Regulating Private and Public Places of Non-Medical Cannabis Consumption in North America: Public Health and Public Safety Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The legalization of cannabis has necessitated a debate about the specific public or private places in which the consumption of cannabis should be lawfully allowed. Relevant federal, and state or provincial, laws governing the public consumption of cannabis as of April 2020 were retrieved through primary legal research in LexisNexis and official government websites. Across various states and provinces within the United States and Canada, three types of cannabis-related regulatory regimes have emerged. Quebec has adopted the most restrictive type of regulatory framework. Quebec generally prohibits the smoking or vaping of cannabis in both indoor and outdoor public places, by extending the restrictions on the use of tobacco and alcohol products to cannabis consumption. Slightly less restrictive are jurisdictions such as Ontario and British Columbia, which allow cannabis consumption in most outdoor public spaces, such as streets or parks. Certain local-level jurisdictions within the US states of California and Colorado have adopted the least restrictive local-level regulatory regime, by authorizing the operation of indoor cannabis consumption sites at certain fixed locations or within mobile spaces. The degree to which private consumption is allowed or prohibited also varies widely. An individual who lives or works in a jurisdiction such as Quebec that has prohibited the smoking or vaping of cannabis in almost all public places will be left with limited spaces in which to consume inhalable cannabis products. By contrast, a non-medical cannabis user who lives in Colorado, which authorizes on-site consumption at certain licensed establishments, has far more options to consume inhalable cannabis outside of the home. In this article, we will examine a range of federal-, state- or provincial-, and local-level laws that regulate cannabis consumption in certain public and private places and consider some of the potential public health and safety implications of these laws.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".