The highs and lows of cannabis stigma: a vignette study of factors that influence stigma toward cannabis consumers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cannabis consumption has increased across all demographics following legalization in Canada. While cannabis is becoming increasingly more prevalent, prevailing stigma in the community has been highlighted as a concern. The purpose of this study was to determine the context in which Canadians stigmatize cannabis use to inform policy and harm-reduction campaigns.Methods An experimental vignette design aimed to quantify cannabis-related stigma and explore the impact of the following items on stigma (1) reason for use (recreational/medical/self-medication); (2) method of consumption (smoking joints/edibles); (3) frequency (monthly/almost daily/multiple times daily); and (4) source (unregulated/regulated market). Canadian citizens 18 years and older were recruited through public opinion agency (N = 1118). Participants were randomly assigned two vignettes altering the independent variables and completed the Social Distance Questionnaire following each vignette as the dependent measure of stigma.Results 2x3 ANOVAs revealed that stigma toward cannabis consumption increased when cannabis was used recreationally, by smoking joints, more frequently, and purchased from the neighborhood.Conclusions Stigma may be a barrier to help-seeking for consumers who use riskier methods of administration. Stigmatization may also impact purchasing from regulated suppliers. Findings can help inform cannabis policies and education strategies to reduce stigma and barriers regarding consumption behaviors.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".