What topics does this cannabis study cover?

This study covers research on: Addiction.

Where was this research published?

Published in Substance use & misuse on September 6, 2026.

Addiction

Why harm perceptions shape Türkiye's cannabis debate

Q: What did this research study find?

**Most participants opposed legalization**, with **69.4%** expressing opposition to marijuana legalization.

Assessing Attitudes Toward Marijuana Legalization in Türkiye: An Analysis of Key Stakeholders.

Substance use & misuse • September 6, 2026 • Highly Relevant

🤖

AI Summary

This cross-sectional study examined attitudes toward marijuana legalization among 300 people in Türkiye, including substance users, their families, university students, and healthcare professionals. Overall, 69.4% opposed legalization, but views differed sharply between the four groups. Substance users showed the strongest support, while university students in health-related programs expressed the highest opposition—an outcome that contrasts with findings often reported in Western countries.

The strongest predictor of support was perceived harm: people who viewed marijuana as more harmful were less likely to favor legalization (OR = 0.57; 95% CI [0.48, 0.68]). For policymakers, the study highlights a gap between public perceptions of harm and the harms documented in research, while emphasizing that these results describe attitudes—not the medical or social effects of marijuana itself. Because the study was conducted at one point in time and used a structured questionnaire, its findings should be interpreted in Türkiye’s specific cultural and regulatory context.

💡 Key Findings

Most participants opposed legalization, with 69.4% expressing opposition to marijuana legalization.

Good

75%

Attitudes were strongly polarized among the four stakeholder groups; substance users showed the strongest support, while health-related university students showed the highest opposition.

Good

70%

Perceived harm was the strongest predictor of support: higher perceived harm was associated with lower support for legalization.

High

80%

The findings suggest that societal resistance in Türkiye is driven more by harm perceptions than by harm-reduction frameworks, although the study’s cross-sectional design limits causal conclusions.

Good

65%

📄 Original Abstract

Despite global liberalization trends increasingly supporting the legalization of marijuana, attitudes in countries that maintain prohibition remain understudied. In Türkiye, following the introduction of regulations for hemp cultivation aimed at producing pharmaceutical active substances, understanding societal trends has become critical. This study examines the attitudes of four key stakeholder groups in Türkiye toward marijuana legalization using the harm perception literature, the Socio-Ecological Model, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted with 300 participants equally distributed among substance users, their families, university students, and healthcare professionals using a structured questionnaire designed for this purpose. A high level of opposition to legalization was observed across the entire sample (69.4%). Significant polarization was observed among the research groups (p < 0.001). This strong support among users may be interpreted within a self-interest framework. In contrast to Western literature, university students enrolled in health-related educational programs displayed the highest level of opposition. Ordinal logistic regression identified "perceived harm" as the strongest predictor of support (OR = 0.57, 95% CI [0.48, 0.68], p < 0.01), indicating that higher levels of perceived harm were associated with a lower likelihood of supporting legalization. Despite global liberalization, deep-seated societal resistance persists in Türkiye, driven more by high harm perception than by evidence-based harm reduction paradigms. Policy discussions may benefit from considering the observed gap between perceived harm and empirically documented harm, while acknowledging the contextual and methodological limitations of the present study.