Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This chapter examines the ways in which cannabis has come to be problematized across different contemporary societies. What social phenomena are considered to be problems and how these are projected as such at particular moments in time are central elements in the policy-making process (Peters, 2005). Making sense of problem definition requires us to recognize the influence of immediate factors, such as ‘focusing events, crises and symbols’ (Kingdon, 1995) as well as more long-standing perceptions and dispositions towards cannabis and other illegal drugs. Here, our concern is less with the historical origin of problematization, but more on the ways in which particular discourses are used to frame social issues by those who have the resources to enact change. This allows us to understand the sorts of values that underlie problem recognition and how this is connected to the selection of policy alternatives, and the political parameters and forces that enable or hinder favoured solutions to be realized (Kingdon, 1995). Recognizing the interwoven nature of problems in particular contexts, the chapter examines exemplars from different countries in turn. First, in-depth findings from an analysis of empirical and secondary data are drawn on in relation to the 2009 reclassification of cannabis in England & Wales and the 2012– 13 changes to coffeeshop criteria in the Netherlands. These findings are then contrasted with an interpretation of recent policy movements in two further contexts: Canada’s Cannabis Act 2018 and Jamaica’s Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2015. England & Wales: political insecurity and the emergence of a threat In England & Wales, the construction of cannabis as a policy problem was centred around three main areas: social order, health and morality. Each of these themes emerged in relation to the perceived failure of the earlier reclassification to Class C in 2004. While interlinked in this respect, these themes also stood independently. These problematizations are discussed in turn. Cannabis as a threat to social order Cannabis first became problematized as creating a sense of a threat to social order, with the legacy of the 2004 reclassification leaving the public and police largely confused about its legal status.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".