Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I examine the formation and enforcement of Canadian narcotics policy through the lens of settler colonialism. By examining the rationale for Canadian policies towards opium, cannabis, and quat, I challenge the notion that public health and safety played a material role the formation of Canadian narcotics policy. Rather, racialized targeting of minority groups was a key driver for creating laws to prohibit certain narcotics and incidentally target undesirable subcultures. Evidence that punitive and enforcement-oriented strategies for controlling narcotic drugs are ineffective have frequently been met by the continuation of these very strategies, further undermining the stated purposes for enacting strict drug laws. Language of “law and order” and the propensity to crack down on drug users, coupled with racial profiling and police biases, has continued the disproportionate racial impacts of drug laws, and the successes of narcotics policy in entrenching the status quo have outweighed their failures in reducing drug consumption. I conclude that, as it exists currently, Canadian narcotics policy is inseparable from Canada’s past as a settled, colonial nation-state.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".