig examine illicit cannabis in Nigeria based on interviews and long-term interactions with illicit cannabis cultivators and traders in both rural and urban contexts.They explore the socioeconomic benefits that cannabis offers illegal market actors, document the threats they face from repressive law enforcement, and report concerns about a future legal cannabis market fraught with inequities.African countries are not the only supporters of the prohibitionist approach on the international level, of course.Of continued interest is how alarmist messaging about the risks of cannabis continues to proliferate.Political rhetoric around cannabis has historically produced ironic results.This is especially true when claims being made are not based on empirical research and instead stem from efforts to scare young people away from drug use.This has a long history in North America and is perfectly illustrated in the infamous "This is your brain on drugs" commercial featuring an egg being fried, symbolizing any and all illicit drug use. 1 A similar pattern emerges in a paper by Bebre, published in this issue.Based on her analysis of interviews with people in Latvia who use cannabis, when state actors embellish the dangers of cannabis use, people often interpret it as a sign of a lack of knowledge of the subject matter and proceed to ignore their claims.State actors are advised to use empirical evidence and realistic
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,015 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,060 | 0,027 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».