Exploratory Focus Groups on Marijuana - Research Report

HCPOR #: 15-04

POR Registration #: POR-049-15

Prepared for: Health Canada

Contract Number: HT372-15294-001-CY
Contract Award Date: March 31, 2016
Date of Delivery: July 11, 2016
Contact Information: por-rop@hc-sc.gc.ca

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.

Contents

• Executive Summary
• Introduction
• Detailed Findings
• Conclusions and Recommendations
• Appendix A: Discussion Guide
• Appendix B: Screener

Executive Summary

Earnscliffe Strategy Group (Earnscliffe) is pleased to present this report to Health Canada summarizing the results of the exploratory qualitative research on marijuana.

Health Canada is planning an evidence-based public education and awareness campaign to enable Canadians to make responsible and informed choices in an environment of "potential" legalization of marijuana, including information about the personal and public health and safety risk associated with marijuana use and impaired driving.  To inform the development of the public education campaign, focus group research was required to provide valuable insight about the general population, with special attention to youth and their parents and young adults, on the topic of marijuana and the impacts of the changes in legalization and regulation, including their knowledge, attitudes and behaviours.  The results will inform the scope and messaging (and tone) for a proposed public awareness campaign designed to provide information (including education and public awareness) to meet the needs of multiple audiences. Finally, research results will be used to inform legislation and policy on the topic of marijuana and to develop web content, toolkits and other public education initiatives. The total cost to conduct this research was $136,241.62, including HST.

To meet these objectives, Earnscliffe conducted a comprehensive wave of qualitative research.  The research included a series of twenty-four focus groups in four cities across Canada:  Toronto, ON (June 20-22); Vancouver, BC (June 21-23); Halifax, NS (June 27-29); and, Montreal, QC (June 27-29).  The focus groups in Montreal were conducted in French.  In each city, a focus group was conducted with:  young adults (19-24); adults (25+); parents of youth (13-15); parents of youth (16-18); youth (13-15); and, youth (16-18).

The research explored:  knowledge, perceptions, attitudes and behaviours towards marijuana use and specifically the health effects on youth and young adults, legalization (and responsible use) and impaired driving; reactions to key marijuana statements to determine if they are clear, credible and relevant; and, how best to inform Canadians about the effects and consequences of marijuana use, including understanding where they go for information and what are the preferred methods/media to provide information.

For the purposes of this report, it is important to note that qualitative research is a form of scientific, social, policy and public opinion research.  Focus group research is not designed to help a group reach a consensus or to make decisions, but rather to elicit the full range of ideas, attitudes, experiences and opinions of a selected sample of participants on a defined topic.  Because of the small numbers involved the participants cannot be expected to be thoroughly representative in a statistical sense of the larger population from which they are drawn and findings cannot reliably be generalized beyond their number.

The key findings from the research are presented below.

Exploratory (Context Setting)

• The overwhelming majority of, if not all, participants (across all audiences) were aware of the "potential" legalization of marijuana in Canada.
• While the focus of the discussion was not on participants' stance or position on the "potential" legalization, most, particularly those over the age of 18, were generally comfortable with the legalization of marijuana.  Marijuana was often described as a "natural product," a "plant," or an "herb" and participants tended to distinguish it from other drugs such as prescription drugs or more illicit drugs like cocaine, heroin, or crystal meth, etc.
• The advantages of legalization were most often linked to:  economic benefits for the government (and Canadians); a sense that the quality of marijuana would be standardized, regulated and more reliable (i.e. not laced with unknown substances/chemicals/drugs); elimination of the black market/criminal element of marijuana trafficking; relief on the health care system in that reliance on doctor prescribed drugs may subside with more ready access to marijuana; and, relief on the judicial system in that less time and money would be spent on policing and penalizing marijuana users (that could be spent on "real criminals").
• The disadvantages of legalization were associated with: health risks related to smoking; discomfort with second-hand smoke; discomfort with having to be around the smell of marijuana (i.e. those who live in multi-person dwellings); and, driving under the influence of marijuana.
• Health risks associated with marijuana use were most often described as longer-term health risks (i.e. risks that would not pose problems until well into the future).  They included:  lung/respiratory issues; cancer (related to smoking marijuana especially in the instances it is mixed with tobacco); and, the impact of marijuana on the development of the adolescent brain.  Some participants, typically adults, also raised unprompted the link of marijuana to schizophrenia, although this was not as widely known or readily accepted.  In addition to these risks, youth (13-15) raised the risk of addiction, while parents of youth (13-15) worried about the possibility of marijuana being a gateway drug.
• The shorter term health risks associated with marijuana use tended to revolve around:  laziness (lack of drive/determination) and changes in personality and/or behaviour.
• The overwhelming majority of participants, across all audiences, did have the sense that the health risks associated with marijuana use were different by age; arguing that the risks were more significant for adolescents given the impact of marijuana use on the developing brain.  Although all felt it would be inappropriate for children to use marijuana, there were some divided opinions over why.  While some in almost every group pointed to risks associated with mental health, others were not necessarily convinced those risks exist, but were of the view that the lack of maturity of a child would lead to potentially poor judgement when impaired or choosing whether any particular moment is an appropriate time for doing marijuana.
• Opinions about whether adolescent use and access to marijuana would increase with legalization varied across audiences.  Most participants, other than those 13-15 or parents of youth 13-15, did not think that access and use of marijuana would increase.  They argued that marijuana is readily available now and that youth motivated to try marijuana can very easily procure it.  In fact, some also argued that access and use of marijuana among youth may diminish with legalization because the stigma of doing something rebellious would be eliminated if marijuana were legalized.

  On the other hand, many youth 13-15 and some parents of youth 13-15 were concerned that with legalization, youth access and use of marijuana would increase.  They likened it to the ease with which youth can procure alcohol now (i.e. asking older siblings or acquaintances to procure it for them).  They argued that legalization may change their perspective on the risks associated with marijuana.

• With respect to driving under the influence, the overwhelming majority of participants know someone who has either driven while under the influence of marijuana or know someone who has been a passenger in a vehicle where the driver was under the influence of marijuana. Generally speaking, most had the sense that driving under the influence of marijuana was less dangerous than driving while under the influence of alcohol.  Marijuana-impaired drivers were often described as more relaxed, calm, and cautious.  In fact, a few participants felt that some people they knew were better drivers under the influence of marijuana than they were sober.
• One of the most pervasive opinions expressed was that experienced users or "strong smokers" were less likely to be impaired.  Personal observation and experiences have led many to rely on anecdotal evidence of individuals who behave in a perfectly functional way while on marijuana - a situation quite different from their sense of how people act on alcohol.
• In spite of this view, many participants, across all cities and audiences, were of the view that objectively, an impairment is an impairment.  Some participants explained that the fact marijuana alters your state of mind should be considered an impairment, otherwise why use marijuana?  Others could agree that driving while impaired would be abhorrent whether it be from alcohol or marijuana, but wondered aloud whether it really is the case that all people who use marijuana become impaired.
• In terms of the legal ramifications of driving under the influence of marijuana, most had the sense that the consequences for driving under the influence of marijuana were as severe, and should be as severe, as those for driving under the influence of alcohol.  Some assumed that since they believed the use of marijuana was illegal, then there was no law specifically relating to driving while under the influence of marijuana - rather, it was simply against the law to have consumed marijuana regardless of whether one is driving or not.
• However, there was a fairly healthy level of skepticism about current roadside methods for detecting marijuana impairment.  Some suggested that detection methods of marijuana impairment were not yet as sophisticated as they are for detecting alcohol impairment (i.e. breathalyzer).  Others felt that they had heard news of technologies being developed to detect marijuana impairment.  Current detection methods that were raised spontaneously in the groups included: red, puffy eyes; the smell of marijuana (emanating from the car or on the person); pasty mouths; and, odd behaviour.   It is important to note that there was a sense that the limitations in roadside detection suggests something about the lack of severity/consequences (a more relaxed position) on the issue of marijuana-impaired driving.

Key Marijuana Statements

Statements - Health and Safety Risks

• Reactions to the key health and safety risk statements tested were mixed, particularly across age groups. And, while there were some aspects of each statement that diminished their credibility, there were a few statements that were met with generally positive reactions. The bolded font illustrates the more persuasive elements of each statement:
  • Just because marijuana will be legalized in Canada, it does not make it harmless or safe. All drugs carry risks to health and safety.
  • Marijuana impairs attention, memory, reaction time, thinking, decision-making, judgement and the proper functioning of your brain.
  • Marijuana use impairs attention and memory and this can affect schoolwork. Some studies suggest using marijuana may harm IQ, especially if use begins during adolescence, is regular and continues for many years.
  • The harms of marijuana depend on a number of factors: age when use begins, the amount used, the potency, the frequency and duration of use all have an impact on the effects, the risks and the harms.
• Statements linking marijuana use to psychosis and schizophrenia tended to raise a lot of questions. These statements were not necessarily deemed less credible or believable but raised questions about something most did not know about marijuana. Those who had prior knowledge of or experience with marijuana use and psychosis or schizophrenia, were far more likely to deem this statement credible.
• Statements related to addiction also tended to raise questions, particularly among those over 15. Questions related to addiction often revolved around the interpretation of the word addiction, particularly as it relates to marijuana. Those who did not feel these statements were credible argued that regular marijuana use tended to have more to do with a dependency than an addiction. They argued that the body did not "crave" or "need" marijuana, but rather the user was used to regular use. In addition, since the statistical reference was to something somewhat surprising to many, there was more of a call for citing the source of the information.
• Those linking marijuana to issues around attention, memory, and a lack of focus in school were deemed credible by most although the link to harming IQ was problematic for some. A number of participants claimed some of the most intelligent and successful people they know are regular marijuana users.
• Comparing marijuana smoke to tobacco smoke was felt to be a stretch for most participants. Again, marijuana was often described as a natural substance; a plant or herb; whereas, participants described cigarettes as being filled with harmful chemical additives that are not present in marijuana.

Statements - Marijuana-Impaired Driving

• Those who tended to believe than an impairment is an impairment found most of these statements credible.  Those who tended to be more comfortable with marijuana use before/while driving did not find most of these statements to be credible.
• While these statements were regarded with a little more scrutiny than those on health and safety, there was one that was universally accepted:
  • Combining alcohol with marijuana greatly increases the risks of having a car accident.
• The statement about impaired reaction time (marijuana impairs your coordination and reaction time and can harm your ability to drive) was also deemed credible by most.
• All of the other statements were met with mixed reactions.  Those for whom the statements were not deemed credible, tended to argue that driving under the influence of marijuana depends on the person, their tolerance to marijuana, the potency of the marijuana, and the way they consumed it.

Videos

• Most of the videos were met with positive reactions by one audience or another.  Participants felt that the tone and style of the various approaches could be helpful for different reasons.
• However, for the majority of participants, there was a balance to strike in terms of the approach, tone, and messaging that will work for marijuana, particularly in the context of legalization; this was especially true for participants over 15 years of age.  Some of the videos were felt to be too over-the-top (fear-mongering) in their approach, did not fit with participants' perceptions of marijuana and would fly in the face of the government's position to (potentially) legalize marijuana.
• Those who did not like over-the-top approaches, reacted very positively to the friendly, non-judgmental, informative style and tone of Bubbly/Humorous I which they deemed effective because it conveyed what to do and what not to do when marijuana is legalized without coming across as heavy-handed or exaggerated.  However, there were some criticisms of this video, mainly by youth 13-15 and parents of youth 13-15, who thought the tone was a little too positive and did not effectively communicate the risks associated with marijuana use.
• Similarly, ads that used a positive approach (i.e. Positive I) were felt to be different, refreshing (would not be the stereotypical approach to anti-drug ads) and effective.  All could appreciate the warmth of the story and some appreciated the notion of giving viewers credit for being wise enough to do the right thing rather than simply warning against the potential ramifications of poor judgement.
• Informative videos that used logic and comparative information, such as Informative II and to a lesser degree, Informative I, were very well received.  They were described as attention-grabbing, credible, and clearly communicated the main message.  While the use of graphic images was not universally appreciated, the notion of having the scientific reality explained - particularly with the use of visual metaphors that were simple to understand and lacked graphic images - was lauded for how it educated and provoked new or renewed thinking on the risks of certain situations that are commonly recognized but, it turns out, not fully understood.
• Reactions to the interactive approach in the case of Interactive I was very well received; they were mixed in the case of Interactive II.  Parents of youth thought the interactive approach of Interactive II would effectively capture their adolescent's attention (when online); youth did not agree.  Youth felt the video was unrealistic and did not appreciate the open-ended messaging; arguing they would prefer a more direct negative message about the risks of doing drugs. Interactive II's concept of individual-viewer interactivity with online material may have some ability to engage, but the content would have to be considerably more entertaining or compelling than the story conveyed the version tested.  The nature of the interactivity in Interactive I was quite different and was more instantly capable of drawing the attention and empathy of viewers.  Whereas participants assumed that viewers themselves were to interact with the material in Interactive II, the Interactive I spot offered viewers simply voyeuristically observe how others interacted with the interactive stimulus.  The result provided closure, as well as greater entertainment and realism and for some, even a desire to get to be the person experiencing the surprise interaction.
• Documentaries/Testimonials were appreciated for being stories about real people which can be effective at showing that these eventualities can happen to anyone.  However, they were felt to be long, not terribly attention-grabbing and easy for participants to tune out or ignore.  Most suggested these would be most effective and appropriate for adolescents and shown at school where they would be forced to watch them.
• Reaction to the short and sweet ads were generally positive; they were quick hits that captured attention and effectively communicated a singular message.  Short & Sweet II had some difficulties, particularly among youth (13-15) who could not understand why one would drink and them immediately drive, but those who understood the "know when to say no" message appreciated the ad and pointed out their appreciation for the apparent supportive, normalcy of rejecting an offer for an additional drink among the characters.
• Humorous ads can be effective but tend to be more positively received by older audiences; for example, Bubbly/Humorous II was appreciated by a select audience of adults over 25.  Parents, youth and young adults found the humour to be a little offensive.  Youth (13-15), in particular, did not feel it would be appropriate to make light of marijuana use and preferred the more serious (not necessarily dramatic), direct approaches.
• Videos that use celebrity spokespersons can be effective although the Celebrity/Spokes I video was met with mixed reactions.   The humour was lost on some participants (across all audiences) who were critical of the tone (rude, shaming).  That being said, participants suggested that key to the success of this approach is to ensure that the celebrity is relevant to the intended audience and, ideally, has some personal connection to the message.  This adds to the authenticity and credibility of the message.
• All of this suggests that a layered, multi-phased campaign will be required to reach the various audiences with targeted communications and messaging about marijuana. Indeed, it became apparent from group to group and night to night that the diversity of levels of knowledge, fears, attitudes and perceptions across the different audiences make it nearly impossible for any single approach or messaging to work for all of the target audiences.  Rather, a collection of tailored, targeted approaches would appear to be the only way to achieve the broadest success in educating the public on the potential risks associated with marijuana.

Communications

• All parents indicated that they have talked openly with their teens about drugs, alcohol, etc. although they did credit the school system with providing this type of information to youth credibly and in a timely fashion.  Parents said that the conversations they had with their teen generally took place when they were about to enter high school.  The talking points parents reinforced in conversations with their teen included a reminder to be responsible; make informed choices; not to be influenced by others; and, to wait to try marijuana until they were older (at least the age of majority).  The majority of parents did not feel the legalization of marijuana would change the way they talked with their teen about marijuana.  Among youth, the advice tended to be that parents need to have a non-accusatory approach, be respectful of the intelligence and judgement of their own teen and provide empirical evidence in a non-judgemental way so they can make informed decisions rather than rely on word of mouth or misinformation.
• In terms of information needs, very few participants, across all audiences, have looked up information about the effects of marijuana or marijuana-impaired driving although some of the younger participants had done so for school projects.  Having said that, most participants are interested and eager to see what comes of legalization, especially as it relates to benchmarks (i.e. legal limits of marijuana in the blood stream, etc.).
• Most would refer to government websites, Health Canada was named specifically, for credible information about marijuana.  Other trustworthy sources that were raised unprompted included:  health organizations (i.e. Mayo Clinic); health care facilities and professionals (hospitals, naturopaths, pharmacists, etc.); mental health associations; substance abuse organizations; dispensaries; liquor stores; and, community health forums.
• Social media (i.e. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.) was the most readily mentioned vehicle for communications across all audiences and cities.  Other communications vehicles that were raised spontaneously included:  billboards; public transportation (including buses and bus shelters, trains, subways, etc.); television (although not many watch TV in real time anymore); and, radio (to and from work).

Research Firm:

Earnscliffe Strategy Group Inc. (Earnscliffe) Contract Number: HT372-15294-001-CY Contract award date: March 31, 2016

I hereby certify as a Representative of Earnscliffe Strategy Group that the final deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.

Signed:
Date: July 11, 2016

Stephanie Constable
Principal, Earnscliffe

Introduction

Earnscliffe Strategy Group (Earnscliffe) is pleased to present this report to Health Canada summarizing the results of the exploratory qualitative research on marijuana.

Health Canada is planning an evidence-based public education and awareness campaign to enable Canadians to make responsible and informed choices in an environment of "potential" legalization of marijuana, including information about the personal and public health and safety risk associated with marijuana use and impaired driving.  To inform the development of the public education campaign, focus group research was required to provide valuable insight about the general population, with special attention to youth and their parents and young adults, on the topic of marijuana and the impacts of the changes in legalization and regulation, including their knowledge, attitudes and behaviours.  The results will inform the scope and messaging (and tone) for a proposed public awareness campaign designed to provide information (including education and public awareness) to meet the needs of multiple audiences.  Finally, research results will be used to inform legislation and policy on the topic of marijuana and to develop web content, toolkits and other public education initiatives.

The specific objectives of the research include:

• To assess knowledge, perceptions, attitudes and behaviours among general population 13+ towards the health and safety risks associated with marijuana use and the risks and penalties associated with marijuana-impaired driving.
• To gather information on how best to inform general population 13+ (where would they go for information; best methods/media to provide information), about the health and safety risks associated with marijuana use and about the risks and penalties associated with marijuana-impaired driving.
• To gather what other information would be needed to help educate general population 13+ about:
  • The harmful effects and negative consequences of marijuana use, specifically on youth (13-18) and young adults (19-24);
  • The risks and harms of marijuana to help adults make informed choices; and,
  • The risks of impaired-driving, including an understanding of enforcement actions.
• To seek a better understanding of the public's perceptions and awareness of the current legal status of marijuana.
• Evaluate the campaign key messages to determine if they are clear, credible, relevant and of value to audiences.

To meet these objectives, Earnscliffe conducted a comprehensive wave of qualitative research.  The research included a series of twenty-four focus groups in four cities across Canada:  Toronto, ON (June 20-22); Vancouver, BC (June 21-23); Halifax, NS (June 27-29); and, Montreal, QC (June 27-29).  The focus groups in Montreal were conducted in French.  In each city, a focus group was conducted with:  young adults (19-24); adults (25+); parents of youth (13-15); parents of youth (16-18); youth (13-15); and, youth (16-18).

All sessions were two hours in length and conducted at 5:30 pm and 7:30 pm except in Toronto where the groups were conducted at 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm.  Participants received an honorarium as a token of appreciation for their time.  Written consent was obtained from parents for youth participation in the focus groups.

The research explored:  knowledge, perceptions, attitudes and behaviours towards marijuana use and specifically the health effects on youth and young adults, legalization (and responsible use) and impaired driving; reactions to key marijuana statements to determine if they are clear, credible and relevant; and, how best to inform Canadians about the effects and consequences of marijuana use, including understanding where they go for information and what are the preferred methods/media to provide information.

Appended to this report are the screeners, discussion guides, messages and a list of videos tested in both English and French.

For the purposes of this report, it is important to note that qualitative research is a form of scientific, social, policy and public opinion research.  Focus group research is not designed to help a group reach a consensus or to make decisions, but rather to elicit the full range of ideas, attitudes, experiences and opinions of a selected sample of participants on a defined topic.  Because of the small numbers involved the participants cannot be expected to be thoroughly representative in a statistical sense of the larger population from which they are drawn and findings cannot reliably be generalized beyond their number.

Detailed Findings

This qualitative report is divided into three sections.  The first section presents the findings of the exploratory discussion on knowledge, perceptions, attitudes and behaviours towards marijuana use and specifically the health effects on youth and young adults, legalization (and responsible use) and impaired driving.  The second section explores reactions to the key marijuana statements to determine if they are clear, credible and relevant.  The third section explores how best to inform Canadians about the effects and consequences of marijuana use, including understanding where they go for information and the best methods/media to provide information.

Exploratory

The focus groups began with an initial exploratory discussion about marijuana including "potential" legalization; the risks associated with its use; and, the risk of driving under the influence of marijuana. This discussion provided useful context for the remainder of the discussions.

The overwhelming majority of, if not all, participants were aware of the "potential" legalization of marijuana in Canada.  This was consistent across audience type and city.

While the focus of the discussion was not on participants' stance or position on the "potential" legalization of marijuana, most were generally comfortable with the idea.  Marijuana was often described as a "natural product," a "plant," or an "herb" and participants tended to distinguish it from other drugs like prescription drugs or illicit drugs like cocaine, heroin, or crystal meth, etc. Coupled with this, participants also pointed to the practice of using marijuana for medicinal purposes (which was widely known) as evidence distinguishing marijuana from other (illicit) drugs; a point that was raised in most groups.

Given the generally favourable views on marijuana, it was not surprising that most participants, particularly those over 15, felt the advantages of legalization outweighed the disadvantages:

Across the different cities and audience types, there were some notable differences in terms of views on marijuana:

• Views about marijuana seemed to have been even slightly more favourable in Vancouver and Halifax. Participants in Vancouver explained that marijuana was used fairly openly and widely around the city; there was a sense it was already "legal" in Vancouver. In Halifax, participants seemed to describe it as a fairly commonly used substance in and around the community and tended not to frown upon its use.
• The one audience that held slightly less positive views about the legalization of marijuana were youth 13-15. First, their level of exposure to marijuana was lower than any other audience. In fact, some teens in each group were not all that familiar with marijuana. Second, more than any other audience, they struggled to identify numerous advantages of legalization and tended to feel the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. However, what they found particularly challenging was reconciling what they know about the medical use of marijuana and the government's desire to legalize marijuana with what they thought they knew about marijuana.

One disadvantage of legalization that was raised but debated in most groups was whether access to and use of marijuana would increase with legalization. Most participants, other than those 13-15 or parents of youth 13-15, did not tend to think that access to and use of marijuana would increase with legalization. They argued that marijuana is readily available now and anyone motivated to use marijuana could easily procure it. This they felt was the same for teens' access to and use of marijuana. In fact, some argued that teens' access to and use of marijuana may decline with legalization because the stigma of doing something rebellious would be eliminated if marijuana was legalized, and/or some of the individuals currently selling the drug would be put out of business as most of the buyers would purchase the legal product.

On the other hand, those who did feel access to and use of marijuana may increase with legalization tended to be youth 13-15 and some parents of youth 13-15. They likened it to the ease with which youth can procure alcohol now (i.e. asking older siblings or acquaintances to procure it for them). Further to the point made previously, there was a sense that legalization may change teens' perspective on the risks they associate with marijuana; "if it's legal, it must be ok".

Health Risks

In terms of the health risks associated with marijuana use, most were deemed longer-term risks by the majority of participants (across all groups).  They included:  lung/respiratory issues; cancer (related to smoking marijuana especially in the instances it is mixed with tobacco); and, the impact of marijuana on the development of the adolescent brain.  Some participants, typically adults, also raised unprompted the link of marijuana to schizophrenia, although this was not as widely known or readily accepted.  In addition to these risks, youth (13-15) raised the risk of addiction, while parents of youth (13-15) worried about the possibility of marijuana being a gateway drug.

The shorter term health risks associated with marijuana use tended to revolve around:  laziness (lack of drive/determination) and changes in personality and/or behaviour.

The overwhelming majority of participants, across all audiences and cities, did have the sense that the health risks associated with marijuana use were different by age; arguing that the risks were more significant for adolescents given the impact of marijuana use on the developing brain.  Although all felt it would be inappropriate for children to use marijuana, there were some divided opinions over why.  While some in almost every group pointed to risks associated with mental health, others were not necessarily convinced those risks exist, but were of the view that the lack of maturity of a child would lead to potentially poor judgement when impaired or choosing whether any particular moment is an appropriate time for doing marijuana.

Driving under the Influence

With respect to driving under the influence, the overwhelming majority of participants know someone who has either driven while under the influence of marijuana or know someone who has been a passenger in a vehicle where the driver was under the influence of marijuana. Generally speaking, most had the sense that although it was not really considered advisable, driving under the influence of marijuana was less dangerous than driving while under the influence of alcohol.  Marijuana-impaired drivers were often described as more relaxed, calm, and cautious.  In fact, a few participants felt that some people they knew were better drivers under the influence of marijuana than they were sober.

One of the most pervasive opinions expressed was that experienced users or "strong smokers" were less likely to be impaired.  Personal observation and experiences have led many to rely on anecdotal evidence about individuals who behave in a perfectly functional way while on marijuana; they argued they have developed a tolerance which sets a different bar for acceptable driving.  Further, in many groups, there were participants who volunteered that they had not heard of any accidents that were the result of marijuana and given their sense of how widespread marijuana use is, it led them to the conclusion that marijuana must not be causing accidents or they would have heard about that by now.

In spite of this view, many participants, across all cities and audiences, were of the view that objectively, an impairment is an impairment.  Some participants explained that the fact marijuana alters your state of mind should be considered an impairment, otherwise why use marijuana?  Others could agree that driving while impaired would be abhorrent whether it be from alcohol or marijuana, but wondered aloud whether it really is the case that all people who use marijuana become impaired.

In terms of the legal ramifications of driving under the influence of marijuana, most had the sense that the consequences for driving under the influence of marijuana were as severe, and should be as severe, as those for driving under the influence of alcohol.  Some assumed that since they believed the use of marijuana was illegal, then there was no law specifically relating to driving while under the influence of marijuana; but, rather a law against marijuana consumption writ large.

However, there was a fairly healthy level of skepticism about current roadside methods for detecting marijuana impairment.  Some suggested that detection methods of marijuana impairment were not yet as sophisticated as they are for detecting alcohol impairment (i.e. breathalyzer).  Others felt that they had heard news of technologies being developed to detect marijuana impairment.  Current detection methods that were raised spontaneously in the groups included: red, puffy eyes; the smell of marijuana (emanating from the car or on the person); pasty mouths; and, odd behaviour.   It is important to note that there was a sense that the limitations in roadside detection suggests something about the lack of severity/consequences (a more relaxed position) on the issue of marijuana-impaired driving.

Key Marijuana Statements and Approach

The discussion explored reactions to the key statements both in terms of messaging and approach to determine whether they were clear, credible and relevant.

Participants were provided with two series of statements: the first focused on elements of health and safety; the second on marijuana-impaired driving. For each statement, participants were asked to identify those that were credible (√); those that were deemed not credible (X); and, those that were not clear or raised questions (?).

Marijuana Facts - Health and Safety Risks

The following points summarize the general findings; a more detailed analysis of each statement follows.

• Reactions to the various statements tested were mixed, particularly across age group.  And, while there were some aspects of each statement that diminished the credibility, there were a few statements that were met with generally positive reactions.  The bolded font illustrates the more persuasive elements of each statement:
  • Just because marijuana will be legalized in Canada, it does not make it harmless or safe.  All drugs carry risks to health and safety.
  • Marijuana impairs attention, memory, reaction time, thinking, decision-making, judgement and the proper functioning of your brain.
  • Marijuana use impairs attention and memory and this can affect schoolwork.  Some studies suggest using marijuana may harm IQ, especially if use begins during adolescence, is regular and continues for many years.
  • The harms of marijuana depend on a number of factors:  age when use begins, the amount used, the potency, the frequency and duration of use all have an impact on the effects, the risks and the harms.
• Statements linking marijuana use to psychosis and schizophrenia tended to raise a lot of questions.  These statements were not necessarily deemed less credible or believable but raised questions about something most did not know about marijuana.  Those who had prior knowledge of or experience with marijuana use and psychosis or schizophrenia, were far more likely to deem this statement credible and tended to feel it was a risk worth avoiding.  Some who were skeptical of the credibility of the linkage were able to admit that it would be an important consideration "if this is true."
• Statements related to addiction also tended to raise questions, particularly among those over 15.  Questions related to addiction often revolved around the interpretation of the word addiction, particularly as it relates to marijuana.  Those who did not feel these statements were credible argued that regular marijuana use tended to have more to do with a dependency than an addiction.  They argued that the body did not "crave" or "need" marijuana, but rather the user was used to regular use.  In addition, since the statistical reference was to something somewhat surprising to many, there was more of a call for citing the source of the information.  Finally, a few participants felt that regardless of whether it technically is addictive or merely a desired habit, marijuana does not seem to trigger the same urgent need and willingness to "do something crazy" to get hold of it that occurs with addiction to other drugs.
• Those linking marijuana to issues around attention, memory, and a lack of focus in school were deemed credible by most although the link to harming IQ was problematic for some.  A number of participants claimed some of the most intelligent and successful people they know are regular marijuana users.  Several felt the short-term memory loss may be real but also assume that the loss is temporary.
• Comparing marijuana smoke to tobacco smoke was felt to be a stretch for most participants.  Again, marijuana was often described as a natural substance; a plant or herb; whereas, participants described cigarettes as being filled with numerous harmful chemical additives that are not present in marijuana.

Detailed Analysis

The following illustrates the credibility of each statement, with analysis for each one.  Words in bold and italicized font with a "1" illustrate words that were found to be compelling and/or persuasive in adding to the credibility of the statement; those in bold and italicized font with a "2" were illustrate words that raised questions and should be revisited; and, those in bold and italicized font with a "3" illustrate words that were problematic and detracted from the credibility of the statement.

The statements are displayed in order of credibility; ranked from the most to the least credible.

Marijuana Facts - Impaired Driving

The following points summarize the general findings; a more detailed analysis of each statement follows.

• Those who tended to believe than an impairment is an impairment found most of these statements credible. Those who tended to be more comfortable with marijuana use before/while driving struggled with most of these statements.
• While these statements were regarded with a little more scrutiny than those on health and safety, there was one that was universally accepted:
  • Combining alcohol with marijuana greatly increases the risks of having a car accident.
• The statement about impaired reaction time (marijuana impairs your coordination and reaction time and can harm your ability to drive) was also deemed credible by most.
• All of the other statements were met with mixed reaction. Those for whom the statements were not deemed credible, tended to argue that driving under the influence of marijuana depends on the person, their tolerance to marijuana, the potency of the marijuana, and the way they consumed it.

Detailed Analysis

Videos

Following the key marijuana statements testing, participants were shown a series of seven video approaches. There were two series of seven videos that were alternated in each group. In total, we tested reactions to fourteen different videos.

The videos were selected deliberately based on their approach. The purpose of this exercise was to understand whether the different approaches were compelling particularly as it related to the tone, style, impact and feel of the video. Ultimately, we were trying to understand which approach most resonated with each audience in terms of understanding which would make them more likely to receive messaging about the potential effects of using marijuana.

A number of approaches were felt to be compelling and that there was not a one size fits all approach to communicating about the "potential" legalization of marijuana. The findings suggest that a multi-faceted media campaign with touch points at different levels would be most effective at reaching all of the target audiences with messages of importance to them.

The following points summarize the general findings; a more detailed analysis of each video approach follows:

• Most of the videos were met with positive reactions by one audience or another.  Participants felt that the tone and style of the various approaches could be helpful for different reasons.
• However, for the majority of participants, there was a balance to strike in terms of the approach, tone, and messaging that will work for marijuana, particularly in the context of legalization; this was especially true for participants over 15 years of age.  Some of the videos were felt to be too over-the-top (fear-mongering) in their approach, did not fit with participants' perceptions of marijuana and would fly in the face of the government's position to (potentially) legalize marijuana.
• Those who did not like over-the-top approaches, reacted very positively to the friendly, non-judgmental, informative style and tone of Bubbly/Humorous I which they deemed effective because it conveyed what to do and what not to do when marijuana is legalized without coming across as heavy-handed or exaggerated.  However, there were some criticisms of this video, mainly by youth 13-15 and parents of youth 13-15, who thought the tone was a little too positive and did not effectively communicate the risks associated with marijuana use.
• Similarly, ads that used a positive approach (i.e. Positive I) were felt to be different, refreshing (would not be the stereotypical approach to anti-drug ads) and effective.  All could appreciate the warmth of the story and some appreciated the notion of giving viewers credit for being wise enough to do the right thing rather than simply warning against the potential ramifications of poor judgement.
• Informative videos that used logic and comparative information, such as Informative II and to a lesser degree, Informative I, were very well received.  They were described as attention-grabbing, credible, and clearly communicated the main message.  While the use of graphic images was not universally appreciated, the notion of having the scientific reality explained - particularly with the use of visual metaphors that were simple to understand and lacked graphic images - was lauded for how it educated and provoked new or renewed thinking on the risks of certain situations that are commonly recognized but, it turns out, not fully understood.
• Reactions to the interactive approach in the case of Interactive I was very well received; they were mixed in the case of Interactive II.  Parents of youth thought the interactive approach of Interactive II would effectively capture their adolescent's attention (when online); youth did not agree.  Youth felt the video was unrealistic and did not appreciate the open-ended messaging; arguing they would prefer a more direct negative message about the risks of doing drugs. Interactive II's concept of individual-viewer interactivity with online material may have some ability to engage, but the content would have to be considerably more entertaining or compelling than the story conveyed the version tested.  The nature of the interactivity in Interactive I was quite different and was more instantly capable of drawing the attention and empathy of viewers.  Whereas participants assumed that viewers themselves were to interact with the material in Interactive II, the Interactive I spot offered viewers simply voyeuristically observe how others interacted with the interactive stimulus.  The result provided closure, as well as greater entertainment and realism and for some, even a desire to get to be the person experiencing the surprise interaction.
• Documentaries/Testimonials were appreciated for being stories about real people which can be effective at showing that these eventualities can happen to anyone.  However, they were felt to be long, not terribly attention-grabbing and easy for participants to tune out or ignore.  Most suggested these would be most effective and appropriate for adolescents and shown at school where they would be forced to watch them.
• Reaction to the short and sweet ads were generally positive; they were quick hits that captured attention and effectively communicated a singular message.  Short & Sweet II had some difficulties, particularly among youth (13-15) who could not understand why one would drink and them immediately drive, but those who understood the "know when to say no" message appreciated the ad and pointed out their appreciation for the apparent supportive, normalcy of rejecting an offer for an additional drink among the characters.
• Humorous ads can be effective but tend to be more positively received by older audiences; for example, Bubbly/Humorous II was appreciated by a select audience of adults over 25.  Parents, youth and young adults found the humour to be a little offensive.  Youth (13-15), in particular, did not feel it would be appropriate to make light of marijuana use and preferred the more serious (not necessarily dramatic), direct approaches.
• Videos that use celebrity spokespersons can be effective although the Celebrity/Spokes I video was met with mixed reactions.   The humour was lost on some participants (across all audiences) who were critical of the tone (rude, shaming).  That being said, participants suggested that key to the success of this approach is to ensure that the celebrity is relevant to the intended audience and, ideally, has some personal connection to the message.  This adds to the authenticity and credibility of the message.
• All of this suggests that a layered, multi-phased campaign will be required to reach the various audiences with targeted communications and messaging about marijuana. Indeed, it became apparent from group to group and night to night that the diversity of levels of knowledge, fears, attitudes and perceptions across the different audiences make it nearly impossible for any single approach or messaging to work for all of the target audiences. Rather, a collection of tailored, targeted approaches would appear to be the only way to achieve the broadest success in educating the public on the potential risks associated with marijuana.

Detailed Analysis

The following illustrates the degree to which each video was received by the different audiences, as well as the positives, negatives, and in what ways the video can be adapted for marijuana. The videos are grouped by their approach with the more positively received appearing first.

Bubbly/Humorous

Positive

Hard-Hitting

Information

Interactive

SAD / DRAMA

Short & Sweet

Documentary / Testimonials

Celebrity / Spokesperson

Communications

The remainder of the discussion explored how best to inform Canadians about the effects of marijuana use, including where they go for information and their preferred channels.

All parents indicated that they have talked openly with their teens about drugs, alcohol, etc. although they did credit the school system with providing this type of information to youth credibly and in a timely fashion.  Parents said that the conversations they had with their teens generally took place when they were about to enter high school.  The talking points parents reinforced in conversations with their teen included a reminder to be responsible; make informed choices; not to be influenced by others; and, to wait to try marijuana until they were older (at least the age of majority).  The majority of parents did not feel the legalization of marijuana would change the way they talked with their teen about marijuana.

For youth, the advice tended to be that parents need to have a non-accusatory approach, be respectful of the intelligence and judgement of their own teen and provide empirical evidence in a non-judgemental way so they can make informed decisions rather than rely on word of mouth or misinformation.

In terms of information needs, very few participants, across all audiences, have looked up information about the effects of marijuana or marijuana-impaired driving although some of the younger participants had done so for school projects.  Having said that, most participants are interested and eager to see what comes of legalization, especially as it relates to benchmarks (i.e. allowable limits, etc.).

Most would refer to government websites, Health Canada was named specifically, for credible information about marijuana.  Other trustworthy sources that were raised unprompted included:  health organizations (i.e. Mayo Clinic); health care facilities and professionals (hospitals, naturopaths, pharmacists, etc.); mental health associations; substance abuse organizations; dispensaries; liquor stores; and, community health forums.

Social media (i.e. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.) was the most readily mentioned vehicle for communications across all audiences and cities.  Other communications vehicles that were raised spontaneously included:  billboards; public transportation (including buses and bus shelters, trains, subways, etc.); television (although not many watch TV in real time anymore); and, radio (to and from work).

Conclusions and Recommendations

Awareness of the "potential" legalization of marijuana in Canada is very high; and, generally most have the sense that the advantages (economic, quality/safety, elimination of black market/criminal element, relief on health care and judicial systems), outweigh the disadvantages (long-term health risks related to smoking, discomfort of second-hand smoke and the smell of marijuana, driving under the influence).

The views of youth 13-15 were noticeably different from those of all other groups: familiarity with marijuana was more limited; they tended to feel the disadvantages of legalization outweighed the advantages; they thought access and use of marijuana would increase with legalization; they viewed the statements more credibly; and, they preferred a serious tone and approach that does not make light of marijuana use.

While most participants (across all audiences) have the sense driving under the influence of marijuana is less dangerous than driving under the influence of alcohol, most were of the view that an impairment is an impairment. Roadside detection methods need to be improved to be able to reliably detect marijuana-impaired driving.

With respect to communications, the majority of participants felt there was a balance to strike in terms of the approach, tone, and messaging that will work for marijuana, particularly in the context of legalization. Communications that are too hard-hitting or over-the-top (fear-mongering), do not fit with participants' perceptions of marijuana and would fly in the face of the government's position to (potentially) legalize marijuana.

There is no single approach or messaging that will work to communicate the various key messages across the different audiences. A layered, multi-phased campaign will be required to reach the various audiences with targeted communications and messaging about marijuana.

The federal government, and Health Canada specifically, were seen as a credible source for information on marijuana. The overwhelming majority of participants are interested and eager to see what comes of legalization, especially as it relates to regulations and benchmarks (i.e. allowable limits, etc.).  However, the groups clearly demonstrate that communicating with these target audiences will require striking a balance between warning of surprising and perhaps non-credible risks while seemingly agreeing with the notion that responsible use is quite probable and acceptable by pursuing the legalization of marijuana.

Appendix A: Discussion Guide

English

Introduction

Moderator introduces herself/himself and her/his role:  role of moderator is to ask questions, make sure everyone has a chance to express themselves, keep track of the time, be objective/no special interest

• The name of the firm the moderator works for, and the type of firm that employs them (i.e. an independent marketing research firm).
• The research purpose and research sponsor, described, at a minimum, in the same manner as in recruiting: Explore the topic of recreational marijuana used, not for medical purpose. In other words, that is only used for the purposes of getting high and/or for pleasure and not for the treatment of disease or illness or helping with of symptoms associated with disease or illness.
• Role of participants: speak openly and frankly about opinions, remember that there are no wrong answers and no need to agree with each other.
• Results are confidential and reported all together/individuals are not identified/participation is voluntary. If there are any concerns about the confidentiality around marijuana still being an illegal substance and their own usage of it: emphasize on how the results are analyzed and kept confidential.
• The length of the session (2 hours).
• The presence of any observers, their role and purpose, and the means of observation (one-way mirror, teleconference/webstreaming; colleagues viewing in the back room and listening in remotely).
• The presence and purpose of any recording being made of the session (audio and video taping of the discussion.
• Turn off cell phones for the duration of the discussion.

Moderator will go around the table and ask participants to introduce themselves.

Exploratory

• [HANDS UP] How many of you have heard/read or seen news or information about the potential legalization of marijuana in Canada?
  • What have you heard?
  • What benefits and drawbacks do you see to legalization?
• All: Why do you think people your age use marijuana? What do you think about your peers using marijuana? Adults: Why do you think teens use marijuana?
• What health and safety risks (if any) are there from using marijuana?
  • Are there any factors that affect the health and safety risks? What would they be? (If needed, give examples such as time after consuming, age, regular vs not regular user)
  • Are these long-term or short-term effects/risks?  Why do you say that? What concerns (if any) do you have about marijuana?
  • To the best of your knowledge, are there benefits (if any) from using marijuana?  What are they?
  • Do you think the health and safety risks and the benefits are different by age group such as for the adults (24+), young adults (19-24) and youth (13-18)? Why?
• Would legalization change the way you think about marijuana?
• When marijuana is legalized in Canada, do you think that people will use marijuana more or less than they currently do? Why do you think that? Let's say marijuana is legal in Canada and you are in a social environment/setting (youth/young adults: such as a "party") and some people around you are using marijuana, what would your reaction be? How would you feel?
• Do you think teens' access of marijuana will increase, decrease or stay the same?  Do you think teen's use of marijuana will increase, decrease or stay the same? Why do you think that?
  • Do you think it would be different for adults? Why?

Let's talk about driving while under the influence of marijuana for a couple of minutes…

• [HANDS UP] Do you know someone who has recently driven/operated a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana OR know someone who has recently been a passenger in a vehicle where the driver was under the influence of marijuana? Do you think it's ok? Why?
• How does driving while under the influence of marijuana compare to driving while under the influence of alcohol? How are the effects different? How are they the same? Do you think it is either more or less dangerous than the other? Are the dangers different?  Why do you say that?
• As far as you know, is it safe to drive a vehicle after using marijuana? How long after using marijuana is it safe to drive?
• Do you think there are legal ramifications/consequences of driving while under the influence of marijuana - are they more or less severe than driving under the influence of alcohol?
• Do you know of any ways that can be used at the roadside to detect marijuana impairment?

Statements

I am going to pass out a sheet with some statements.  Please feel free to mark it up.  I would ask that you put a "√" beside any word/phrases/elements that you like, an "X" beside any word/phrases/elements that you don't like, a "?" beside anything that is confusing or unclear and circle any information that is new to you.

ROTATE STATEMENTS CATEGORIES AND MAKE SURE ALL STATEMENTS ARE DISCUSSED IN EACH GROUP

MODERATOR TO PROBE:

• Which statement really stood out for you? Did any statements have a stronger impact than others?
• What did you like/put a "√" beside?  What did you like about it?
• What did you dislike/put a "X" beside?  What didn't you like about it?
• Was anything confusing or unclear/put a "?" beside? Before today, had you heard this information? What information is new?
• Is it credible?  Believable?  Why or why not?
• Are the statements relevant to you? Which ones are the most relevant?
• Would the statements motivate you to take action? Why or why not? What type of actions (talk to someone, talk to kids/parents, look for more information …)?
• What do you think about the tone of the statements?

We will now repeat the same exercise with another list of statements. Please again feel free to mark it up.  I would ask that you put a "√" beside any word/phrases/elements that you like, an "X" beside any word/phrases/elements that you don't like, a "?" beside anything that is confusing or unclear and circle any new information that is new to you.

List of Statements in Appendix A

Video ADS

Now, I'd like to show you a few television/video ads.  You will see that the approach taken to deliver the message in these ads varies.  These have been selected deliberately because I would like to understand what you think of the different approaches, particularly as it relates to the tone, style, impact and feel of the ad.  It is important for you to understand that in most cases, these ads may be about a topic other than marijuana, so I want you to really focus on the approach/tone of the ad and not the message of the ad.

MODERATOR TO SHOW EACH GROUP A SELECTION OF 7 ADS FROM THE FOLLOWING APPROACH CATEGORIES (HARD HITTING; SAD/DRAMA; INFORMATIVE; BUBBLY/HUMOROUS; SHORT/SWEET; DOCUMENTARY/TESTIMONIALS; INTERACTIVE; POSITIVE AND CELEBRITY/SPOKESPERSON). EACH AD WILL BE PLAYED TWICE.  PARTICIPANTS WILL BE ASKED TO WRITE DOWN THEIR FIRST IMPRESSIONS OF THE AD. EXPLAIN THAT SOME OF THE ADS HAD TO BE TRANSLATED (voice over) SINCE ORIGINALLY THEY WERE NOT IN BOTH LANGUAGES; IF AN AD IS CREATED BY HEALTH CANADA IT WOULD BE IN FRENCH AND ENGLISH.

• What did you think about the tone/approach of the ad?
• Was it credible /believable?  Why or why not?
• How did the ad make you feel?  How so?
• Is there anything we could take from this ad to apply it to a marijuana ad?

WRAP-UP QUESTIONS AFTER ALL ADS ARE PLAYED:

• If Health Canada/the Government of Canada is interested in producing video ads that educate about the potential effects of using marijuana, which approach do you think would most likely resonate with you? What kind of ad would make you more likely to hear information of the potential effects of using marijuana? Why do you say that?

LIST OF VIDEOS AND ROTATION IN APPENDIX B

Communications Needs

PARENTS/YOUTH

• [HANDS UP] Have you discussed marijuana use with your kids/parents or anyone else?
  IF NO: Prompt reasons why not
  IF YES:
  • How was the conversation started? Did you have one or multiple conversations?
  • What was discussed?
  • Did you feel you had the information you needed to have the conversation with your kids/parents?
    • IF NOT:  What would have helped facilitate that discussion?
  • Would legalization change the way you talk about marijuana with your kids/parents?

ALL

• [HANDS UP] Have any of you ever looked for information on the effects of using marijuana and/or marijuana-impaired driving?
  • Where did you go for information?
  • Were you able to find what you were looking for?  Why or why not?
• Where would you seek information on the health and safety risks of marijuana, and marijuana-impaired driving? Probe for more than a Google search, more specific sources.
• What information would you like to know about the risks and effects of marijuana and marijuana-impaired driving?
• What is the best way to reach you with information about the health and safety risks of using marijuana?  (Probe:  TV ads; Internet ads; YouTube videos; social media platforms; information on a website; posters/brochures/pamphlets distributed at school or doctor's offices; other)

Wraps

MODERATOR TO CHECK IN THE BACK ROOM AND PROBE ON ANY ADDITIONAL AREAS OF INTEREST.

• This concludes what we needed to cover tonight. We really appreciate you taking the time to come down here to share your views. Your input is very important.
• Reminder to those in the first group about reserving comments so as not to influence the second group.

Appendix A: Statements

Marijuana Facts – Health and Safety

1. Marijuana impairs attention, memory, reaction time, thinking, decision-making, judgement and the proper functioning of your brain.
2. Regularly using marijuana, especially as a teen or young adult, can increase the chances of experiencing a psychotic episode or developing schizophrenia. This risk is greatest in those who have a family history of such illnesses.
3. Marijuana use can accelerate the onset of psychosis or schizophrenia in those who are vulnerable.
4. Marijuana use impairs attention and memory and this can affect schoolwork. Some studies suggest using marijuana may harm IQ, especially if use begins during adolescence, is regular and continues for many years.
5. Using marijuana, especially on a regular basis, increases your chances of becoming addicted.
6. 1 in 10 people who use marijuana will go on to develop an addiction to it. Those who start using as teens have a 1 in 6 chance of becoming addicted.
7. It’s not clear if all of the harms of regular marijuana use recover with time. Some may not, especially if use begins in the teenage years, is regular and persists over time.
8. The harms of marijuana depend on a number of factors: age when use begins, the amount used, the potency, the frequency and duration of use all have an impact on the effects, the risks and the harms.
9. Just because marijuana will be legalized in Canada it does not make it harmless or safe. All drugs carry risks to health and safety.
10. Marijuana smoke contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke.

Marijuana Facts – Impaired Driving

1. Using marijuana can increase, and possibly double, your chances of having a car accident.
2. Marijuana impairs your ability to drive a car/vehicle.
3. Using marijuana often, does not prevent you from driving impaired after using.
4. The higher the levels of THC in the blood, the greater the chances your ability to drive is impaired.
5. Marijuana impairs your coordination and reaction time and can harm your ability to drive.
6. Combining alcohol with marijuana greatly increases the risks of having a car accident.

Appendix B: Video Rotation

French

Appendix B: Screener

Respondent's name:
Respondent's phone number: (home)
Respondent's phone number: (work)
Respondent's fax number:
Respondent's email:
Sample source: panel random client referral
Interviewer:
Date:
Validated:
Quality Central:
On list:
On quotas:

Hello/Bonjour, my name is and I'm calling on behalf of the Earnscliffe Strategy Group, a national public opinion research firm. We are organizing a series of discussion groups on issues of importance to Canadians, on behalf of the Government of Canada. We are looking for people who would be willing to participate in a 2-hour discussion group. Up to 10 participants will be taking part and for their time, participants will receive an honorarium of [INSERT AMOUNT]. May I continue?

• Yes CONTINUE
• No THANK AND TERMINATE

Participation is voluntary. We are interested in hearing your opinions; no attempt will be made to sell you anything or change your point of view. The format is a 'round table' discussion led by a research professional. All opinions expressed will remain anonymous and views will be grouped together to ensure no particular individual can be identified. But before we invite you to attend, we need to ask you a few questions to ensure that we get a good mix and variety of people. May I ask you a few questions?

• Yes CONTINUE
• No THANK AND TERMINATE

S1. Do you or any member of your household work for…

IF "YES" TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, THANK AND TERMINATE.

S2. DO NOT ASK - NOTE GENDER

Male
Female

1 ENSURE GOOD MIX
2

S3. Are you a Canadian citizen at least 19 years old who normally resides in the [INSERT CITY] area?

• Yes CONTINUE
• No THANK AND TERMINATE

S4. [FOR VANCOUVER SESSIONS]: What part of the Lower Mainland to you live in?

North Vancouver
West Vancouver
City of Vancouver
Any other part of the Lower Mainland

1 CONTINUE
2 THANK AND TERMINATEbr /> 3 THANK AND TERMINATEbr /> 4 CONTINUE

S5. Could you please tell me which of the following age categories you fall in to? Are you...

• 19-24 years
• 25-29 years
• 30-34 years
• 35-44 years
• 45-54 years
• 55-64 years
• 65+ years
• DK/NR

ENSURE GOOD MIX

1 QUALIFIES FOR YOUNG ADULT, SKIP TO S18
2 CONTINUE FOR ADULT 25+
3 CONTINUE FOR ADULT 25+ & PARENT
4 CONTINUE FOR ADULT 25+ & PARENT
5 CONTINUE FOR ADULT 25+ & PARENT
6 CONTINUE FOR ADULT 25+ & PARENT (MAX 1)
7 CONTINUE FOR ADULT 25+ & PARENT (MAX 1)
9 THANK AND TERMINATE

S6. What is your current employment status?

• Working full-time
• Working part-time
• Self-employed
• Retired
• Unemployed
• Student
• Other
• DK/NR

1 ENSURE GOOD MIX
2
3
4
5
6
7
9 THANK AND TERMINATE

S7. Which of the following categories best describes your total household income? That is, the total income of all persons in your household combined, before taxes [READ LIST]?

Under $20,000
$20,000 to under $40,000

$40,000 to under $60,000
$60,000 to under $80,000

$80,000 to under $100,000
$100,000 to under $150,000
$150,000 or more
DK/NR

ENSURE GOOD MIX

1 RECRUIT 2 FROM $40K AND BELOW
2

3 RECRUIT 3 FROM $40K-$80K
4

5 RECRUIT 5 FROM $80K+
6
7
8 THANK AND TERMINATE

S8. What is the last level of education that you have completed?

Some high school only
Completed high school
Some college/university
Completed college/university
Post-graduate studies
DK/NR

1 ENSURE GOOD MIX
2
3
4
5
6 THANK AND TERMINATE

S9. Are you a parent or guardian of a child between the ages of 13 and 18, who lives with you at least half the time?

• Yes
• No

1 CONTINUE FOR PARENT & YOUTH
2 CONTINUE FOR ADULT 25+ (SKIP TO S18)

S10. Are you regularly involved in decisions that relate to the health and safety of your child?

• Yes
• No

1 CONTINUE FOR PARENT & YOUTH
2 ASK TO SPEAK WITH DECISION-MAKER
OTHERWISE, THANK AND TERMINATE

TO PARENTS OF YOUTH 13-18:

IF RECRUITING YOUTH: CONTINUE
IF RECRUITING PARENT: SKIP TO PARENT SCREENING (S18)

NOTE: DO NOT RECRUIT YOUTH AND PARENT FROM SAME HOUSEHOLD

As part of this study, we are also conducting discussion groups among youth between the ages of 13 and 18.

S11. With your permission, we would like to invite your child to attend a discussion on [INSERT DATE] at [TIME]? It will last 2 hours and your child will receive [a $100 gift card] for their time. These groups are being conducted on behalf of Health Canada to help them explore the topic of youth and recreational marijuana, or marijuana for non-medical purposes. The discussion will focus on their opinions on different messages about the potential harms/health effects of marijuana use. Please note, while it is not our intention to ask any questions about their own possible drug use, the subject however may come up as part of the discussion. All opinions expressed will remain anonymous and views will be grouped together to ensure no particular individual can be identified. Your written consent for your child to participate in the focus group will be required upon arrival. Would your child be available to attend on [INSERT DATE] at [TIME]?

• Yes
• No

1 CONTINUE
2 THANK AND TERMINATE

S12. Is the child who would be participating a boy or a girl?

• Male
• Female

1 AIM FOR 50/50 SPLIT
2

S13. What is the age of the child who would be participating?

• Less than 13
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• Other

1 THANK AND TERMINATE
2
3
4
5
6
7 THANK AND TERMINATE

S14. In order to ensure we have a mix of youth participants in the room, we need to ask them some qualifying questions. May we speak with your son or daughter if it is convenient to speak with them now?

• Yes
• Yes, but they are not available now
• No

1 WAIT TO SPEAK TO YOUTH
2 RESCHEDULE
3 THANK AND TERMINATE

TO YOUTH:

Hello, my name is and I'm calling on behalf of the Earnscliffe Strategy Group, a national public opinion research firm. We are organizing a series of discussion groups on issues related to youth and drugs on behalf of Health Canada (Government of Canada). Up to 10 adolescents will be taking part and for their time, participants will receive [a $100 gift card]. But before we invite you to attend, we need to ask you a few questions to ensure that we get a good mix/variety of people. May I continue?

• Yes CONTINUE
• No THANK AND TERMINATE

Participation is voluntary. We are interested in hearing your opinions; no attempt will be made to sell you anything or change your point of view. The format is a 'round table' discussion led by a research professional. All opinions expressed will remain anonymous and views will be grouped together to ensure no particular individual can be identified. It is important that you understand that all of your answers will be kept confidential, including from your parents. Your answers will be used for research purposes only and will help ensure we have a mix of participants in the room.

S15. For the purposes of this project, we need to ensure that we are speaking with youth between the ages of 13 and 18 years. Are you between the ages of 13 and 18?

• Yes CONTINUE
• No THANK AND TERMINATE

S16. How old are you?

• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18

1 CONTINUE YOUTH 13-15, ENSURE GOOD MIX
2
3
4 CONTINUE YOUTH 16-18, ENSURE GOOD MIX
5
6

S17. Sometimes participants are also asked to write out their answers to a questionnaire, read materials or watch TV commercials during the discussion. Is there any reason why you could not participate? [READ IF NEEDED: I can assure you that everything written or discussed in the groups will remain confidential.]

• Yes THANK AND TERMINATE
• No CONTINUE

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: TERMINATE IF RESPONDENT OFFERS ANY REASON SUCH AS SIGHT OR HEARING PROBLEM, A WRITTEN OR VERBAL LANGUAGE PROBLEM, A CONCERN WITH NOT BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY OR IF YOU HAVE A CONCERN.]

IF YOUTH QUALIFIES, PROCEED TO PRIVACY QUESTIONS.

NOTE: DO NOT RECRUIT PARENT AND YOUTH FROM SAME HOUSEHOLD.

SERIES FOR ADULTS/PARENTS (19+)

S18. Have you participated in a discussion or focus group before? A discussion group brings together a few people in order to know their opinion about a given subject.

• Yes
• No
• DK/NR

1 (MAX 1/3 PER GROUP, ASK S19, S20, S21)
2 SKIP TO S22
9 THANK AND TERMINATE

S19. When was the last time you attended a discussion or focus group?

S20. How many of these sessions have you attended in the last five years?

• If 4 or less
• If 5 or more
• DK/NR

1 CONTINUE
2 THANK AND TERMINATE
9 THANK AND TERMINATE

S21. And what was/were the main topic(s) of discussion in those groups?

IF RELATED TO MARIJUANA, DRUGS, GOVERNMENT POLICY ON DRUGS, THANK AND TERMINATE

S22. Participants in discussion groups are asked to voice their opinions and thoughts. How comfortable are you in voicing your opinions in front of others? Are you… (READ LIST)

• Very comfortable
• Fairly comfortable
• Comfortable
• Not very comfortable
• Very comfortable
• DK/NR

1 MINIMUM 4 PER GROUP
2 CONTINUE

3 CONTINUE
4 THANK AND TERMINATE
5 THANK AND TERMINATE

S23. Sometimes participants are asked to read text and/or review images during the discussion. Is there any reason why you could not participate?

• Yes
• No
• DK/NR

1 THANK AND TERMINATE
2 CONTINUE
9 THANK AND TERMINATE

S24. The discussion group will take place on DATE @ TIME for 2 hours and participants will receive [INSERT AMOUNT] for their time. Would you be willing to attend?

• Yes
• No
• DK/NR

1 RECRUIT
2 THANK AND TERMINATE
9 THANK AND TERMINATE

PRIVACY QUESTIONS

need your consent on a few issues that enable us to conduct our research. As I run through these questions, please feel free to ask me any questions you would like clarified.

P1) First, we will be providing the hosting facility and session moderator with a list of respondents' names and profiles (screener responses) so that they can sign you into the group. This information will not be shared with the Government of Canada department organizing this research. Do we have your permission to do this? I assure you it will be kept strictly confidential.

• Yes
• No

1 GO TO P2
2 READ RESPONDENT INFO BELOW

We need to provide the facility hosting the session and the moderator with the names and background of the people attending the focus group because only the individuals invited are allowed in the session and the facility and moderator must have this information for verification purposes. Please be assured that this information will be kept strictly confidential. GO TO P1A

P1a) Now that I've explained this, do I have your permission to provide your name and profile to the facility?

• Yes
• No

1 GO TO P2
2 THANK & TERMINATE

P2) An audio and/or video tape of the group session will be produced for research purposes. The tapes will be used only by the research professional to assist in preparing a report on the research findings and will be destroyed once the report is completed.

Do you agree to be audio and/or video taped for research purposes only?

• Yes
• No

1 THANK & GO TO P3
2 READ RESPONDENT INFO BELOW

It is necessary for the research process for us to audio/video tape the session as the researcher needs this material to complete the report.

P2a) Now that I've explained this, do I have your permission for audio/video taping?

• Yes
• No

1 THANK & GO TO P3
2 THANK AND TERMINATE

P3) Each month we submit the names of individuals that have participated in our focus groups to the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association Qualitative Central system. Qualitative Central serves as a centralized database to review participation in qualitative research and focus groups. You will not be contacted for any reason whatsoever as a result of being on this list.

Do we have your permission to submit your name and phone number to MRIA's Qualitative Central system?

• Yes
• No

1 THANK & GO TO P4
2 GO TO P3A

P3a) To participate in this focus group we must have your permission to add your name to the Qualitative Central system as it is the only way for us to ensure the integrity of the research process and track participation in qualitative research. The system is maintained by the industry body, the Professional Marketing Research Society, and is solely used to track your participation in qualitative research (such as focus groups). You will not be contacted for any reason whatsoever as a result of being on this list.

Now that I've explained this do I have your permission to add your name to our qualitative central list?

• Yes
• No

1 THANK & GO TO P4
2 THANK & TERMINATE

P4) As a participant in this focus group, you may be observed by Government of Canada staff, including members of the staff from the departments that sponsored this research, and by staff members from Earnscliffe. This is standard focus group procedure to get a first hand look at the research process and to hear first hand your impressions and views on the research topic.

Do you agree to be observed for research purposes only?

• Yes
• No

1 THANK & GO TO INVITATION
2 THANK & TERMIANTE

AS REQUIRED, ADDITIONAL INFO FOR THE INTERVIEWER:

Please be assured that this information is kept confidential and is strictly accessed and used by professional market research firms to review participation and prevent "professional respondents" from attending sessions. Research firms participating in MRIA's Qualitative Central require your consent to be eligible to participate in the focus group - the system helps ensure the integrity of the research process.

AS REQUIRED, NOTE ABOUT MRIA:

The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association is a non-profit organization for marketing research professionals engaged in marketing, advertising, social, and political research. The Society's mission is to be the leader in promoting excellence in the practice of marketing and social research and in the value of market information.

INVITATION:

Wonderful, you qualify to participate in one of our discussion sessions. As I mentioned earlier, the group discussion will take place the evening of [Day, Month, Date] @ [Time] for up to 2 hours.

Do you have a pen handy so that I can give you the address where the group will be held? It will be held at: [PROVIDE FACILITY NAME AND ADDRESS].

We ask that you arrive fifteen minutes early to be sure you find parking, locate the facility and have time to check-in with the hosts. The hosts may be checking respondents' identification prior to the group, so please be sure to bring some personal identification with you (for example, a driver's license). If you require glasses for reading make sure you bring them with you as well.

As we are only inviting a small number of people, your participation is very important to us. If for some reason you are unable to attend, please call us so that we may get someone to replace you. You can reach us at [INSERT PHONE NUMBER] at our office. Please ask for [NAME]. Someone will call you in the days leading up to the discussion to remind you.

So that we can call you to remind you about the discussion group or contact you should there be any changes, can you please confirm your name and contact information for me?

First name
Last Name
email
Daytime phone number
Evening phone number

If the respondent refuses to give his/her first or last name or phone number please assure them that this information will be kept strictly confidential in accordance with the privacy law and that it is used strictly to contact them to confirm their attendance and to inform them of any changes to the discussion group. If they still refuse THANK & TERMINATE.

French