Exploring associations between intergroup contact, ideology, and support for new restrictive cannabis policies and penalties in Canada.

Abstract

Contact between different groups (i.e., intergroup contact) is well supported as a means to reduce negative intergroup attitudes. It is important, however, to explore outcomes of intergroup contact beyond intergroup attitudes, especially outcomes tied to social change such as policy support. We examined the relationship between intergroup contact and support (or lack of support) for cannabis-related policies and penalties specific to immigrants. We examined this in Canada, where the recent legalization of cannabis led to new policies with varying degrees of public support. Among Canadian undergraduates, we found that more contact with immigrants was associated with lower support for relatively harsh cannabis-related penalties for immigrants. In particular, having higher-quality contact with immigrants was associated with greater opposition to such penalties. Additionally, those higher in right-wing ideology were more supportive of penalties for outgroup members (immigrants) than ingroup members (Canadians in general). Future directions and potential implications of the findings are discussed. Public Significance StatementPenalties for driving under the influence of cannabis for immigrants in Canada (e.g., losing permanent resident status) have been viewed by some as unduly harsh. We demonstrate that Canadians having more (less) contact with immigrants are less (more) supportive of such penalties. We also uncover a double standard by which some Canadians were more supportive of cannabis-related penalties specific to immigrants but not more supportive of cannabis-related penalties for Canadians more generally.

Understanding youth and young adult cannabis use in Canada post-legalization: a scoping review on a public health issue

“…Across the 47 studies, 21 (44.68%) had participants aged 18 or younger [ 55 , 60 , 62 – 72 , 77 , 78 , 86 , 90 , 92 – 95 ], seven studies (14.89%) had samples of young adults aged 18–29 [ 17 , 20 , 54 , 57 , 61 , 73 , 88 ], and eleven studies (23.40%) included both youth and young adult participants aged 0–29 [ 4 , 15 , 76 , 79 – 82 , 85 , 87 , 89 , 91 ]. The remaining eight studies (17.02%) did not focus specifically on youth or young adults but included subgroups or presented results for younger age groups [ 53 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 74 , 75 , 83 , 84 ].…”

“…The third category, consisting of nine studies, specifically focused on cannabis use rates and patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 17 , 20 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 66 , 71 , 78 , 89 ]. The fourth category, includes nine articles exploring perceptions related to cannabis use: four focus on youth and young adult perceptions post-legalization [ 57 , 73 , 90 , 94 ] one examines perceptions of substance use services [ 91 ] and another explores perceptions of cannabis policies and penalties related to immigrants and prejudices [ 54 ].…”

“…They emphasized the need for more information about addictions and noted that there are challenges in accessing substance use services. The final study in this category examined perceptions of cannabis-related penalties for immigrants and found that right-wing ideology was associated with more support for harsher penalties for immigrants than non-immigrants [ 54 ].…”

“…All studies collected data in Canada, with some specifying particular provinces while others did not. Eleven studies either covered all or most provinces or did not specify their locations within Canada [17,[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]. Eight studies focused on the most populated provinces: Québec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia [63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70].…”

“…Sample sizes varied: eight studies had 0-100 participants [17,53,62,73,77,80,91,94], two had 101-300 [74,79], five had 301-500 [54,58,61,90,92], four had 501-1000 [64,67,88,89] and the remaining 28 studies had more than 1000 participants. Demographic information was inconsistently provided by the studies.…”