Canadian Public Opinion on Cannabis: How Far Out of Step With It Is the Existing Law?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public attitudes in Canada are clecwly in fauour of loosening restrictions on cutnabis possession. opinion polls conducted oorcr the past few yems show that most Canadiars support decriminaliTing slmple possession cmd use of mmijtnna. Recent polls, moreo,uer, saggest that more than half faonw fuII legaliTation. Support for legal access for heabh pw'poses is higher; onll one in six adubs opposes this reform. National drug swueys offer few fwrher details beyond the demogral>hic profiles that relatc to certain uiews. This paper nkes a closer lnok at public opinion based on a random househokl survey of Toronto arluhs (N=1 ,081). This allows us to identify adlinonal characteristics associated with opinions about cmtnabis reform. Consistent with the findings from national drug surueys, the maiority opposes the cwtent prohibition. Respondents also recogniTed potential health concems in addition to aclnowledglng health benefits of ca.nabis and a uu.iety of problens with the existlng ktw. Public attitudes u'e broadly 'hcnm reduction' oriented szggestlng euidence-based, public heahh initiatiq.les would. go:rp.er wide support as a uiable ahernatiq.te to qiminal conuols. R6sum6 Il ne fait auatn doute que les Cavhiens appuient le rel%oochement des restrictions concernant Ia possesslon de cannabis. Les sondages d'opinion men6s au cotns des demiires anndes rlotilent que In plupmt des Canadiens sont en fauern de la ddcriminalisation de la simp/r possession et de h consommation de ma'ijunna. De plus, des sc.tndages rlcents indiquent que plus dc lnmoiti| des Cawdiens appuientlabgalisation delamartiurma.IJn nomhe encore plus g|and de Cuvdiens appuient l'accd.s llgal d la marijwma pour des raisons de santd. Seul wl adulte srr siI s'oppos e d ln r\forme des mestues liglslatites. ks enqu rcs ncltionales sw la consommation de drogues fownissent seulement Etel4ues ren' seignements de plw que les o[>inions de cernins groupes de personnes. Le pr€sent rapport \tudie plus d fond L'opinion du public d pctrtir d'm d.chmtillon aliatoire d'adultes de Toronto (n = 1 081). Cekt permet de cerner des cu'act1ristiErcs suppliment{tires associ6es aux opinions concernuLt la rdforme des meswes liglslatives applicables au ccutnabis . Comme l'indiqtrcnt les rdsulnts des enqu tes nationales sru la consommation de drogwes , la ptupnt des reponfumts s'opposent d l' interdiction actuelle . ils sont conscients des uou. bles de santd possibles, des bienfaits du cannabis pow lt santA et des probhmes causds par Ies lois en uigtettr. Dans I'ensemble,le public priuild.gie la . r\duction des mefaits , . Celn laisse croire qu'il rdserverait un accu.eil fauorable aux initiatiues de santd publique foncl1.es sw l.'expdrience clinique qui consntuent une solution de rechange qiable atu meswes de contrlle des actiuitds cwminelles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".