Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31187690›Full record

ArticleJournal of psychoactive drugs

Civic Engagement in California Cannabis Policy Development.

Candice Bowling, Stanton A Glantz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of psychoactive drugs. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Candice BowlingCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education and Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco.
Stanton A GlantzTruth Initiative Distinguished Professor of Tobacco Control, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, and Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco.ORCID 0000-0003-4620-6672

Funding

Effect of Tobacco Advocacy at the State LevelR01DA043950 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI APOLLONIO, DOROTHY ELINOR · 2016 to 2020
$2.6M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA043950
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the regulatory drafting process, California considered allowing police officers to become licensed owners of cannabis businesses, an action that would have codified a conflict of interest (COI), allowing police to exert influence in two market strata, enforcement and licensure. Up until then, no state specifically excepted law enforcement from COI prohibitions, making California's proposed medical cannabis regulation unique. We performed two 50-state surveys and examined 298 public comments submitted to the Bureau of Cannabis Control during the initial medical cannabis rulemaking process in June 2017. After public comments, the Bureau withdrew this provision. However, that the exception was even considered is cause for concern in this new area of policy development. The progression from proposed medical cannabis rules to emergency rule adoption and now, into proposed final regulations, highlights the value of civic engagement with the rulemaking process. Jurisdictions should adopt bright-line COI rules within their cannabis codes that limit the relationships that law enforcement may have with the private cannabis markets.

Indexed as

CannabisConflict of InterestLaw EnforcementLegislation, DrugPolicy MakingCaliforniaHumanscannabis legalizationcivicsConflict of interestgovernment ethicslaw enforcementpolicy process

Identifiers

PMID31187690
PMCPMC6823132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.