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]

Substance use among marginalized populations has historically been constructed as a social problem to be managed, cured, and eliminated. Much social science research concerning drug use among marginalized populations focuses on risks and harms, with little attention to positive aspects of substance use. In this paper we explore positive roles of drugs/drug use among marginalized people who use drugs. We draw on in-depth qualitative interviews conducted with 50 people who use drugs in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside neighbourhood. Forty-three participants reported positive aspects of drug use. Participant narratives revealed four main themes regarding the role and function of drugs and drug use in their lives: (1) pain relief and management; (2) alleviating mental health issues; (3) fostering social experiences; (4) pleasurable embodied experiences. Our findings show that despite known negative consequences of substance use, in many ways drug use was beneficial for these individuals. Our study demonstrates that given the opportunity, meaningful and useful conversations that shed light on why people take drugs is possible. By understanding why marginalized individuals choose to consume the drugs they do we can begin to engage in truly helpful conversations about how to reduce drug-related harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This study provides an examination of normalization trends associated with the use of cannabis and tobacco, and whether and to what extent health concerns and legal contexts appear to modify the tolerance displayed to users.Methods: Data for this paper are drawn from a mixed methods interview study involving 202 respondents who reported being regular users of cannabis (alonen = 100 or in conjunction with tobaccon = 67) or tobacco only users (n = 35), in four Canadian cities (Halifax, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver).Findings: While participants commonly attributed serious health risks to the use of tobacco, cannabis was viewed as relatively low risk. All groups described cannabis laws as too punitive, while most agreed with the regulatory controls for tobacco. Drawing on norms around appropriate context for use, cannabis users illustrate the expansion of normalization, with varying degrees of acceptability in different spaces. In contrast, tobacco users’ heightened awareness of the dangers of smoking leads them to engage in a reflexive process-limiting appropriate venues and contexts for use.Conclusions: These findings suggest that perceptions of health risk shape users’ experience of normalization (and denormalization) and help to contextualize the larger societal processes where both drugs are in a stage of societal re-evaluation. Much can be learned about the cannabis future from the tobacco past. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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]