• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
County-Level Recreational Marijuana Policies and Local Policy Changes in Colorado and Washington State (2012-2019).县级娱乐大麻政策与科罗拉多州和华盛顿州的地方政策变化(2012-2019)。
Milbank Q. 2021 Dec;99(4):1132-1161. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12535. Epub 2021 Aug 18.
2
Community-level policy responses to state marijuana legalization in Washington State.华盛顿州针对该州大麻合法化的社区层面政策应对措施。
Int J Drug Policy. 2017 Apr;42:102-108. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.02.010. Epub 2017 Mar 30.
3
Law enforcement practices in the first two states in U.S. to legalize recreational marijuana.美国前两个将娱乐用大麻合法化的州的执法实践。
Int J Drug Policy. 2018 Nov;61:38-43. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.08.018. Epub 2018 Oct 26.
4
Adolescent treatment admissions for marijuana following recreational legalization in Colorado and Washington.科罗拉多州和华盛顿州娱乐用大麻合法化后青少年因大麻接受治疗的入院人数。
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020 May 1;210:107960. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.107960. Epub 2020 Mar 19.
5
Exploring the effect of Colorado's recreational marijuana policy on opioid overdose rates.探讨科罗拉多州娱乐用大麻政策对阿片类药物过量率的影响。
Public Health. 2020 Aug;185:8-14. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.04.007. Epub 2020 Jun 3.
6
Association of State Recreational Marijuana Laws With Adolescent Marijuana Use.州立休闲大麻法律与青少年大麻使用之间的关联。
JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Feb 1;171(2):142-149. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.3624.
7
Using publicly available data to predict recreational cannabis legalization at the county-level: A machine learning approach.利用公开数据预测县级层面的休闲大麻合法化:一种机器学习方法。
Int J Drug Policy. 2024 Mar;125:104340. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104340. Epub 2024 Feb 10.
8
Trends and Characteristics in Marijuana Use Among Public School Students - King County, Washington, 2004-2016.《华盛顿金县公立学校学生中大麻使用的趋势和特征 - 2004-2016 年》
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Oct 4;68(39):845-850. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6839a3.
9
A practical framework for regulating for-profit recreational marijuana in US States: Lessons from Colorado and Washington.美国各州对营利性休闲大麻进行监管的实用框架:来自科罗拉多州和华盛顿州的经验教训。
Int J Drug Policy. 2017 Apr;42:71-85. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.03.001. Epub 2017 Mar 31.
10
How four U.S. states are regulating recreational marijuana edibles.美国四个州如何监管娱乐用大麻食品。
Int J Drug Policy. 2017 May;43:83-90. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.01.018. Epub 2017 Mar 23.

引用本文的文献

1
Fetal Cannabis Exposure and Neonatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.胎儿接触大麻与新生儿结局:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
Matern Child Health J. 2025 May;29(5):703-713. doi: 10.1007/s10995-025-04096-5. Epub 2025 May 3.
2
Using publicly available data to predict recreational cannabis legalization at the county-level: A machine learning approach.利用公开数据预测县级层面的休闲大麻合法化:一种机器学习方法。
Int J Drug Policy. 2024 Mar;125:104340. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104340. Epub 2024 Feb 10.
3
Attitudes of Swiss psychiatrists towards cannabis regulation and medical use in psychiatry: a cross-sectional study.瑞士精神科医生对大麻监管及在精神病学中医疗用途的态度:一项横断面研究。
J Cannabis Res. 2023 Dec 6;5(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s42238-023-00210-y.
4
Alignment in local approaches to alcohol and cannabis control policy: A case study of California cities and counties.地方层面的酒精和大麻控制政策趋同:以加利福尼亚市和郡为例的研究
Int J Drug Policy. 2023 Sep;119:104114. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104114. Epub 2023 Jul 11.
5
Delta-8 THC Retail Availability, Price, and Minimum Purchase Age.Delta-8 THC 零售供应情况、价格和最低购买年龄。
Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2024 Feb;9(1):363-370. doi: 10.1089/can.2022.0079. Epub 2022 Nov 7.
6
Equity in Coverage of Local Cannabis Control Policies in California, 2020‒2021.2020-2021 年加利福尼亚州地方大麻管制政策覆盖的公平性。
Am J Public Health. 2022 Nov;112(11):1640-1650. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2022.307041. Epub 2022 Sep 8.
7
A Spatiotemporal Analysis of the Association of California City and County Cannabis Policies with Cannabis Outlet Densities.加利福尼亚市和县大麻政策与大麻销售点密度的时空关联分析。
Epidemiology. 2022 Sep 1;33(5):715-725. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001512. Epub 2022 Jun 2.
8
Changes in Traffic Crash Rates After Legalization of Marijuana: Results by Crash Severity.大麻合法化后交通事故率的变化:按事故严重程度的结果。
J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2022 Jul;83(4):494-501. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2022.83.494.
9
The impact of recreational cannabis legalization on youth: the Colorado experience.娱乐用大麻合法化对青少年的影响:科罗拉多州的经验。
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2024 Mar;33(3):637-650. doi: 10.1007/s00787-022-01981-0. Epub 2022 Apr 15.

本文引用的文献

1
How Medical Marijuana Smoothed the Transition to Marijuana Legalization in the United States.医用大麻如何助力美国向大麻合法化的过渡。
Annu Rev Law Soc Sci. 2017 Oct;13(1):181-202. doi: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-084851. Epub 2017 Jul 3.
2
Association of Marijuana Use and Cardiovascular Disease: A Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Data Analysis of 133,706 US Adults.大麻使用与心血管疾病的关联:对 133706 名美国成年人的行为风险因素监测系统数据分析。
Am J Med. 2021 May;134(5):614-620.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.10.019. Epub 2020 Nov 9.
3
Assessment of Incorporation of Lessons From Tobacco Control in City and County Laws Regulating Legal Marijuana in California.评估将烟草控制经验纳入加利福尼亚州规范合法大麻的市县法律的情况。
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jun 1;3(6):e208393. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8393.
4
Non-medical cannabis in North America: an overview of regulatory approaches.北美洲的非医用大麻:监管方法概述。
Public Health. 2020 Jan;178:7-14. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.08.018. Epub 2019 Oct 7.
5
Fatal crashes in the 5 years after recreational marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington.科罗拉多州和华盛顿州娱乐用大麻合法化后的 5 年内发生致命车祸。
Accid Anal Prev. 2019 Nov;132:105284. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2019.105284. Epub 2019 Sep 10.
6
Post-Legalization Opening of Retail Cannabis Stores and Adult Cannabis Use in Washington State, 2009-2016.2009-2016 年华盛顿州零售大麻店合法化后开业与成年人大麻使用情况
Am J Public Health. 2019 Sep;109(9):1294-1301. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305191. Epub 2019 Jul 18.
7
Syndromic Surveillance of Emergency Department Visits for Acute Adverse Effects of Marijuana, Tri-County Health Department, Colorado, 2016-2017.2016-2017 年,科罗拉多州三县卫生局对急诊就诊的急性不良反应进行综合征监测
Public Health Rep. 2019 Mar/Apr;134(2):132-140. doi: 10.1177/0033354919826562. Epub 2019 Feb 5.
8
The impact of recreational marijuana commercialization on traumatic injury.娱乐性大麻商业化对创伤性损伤的影响。
Inj Epidemiol. 2019 Feb 4;6(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s40621-019-0180-4.
9
From Outlaw to Citizen: Police Power, Property, and the Territorial Politics of Medical Marijuana in California's Exurbs.从非法者到公民:警察权力、财产与加利福尼亚州远郊医用大麻的地域政治
Territ Politic Gov. 2015;3(4):387-406. doi: 10.1080/21622671.2015.1073613. Epub 2015 Aug 21.
10
State and National Contexts in Evaluating Cannabis Laws: A Case Study of Washington State.评估大麻法律的州和国家背景:以华盛顿州为例
J Drug Issues. 2017 Jan;47(1):74-90. doi: 10.1177/0022042616678607. Epub 2016 Dec 21.

县级娱乐大麻政策与科罗拉多州和华盛顿州的地方政策变化(2012-2019)。

County-Level Recreational Marijuana Policies and Local Policy Changes in Colorado and Washington State (2012-2019).

机构信息

University of California, Merced.

出版信息

Milbank Q. 2021 Dec;99(4):1132-1161. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12535. Epub 2021 Aug 18.

DOI:10.1111/1468-0009.12535
PMID:34407252
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8718590/
Abstract

UNLABELLED

Policy Points In 2012, Colorado and Washington were the first states to legalize recreational marijuana through voter-initiated ballots. In these states, counties could restrict or ban local marijuana facilities through a variety of regulatory methods such as ordinances and zoning. County-level recreational marijuana policies in Washington and Colorado vary substantially, with 69.2% of Washington counties and 23.4% of Colorado counties allowing all types of recreational marijuana facilities as of April 1, 2019. After Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana, many counties modified their marijuana policies over time, with shifts in county policy often preceded by advocacy and information-seeking activities.

CONTEXT

In 2012, Colorado and Washington were the first states to legalize recreational marijuana. Both allowed local governments to further regulate the availability of marijuana facilities in their jurisdictions. As early adopters, these states are important quasi-natural experiments to examine local marijuana policy and policy change processes, including key stakeholders and arguments.

METHODS

We conducted a policy scan of county-level recreational marijuana ordinances and regulations in Colorado and Washington. Data collected included policy documents from counties in both states and newspaper articles. We used a mixed-methods approach to describe the types of county-level recreational marijuana policies enacted by April 1, 2019; identify key policy stakeholders involved in local policy debates; and explore arguments used in support or opposition of county policies. We also selected four counties that represent three county policy environments (all marijuana facility types allowed, some marijuana facility types allowed, all marijuana facility types prohibited) and described the policy changes within these counties since recreational marijuana was legalized.

FINDINGS

By April 1, 2019, Colorado counties were less likely than Washington counties to allow marijuana facilities-48.4% of Colorado counties prohibited recreational marijuana facilities in their jurisdiction compared to 23.1% of Washington counties. Since state legalization, several counties in both states have made substantial marijuana facility policy modifications, often preceded by information-seeking activities. Primary stakeholders involved in policy debates included elected officials, law enforcement, individual growers/farmers, marijuana business license applicants, parents, and residents. Proponents referenced local economic gain, reduced crime, and potential health benefits of marijuana as arguments in favor of permitting local facilities, whereas opponents pointed to economic loss, negative health and public health issues, public safety concerns, and existing federal law. Both sides referenced local public opinion data to support their position.

CONCLUSIONS

By early 2019, a patchwork of local marijuana policies was in place in Colorado and Washington. We identify key areas of policy and public health research needed to inform future local marijuana policy decisions, including the impact of legalization on public health outcomes (particularly for youth) and public safety.

摘要

未加标签

政策要点 2012 年,科罗拉多州和华盛顿州通过选民发起的投票首次将娱乐用大麻合法化。在这些州,各县可以通过各种监管手段,如条例和分区,限制或禁止当地的大麻设施。截至 2019 年 4 月 1 日,华盛顿州和科罗拉多州的县级娱乐用大麻政策有很大差异,华盛顿州 69.2%的县和科罗拉多州 23.4%的县允许所有类型的娱乐用大麻设施。科罗拉多州和华盛顿州将娱乐用大麻合法化后,许多县随着时间的推移修改了大麻政策,县政策的转变往往先于宣传和信息寻求活动。

背景

2012 年,科罗拉多州和华盛顿州率先将娱乐用大麻合法化。这两个州都允许地方政府进一步规范其管辖范围内大麻设施的供应。作为早期采用者,这些州是研究地方大麻政策和政策变化过程的重要准自然实验,包括关键利益相关者和论点。

方法

我们对科罗拉多州和华盛顿州的县级娱乐用大麻条例和法规进行了政策扫描。收集的数据包括来自这两个州各县的政策文件和报纸文章。我们使用混合方法来描述截至 2019 年 4 月 1 日颁布的县级娱乐用大麻政策类型;确定参与地方政策辩论的主要政策利益相关者;并探讨支持或反对县政策的论点。我们还选择了四个县,代表三种县政策环境(允许所有类型的大麻设施、允许某些类型的大麻设施、禁止所有类型的大麻设施),并描述了自娱乐用大麻合法化以来这些县内的政策变化。

发现

截至 2019 年 4 月 1 日,科罗拉多州各县允许大麻设施的可能性低于华盛顿州各县-科罗拉多州 48.4%的县禁止在其管辖范围内的娱乐用大麻设施,而华盛顿州的这一比例为 23.1%。自州合法化以来,这两个州的几个县都对大麻设施政策进行了重大修改,通常先进行信息寻求活动。参与政策辩论的主要利益相关者包括民选官员、执法人员、个体种植者/农民、大麻商业许可证申请人、家长和居民。支持者引用了当地经济收益、减少犯罪和大麻潜在健康益处作为支持允许当地设施的论点,而反对者则指出了经济损失、负面健康和公共卫生问题、公共安全问题和现有的联邦法律。双方都引用了当地的民意调查数据来支持他们的立场。

结论

到 2019 年初,科罗拉多州和华盛顿州已经制定了一系列拼凑而成的地方大麻政策。我们确定了未来地方大麻政策决策所需的政策和公共卫生研究的关键领域,包括合法化对公共卫生结果(特别是对年轻人)和公共安全的影响。