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

Balica K.; Kirli U.; Annette Akgür S. · Substance use & misuse · 2026

**Background & Methods** This descriptive, cross-sectional study assessed attitudes toward marijuana legalization among 300 Turkish participants equally distributed across four stakeholder groups: substance users, their families, university students, and healthcare professionals. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire and analyzed through the framework of harm perception literature, the Socio-Ecological Model, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. **Key Findings** - Overall opposition to legalization was substantial at 69.4% across the entire sample, with significant polarization observed between stakeholder groups (p<0.001). Substance users demonstrated notably higher support for legalization, interpreted as reflecting self-interest motives, while university students in health-related programs showed the highest opposition—a pattern contrasting with Western literature trends. - Perceived harm emerged as the strongest predictor of legalization attitudes (OR = 0.57, 95% CI [0.48, 0.68], p<0.01), with higher perceived harm levels strongly associated with lower support for legalization, suggesting that risk perception rather than evidence-based harm reduction paradigms drives Turkish public opinion. - The study identified a critical gap between perceived harm of marijuana and empirically documented harm, indicating that societal resistance in Türkiye is primarily driven by subjective risk perception rather than objective evidence-based considerations. **Dosage & Administration** Not reported. **Safety & Adverse Effects** Not reported. **Evidence Quality** This is a descriptive cross-sectional survey study with moderate evidence quality. The research is limited by its cross-sectional design, which precludes causal inference and temporal relationships. The authors acknowledge contextual and methodological limitations without detailed specification. The study lacks comparison with empirical harm data, relying instead on perceived harm as the primary variable. The 300-participant sample size with equal distribution across groups is reasonable for descriptive purposes but may lack power for subgroup analyses. The structured questionnaire design is not validated in the abstract, and selection bias may affect results given the specific Turkish context. The study provides valuable descriptive data on stakeholder attitudes but requires prospective designs and validated instruments for stronger evidence.

More recent cannabis research