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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |