The Saga Continues: Canadian Legislative Attempts to Reform Cannabis Law in the Twenty-First Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In July 2003, in an article published in the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Fischer, Ala-Leppilampi, Single, and Robins wondered whether Canada's long “saga of promise, hesitation, and retreat” in cannabis law reform was coming to an end, after 30 years of inertia. Their optimism was rooted in the federal government's apparent determination to decriminalize cannabis possession and in an existing socio-political context favourable to reform. Indeed, the government had recently tabled legislation that would decriminalize the possession of small amounts of cannabis, making it a ticketable offence. However, this bill died before it could be passed into law. Two later versions of this legislation also failed to pass through the House of Commons. This paper picks up where Fischer et al. (2003) left off, by updating and reviewing developments in Canadian cannabis policy between 2003 and 2008. It reviews the provisions proposed by Bill C-38 and its successors, tracing the bills’ movements through Parliament and then delineates the positions of key interest groups regarding the decriminalization of minor cannabis possession. It concludes by reflecting on the contemporary period to show that Canada's “saga of promise, hesitation, and retreat” in cannabis law reform continues unabated.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".