Taking Stock – Legalization of Polish Medicinal Cannabis Seven Years Later: Users’ Perspectives, Substance Use & Misuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background It has been seven years since Poland legalized medical cannabis. Doctors in Poland are allowed to prescribe medical cannabis, which can be then obtained via pharmacies. However, no evaluation has been produced to explore what this policy has achieved. Method This article uses online surveys (N = 571) and qualitative interviews to explore what Polish cannabis users think of the current system. Results Most users – medical and recreational – think that it is currently easy to obtain a prescription for medical cannabis in Poland, and medical cannabis from a pharmacy. The users seem to have a clear preference for cannabis clinics as a source of prescriptions for medical cannabis over traditional doctors. Doctors in cannabis clinics seem much more inclined to prescribe medical cannabis. Many respondents, however, agree that the current system remains too expensive, and many users also raise concerns about the quality of cannabis available from pharmacies and strain variation. Conclusion This article shows the emergence of a unique drug policy/model. The access to medical cannabis has improved significantly since the early stages of the policy. Notably – contrary to the wishes of the policymakers who wanted to create a “strict” medical model with the use of pharmacies, both – medical and recreational users seem to be benefiting from the current system.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".