Cargando…

Local Laws Regulating Cannabis in California Two Years Post Legalization: Assessing Incorporation of Lessons from Tobacco Control

INTRODUCTION: As cannabis legalization continues to spread, best regulatory practice remains ill-defined and elusive, exposing the population to potential harms. METHODS: We conducted an annual, statewide, cross- sectional survey to assess cannabis-related laws in effect by January 1, 2020, in local...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Padon, Alisa A., Young-Wolff, Kelly C., Avalos, Lyndsay A., Silver, Lynn D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Research Society on Marijuana 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10212255/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37287931
http://dx.doi.org/10.26828/cannabis/2022.03.005
_version_ 1785047426672885760
author Padon, Alisa A.
Young-Wolff, Kelly C.
Avalos, Lyndsay A.
Silver, Lynn D.
author_facet Padon, Alisa A.
Young-Wolff, Kelly C.
Avalos, Lyndsay A.
Silver, Lynn D.
author_sort Padon, Alisa A.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: As cannabis legalization continues to spread, best regulatory practice remains ill-defined and elusive, exposing the population to potential harms. METHODS: We conducted an annual, statewide, cross- sectional survey to assess cannabis-related laws in effect by January 1, 2020, in local California jurisdictions and at the state level and measured adoption of potential best practices. RESULTS: The current laws of all 539 jurisdictions were located; 276 jurisdictions allowed any retail sales (storefront or delivery) covering 58% of the population, an increase of 20 jurisdictions (8%) from year 1 of legalization (2018). Half allowed sales of medical cannabis, whereas slightly fewer jurisdictions (n = 225) allowed adult-use sales. Only 9 jurisdictions imposed any restrictions on products stricter than state regulations. Cannabis temporary special events were allowed in 22 jurisdictions, up from 14 in the year prior. Thirty-three jurisdictions required additional health warnings for consumers. Just over half of legalizing jurisdictions taxed cannabis locally and little revenue was captured for prevention. No new jurisdictions established a potency-linked tax. Of jurisdictions allowing storefront retailers (n = 162), 114 capped outlet licenses, and 49 increased the state-specified buffers between storefronts and schools. Thirty-six allowed on-site consumption, up from 29. As of January 2020, the state had not updated its regulations of key provisions addressed in this paper. CONCLUSIONS: In year 2 of legalized adult-use cannabis sales in California, the state remained split between retail bans and legal sale. Local policy continued to vary widely on protective measures, and State policy remained misaligned with protection of youth and public health.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10212255
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Research Society on Marijuana
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102122552023-06-07 Local Laws Regulating Cannabis in California Two Years Post Legalization: Assessing Incorporation of Lessons from Tobacco Control Padon, Alisa A. Young-Wolff, Kelly C. Avalos, Lyndsay A. Silver, Lynn D. Cannabis Research Article INTRODUCTION: As cannabis legalization continues to spread, best regulatory practice remains ill-defined and elusive, exposing the population to potential harms. METHODS: We conducted an annual, statewide, cross- sectional survey to assess cannabis-related laws in effect by January 1, 2020, in local California jurisdictions and at the state level and measured adoption of potential best practices. RESULTS: The current laws of all 539 jurisdictions were located; 276 jurisdictions allowed any retail sales (storefront or delivery) covering 58% of the population, an increase of 20 jurisdictions (8%) from year 1 of legalization (2018). Half allowed sales of medical cannabis, whereas slightly fewer jurisdictions (n = 225) allowed adult-use sales. Only 9 jurisdictions imposed any restrictions on products stricter than state regulations. Cannabis temporary special events were allowed in 22 jurisdictions, up from 14 in the year prior. Thirty-three jurisdictions required additional health warnings for consumers. Just over half of legalizing jurisdictions taxed cannabis locally and little revenue was captured for prevention. No new jurisdictions established a potency-linked tax. Of jurisdictions allowing storefront retailers (n = 162), 114 capped outlet licenses, and 49 increased the state-specified buffers between storefronts and schools. Thirty-six allowed on-site consumption, up from 29. As of January 2020, the state had not updated its regulations of key provisions addressed in this paper. CONCLUSIONS: In year 2 of legalized adult-use cannabis sales in California, the state remained split between retail bans and legal sale. Local policy continued to vary widely on protective measures, and State policy remained misaligned with protection of youth and public health. Research Society on Marijuana 2022-11-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10212255/ /pubmed/37287931 http://dx.doi.org/10.26828/cannabis/2022.03.005 Text en © 2022 Authors et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited, the original sources is not modified, and the source is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Research Article
Padon, Alisa A.
Young-Wolff, Kelly C.
Avalos, Lyndsay A.
Silver, Lynn D.
Local Laws Regulating Cannabis in California Two Years Post Legalization: Assessing Incorporation of Lessons from Tobacco Control
title Local Laws Regulating Cannabis in California Two Years Post Legalization: Assessing Incorporation of Lessons from Tobacco Control
title_full Local Laws Regulating Cannabis in California Two Years Post Legalization: Assessing Incorporation of Lessons from Tobacco Control
title_fullStr Local Laws Regulating Cannabis in California Two Years Post Legalization: Assessing Incorporation of Lessons from Tobacco Control
title_full_unstemmed Local Laws Regulating Cannabis in California Two Years Post Legalization: Assessing Incorporation of Lessons from Tobacco Control
title_short Local Laws Regulating Cannabis in California Two Years Post Legalization: Assessing Incorporation of Lessons from Tobacco Control
title_sort local laws regulating cannabis in california two years post legalization: assessing incorporation of lessons from tobacco control
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10212255/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37287931
http://dx.doi.org/10.26828/cannabis/2022.03.005
work_keys_str_mv AT padonalisaa locallawsregulatingcannabisincaliforniatwoyearspostlegalizationassessingincorporationoflessonsfromtobaccocontrol
AT youngwolffkellyc locallawsregulatingcannabisincaliforniatwoyearspostlegalizationassessingincorporationoflessonsfromtobaccocontrol
AT avaloslyndsaya locallawsregulatingcannabisincaliforniatwoyearspostlegalizationassessingincorporationoflessonsfromtobaccocontrol
AT silverlynnd locallawsregulatingcannabisincaliforniatwoyearspostlegalizationassessingincorporationoflessonsfromtobaccocontrol