Putting the 1960s on Trial: Prosecuting Canada’s “Johnny Reeferseed,” Rosie Rowbotham
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1970s and 1980s, federal prosecutors conducted three lengthy trials against Robert Rowbotham for importing and trafficking hashish, an increasingly popular part of Canada’s illegal cannabis market. Rowbotham, a “hippie capitalist,” made a defiant speech in defense of the counterculture after his 1976–77 trial, where writer Norman Mailer testified as a defense witness. In the early 1980s, after being released on early parole, Rowbotham became involved in a large hashish smuggling operation, uncovered by electronic and physical surveillance and testimony from his co-accused. In 1985 Rowbotham and 11 accomplices were convicted, and many were sentenced to serious jail time. At a sentencing hearing musician Neil Young testified in favor of soft drugs. This article argues that in the political and legal climate of the war on drugs, prosecutors and judges involved in the Rowbotham trials employed the specter of the “bad ’60s” to demonize counterculture ideas that supported decriminalization, an approach that framed recreational drug use as nostalgic, immature, antisocial, and out of date.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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".