Search

As the medical cannabis industry in Canada moved from a single government producer to an open market model in 2014, this paper provides insight into how entrepreneurs from illegal medical cannabis dispensaries, as well as legal licensed producers, protect their position and reputation in this 'emerging' market. On the one hand, MCDs are illegal, niche-filling entities that have historically been 'boxed out' by the legal framework, trying to survive untouched by enforcement and supported by faithful clientele. Licensed producers (LPs), on the other hand, are new legal entities that follow a strict government regulated framework, and are essentially stepping on their illegal predecessor's territory. This project draws on 63 in-depth qualitative interviews, when medical cannabis access transitioned to an open market model. In this context, we see that rather than attempts to construct a credible shared identity for legitimacy, the emphasis is on building a distinct identity narrative in the face of market competition. The emergence of legal cannabis markets and the future of cannabis legalization in Canada presents a fruitful avenue for continuing the study of both the micro and macro processes in emerging markets, organizations, and entrepreneurial activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: People under age 18 who inject drugs represent a population at risk of health and social harms. Age restrictions at harm reduction programmes often formally exclude this population, but the reason behind such restrictions is lacking in the literature. To help fill this gap, we examine the perspectives of people who use drugs and various other stakeholders regarding whether supervised injection facilities (SIFs) should have age restrictions.Methods: Interviews and focus groups were conducted with a total of 95 people who use drugs and 141 other stakeholders (including police, fire and emergency services personnel, other city employees and officials, healthcare providers, residents and business representatives) in two Canadian cities without SIFs.Findings: We highlight the following thematic areas: mixed opinions regarding specific age restrictions; safety as a priority; different experiences and understandings of youth, agency and drug use; and ideas regarding maturity, “help” and other approaches. We note throughout that a familiar vulnerability–agency dichotomy often surfaced in the discussions.Conclusions: This paper contributes new empirical insights regarding youth access to SIFs. We offer considerations that may inform discussions occurring in other jurisdictions debating SIF implementation and may help remove or clarify age-related policies for harm reduction programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]