Lay Perspectives on Drug (De)Criminalization and the (De)Stigmatization of People Who Use Illicit Drugs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Substance use stigma has been framed as contributing to the drug toxicity crisis. We theorize the political function of drug criminalization as contributing to a system of stigma that exerts social control over people who use illicit drugs (PWUID). Consequently, drug decriminalization may be a potential destigmatizing solution. Since decriminalization is often positioned as an antistigma intervention targeting the public, it is important to understand how laypeople conceptualize decriminalization. Methods We acquired, via a Freedom of Information request, 221 deputations sent to the City of Vancouver regarding Motion B.4, which would advance decriminalization. We used reflexive thematic analysis to explore: (1) how laypeople conceptualized drug (de)criminalization and its relation to the (de)stigmatization of PWUID; and (2) the potential implications of the various conceptualizations of (de)criminalization for the autonomy of PWUID. Results Supporters of Motion B.4 commonly assumed decriminalization would destigmatize PWUID. Supporters also often argue that the drug toxicity crisis is a public health problem, not a criminal one. However, the public health model of decriminalization advocated by some supporters still limited the autonomy of PWUID. Meanwhile, those opposed commonly positioned social control of PWUID as necessary, including opponents who argued that decriminalization was a form of systemic neglect that abandons PWUID. This view was echoed by some proponents, notably those who argued for a public health model of decriminalization. Finally, some proponents asserted that PWUID should be included in the policymaking process, though few deputations came from self-identified PWUID. All PWUID argued that decriminalization must exclude the police. Conclusion Our analysis of lay perspectives on decriminalization highlights the importance of models that adequately address all levels of stigma for PWUID. Models that fail to preserve the autonomy of PWUID are likely to reproduce their stigmatization.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it