“There's what's on Paper and then there's What Happens, out on the Sidewalk”: Cannabis Users Knowledge and Opinions of Canadian Drug Laws
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the knowledge and opinions of cannabis users regarding Canadian laws regulating possession of cannabis. Our study is based on data from 165 in-depth interviews with adult cannabis users from four Canadian cities. Our participants revealed a limited awareness of cannabis policy in Canada. When researchers informed them about actual Canadian laws, the majority of participants regarded the specified laws as “harsh,” “excessive,” “absurd” and/or “ridiculous.” In practice, the common experience of participants suggests the existence of two sets of enforcement practice in Canada—“there's what's on paper and then there's what happens, out on the sidewalk.” We situate our analysis of these practices in the context of broader debates regarding the putative normalization of drugs like cannabis in Canada. We conclude that greater consideration of the character of local law enforcement practices has the capacity to add further conceptual and analytical clarity to existing theories of normalization.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it