Drug Reform Principles and Policy Debates: Harm Reduction Prospects for Cannabis in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrasting the official harm reduction aims of Canada's 10-year national drug strategy with the actual evolution of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the authors find little evidence of harm reduction, and much of sustained and punitive prohibition. The example of the criminal sanctions currently being applied to cannabis possession offences serves to illustrate the limits of what can be achieved in reducing the impact of criminalization when the fundamental ban on personal use and access is retained. Theoretically informed by constructionist analyses of the styles and strategies of social problems discourse, a moral basis of drug use entitlement is expounded from which rational reform might be more fruitfully argued. Despite its official mandate in Canada to develop more pragmatic drug policy alternatives, the harm reduction movement, posing public health solutions based on empirical analysis, is nonetheless needful of a rhetorical foundation by which to denounce prohibition as a morally objectionable intervention in the private lives of individuals.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".