Implementing Regulation in an Emerging Industry: A Multi-Province Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The decriminalization of cannabis in Canada has required a host of regulatory changes at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels. Provinces have operationalized the development of legal markets in very different ways, offering an opportunity to perform comparative analysis of business responses. This article outlines and delineates the various regulatory frameworks that have been employed at the provincial level, discusses how they have impacted the development of the legal cannabis market, and considers how they have resulted in some further regulatory changes. After reviewing coevolution as a conceptual framework, the implementation of legalization of recreational cannabis is discussed, followed by an exploration of different provincial approaches at a general level. The effects of that framework on the first phase of legal market operations are explored, with a focus on issues emanating from regulatory choices through discussions of five regions: British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick; each section exemplifying different priorities in the regulatory choices. Several themes emerge in the discussion. First, provincial approaches to retail licence approval have created severe bottlenecks, affecting consumer access to legal recreational cannabis. Additionally, the regulatory framework for those licences has resulted in a chilling effect on many potential entrepreneurs. Second, a reduction in black market sales has not yet occurred, largely due to the failure of some provinces to adequately provide retail licences and support legal distribution channels, or to operationalize the retail sales network. Third, many provinces struggled with operationalizing wholesale distribution to the retail stores, initially leading to administrative restrictions on store licences. Finally, issues of fairness and equity, effective displacement of the illegal market, government’s role as a market regulator and participant, and other issues that emerge from the critical comparison of the provincial markets are addressed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".