Center for Opioid Epidemiology and Policy, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, 180 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016, USA.
Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 490 Illinois St, 7th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.
Int J Drug Policy. 2023 Sep;119:104114. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104114. Epub 2023 Jul 11.
Public health experts have urged governments around the world to regulate newly legalized cannabis as they do alcohol to effectively and efficiently protect health. However, research evaluating the alignment of alcohol and cannabis policies is sparse. We assessed similarities and differences in local alcohol and cannabis control policies across California, and characterized localities adopting distinct policy approaches.
Using standard legal epidemiologic techniques, we collected and coded local alcohol and cannabis control policies relevant to public health for 12 California counties and all incorporated cities within them (N=241). We assessed whether localities were equally stringent on alcohol and cannabis policies by comparing overall restrictiveness (summed policy scores) and 9 specific provisions that applied to both substances. We captured distinct local alcohol-cannabis policy approaches using latent class analysis, and examined this classification in relation to local demographic, socioeconomic, political, and retail market characteristics.
All 241 localities permitted alcohol sales, while 71% banned cannabis sales. Among those that did not ban cannabis sales, more stringent alcohol policy scores were associated with more stringent cannabis policy scores (linear regression coefficient: 0.16 [95% CI: 0.07, 0.25]). Local governments rarely adopted the same provisions for alcohol and cannabis (e.g., limits on hours of sale, advertising restrictions), and only two regulated the co-location of cannabis and alcohol outlets. Localities that were restrictive on alcohol yet permissive on cannabis (12%) were more urban, politically progressive, and had more low-income and racial/ethnic minority residents. Localities that were more permissive on alcohol and restrictive on cannabis (51%) were more socioeconomically advantaged.
We found few similarities between local alcohol and cannabis control policies. California's experience suggests that, as governments around the world legalize cannabis, lessons learned from regulating alcohol are not routinely applied to cannabis, particularly in communities distinguished by high social and economic advantages.
公共卫生专家敦促世界各地的政府像管理酒精一样对新合法化的大麻进行监管,以有效地保护健康。然而,评估酒精和大麻政策一致性的研究很少。我们评估了加利福尼亚州各地的酒精和大麻控制政策的异同,并描述了采用不同政策方法的地方。
我们使用标准的法律流行病学技术,收集并编码了与 12 个加利福尼亚县和其中所有的城市有关的公共卫生酒精和大麻控制政策(N=241)。我们通过比较整体限制(政策得分总和)和适用于两种物质的 9 项具体规定,评估了地方在酒精和大麻政策上的严格程度是否相同。我们使用潜在类别分析捕捉了独特的地方酒精-大麻政策方法,并研究了这种分类与地方人口统计学、社会经济、政治和零售市场特征的关系。
所有 241 个地方都允许销售酒精,而 71%的地方禁止销售大麻。在那些没有禁止大麻销售的地方,更严格的酒精政策得分与更严格的大麻政策得分相关(线性回归系数:0.16[95%CI:0.07,0.25])。地方政府很少对酒精和大麻采用相同的规定(例如,销售时间限制、广告限制),只有两个地方监管大麻和酒精销售点的同地经营。对酒精限制严格但对大麻放任的地方(12%)更加城市化,政治上更加进步,并且有更多的低收入和少数族裔居民。对酒精更放任但对大麻限制更严格的地方(51%)更加社会经济地位优越。
我们发现地方酒精和大麻控制政策之间几乎没有相似之处。加利福尼亚州的经验表明,随着世界各地政府使大麻合法化,从监管酒精中吸取的经验教训并未常规应用于大麻,特别是在社会和经济优势较高的社区。