1
|
Spetz J, Chapman SA, Bates T, Jura M, Schmidt LA. Social and Political Factors Associated With State-Level Legalization of Cannabis in the United States. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2019; 46:165-179. [PMID: 33828345 DOI: 10.1177/0091450919827605] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
Thirty-three U.S. states and the District of Columbia (DC) have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes and 10 states and DC have legalized marijuana for adult recreational use. This mirrors an international trend toward relaxing restrictions on marijuana. This paper analyzes patterns in marijuana laws across U.S. states to shed light on the social and political forces behind the liberalization of marijuana policy following a long era of conservatism. Data on U.S. state-level demographics, economic conditions, and cultural and political characteristics are analyzed, as well as establishment of and levels of support for other drug and social policies, to determine whether there are patterns between states that have liberalized marijuana policy versus those that have not. Laws decriminalizing marijuana possession, as well as those authorizing its sale for medical and recreational use, follow the same pattern of diffusion. The analysis points to underlying patterns of demographic, cultural, economic, and political variation linked to marijuana policy liberalization in the U.S. context, which deserve further examination internationally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joanne Spetz
- Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Healthforce Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Susan A Chapman
- Healthforce Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Timothy Bates
- Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Healthforce Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Matthew Jura
- Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Healthforce Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Institute of Biomedical Informatics, National Yang-Ming University
| | - Laura A Schmidt
- Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Department of Anthropology, History and Social Science, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Barry RA, Glantz SA. Marijuana Regulatory Frameworks in Four US States: An Analysis Against a Public Health Standard. Am J Public Health 2018; 108:914-923. [PMID: 29874509 PMCID: PMC5993386 DOI: 10.2105/ajph.2018.304401] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/26/2018] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
The movement to legalize and regulate retail marijuana is growing. We examined legislation and regulations in the first 4 states to legalize recreational marijuana (Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska) to analyze whether public health best practices from tobacco and alcohol control to reduce population-level demand were being followed. Only between 34% and 51% of policies followed best practices. Marijuana regulations generally followed US alcohol policy regarding conflict of interest, taxation, education (youth-based and problematic users), warning labels, and research that does not seek to minimize consumption and the associated health effects. Application of US alcohol policies to marijuana has been challenged by some policy actors, notably those advocating public health policies modeled on tobacco control. Reversing past decisions to regulate marijuana modeled on alcohol policies will likely become increasingly difficult once these processes are set in motion and a dominant policy framework and trajectory becomes established. Designing future marijuana legislation to prioritize public health over business would make it easier to implement legalization of recreational marijuana in a way that protects health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel A Barry
- At the beginning of this study, Rachel A. Barry and Stanton A. Glantz were with the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Department of Medicine, and Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco. Rachel A. Barry is a graduate student, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland
| | - Stanton A Glantz
- At the beginning of this study, Rachel A. Barry and Stanton A. Glantz were with the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Department of Medicine, and Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco. Rachel A. Barry is a graduate student, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Caulkins JP, Kilmer B. The US as an example of how not to legalize marijuana? Addiction 2016; 111:2095-2096. [PMID: 27460874 DOI: 10.1111/add.13498] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2016] [Accepted: 06/20/2016] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Beau Kilmer
- Drug Policy Research Center, RAND, Santa Monica, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|