HOW SHOULD WE THINK ABOUT A GLOBAL MARKET IN LEGAL CANNABIS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the trade and distribution of cannabis is (largely) prohibited under international law, as well as in most domestic legal systems, there is now a noticeable trend to decriminalize and regulate its use for medicinal, and in some cases recreational, purposes. A number of US states have moved in this direction, although federal US law continues to criminalize the use of cannabis. Uruguay has legalized recreational use, and Canada recently enacted similar legislation. Should international law be modified or interpreted so as to facilitate trade and investment in cannabis (and related products and services) between domestic jurisdictions where legalization has occurred? How do the principles and rules of international trade and investment law relate to the United Nations (UN) regime and its possible evolution toward permissiveness of global market activity in cannabis? Debates about the legalization of cannabis use have been intense in many jurisdictions. To understand the implications of the internationalization of an emerging legal cannabis market, we must start with the diverse policy objectives often asserted for legalization. In the case of medical cannabis, improved health outcomes is the obvious objective; for recreational use, the objective is to counter the negative consequences of criminal activity. As social values change, impetus for legalization may also come from the belief that it is unfair that a widely socially accepted activity should put individuals at risk of a criminal record; in many cases, the criminal law is applied in a manner grossly inconsistent with social equality, with primarily disadvantaged minorities targeted for criminal sanction and possible incarceration. Another motivation for legalization is fiscal: governments can capture tax revenue that is not available from the criminal market. Finally, many believe that cannabis is a social drug that, when not abused, is relatively benign and generates a market for many spin- off goods and services, therefore generating revenue and contributing to economic growth and development.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".