P11. Are Restrictions on Advertising Marijuana Constitutional? Balancing Public Health and Charter Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In April 2016, the federal government announced plans to legalize recreational marijuana, with the goal of keeping marijuana out of the hands of children and profit out of the hands of criminals. One way to control the dissemination of information to children is to restrict advertising. Currently, advertising medical marijuana is prohibited, beyond listing the common and medicinal name of the strain, price per gram, and the cannabinoid content. It is not yet known whether these same restrictions will be expanded to recreational marijuana, but it is likely that some restrictions will be put in place given the emphasis on restricting advertising to protect children in other contexts (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, food products). Advertising is recognized as a protected form of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (s. 2(b)), so if the government infringes on this right, they must be able to prove that it is justified in a free and democratic society (s. 1). Methods The Supreme Court of Canada has assessed restrictions on tobacco advertising, providing a framework for determining whether advertising restrictions pass constitutional muster. Using this framework, I will analyze whether restrictions on advertising marijuana are constitutional. Results n/a Conclusions n/a Interdisciplinary Reflection This interdisciplinary research relies on legal analysis, scientific and medical research on the harms of marijuana use, and social science evidence on the connection between advertising and marijuana use to balance the infringement of individual rights against protecting the public from potentially harmful products.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.005 |
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".