Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37287931›Full record

ArticleCannabis (Albuquerque, N.M.)2022

Local Laws Regulating Cannabis in California Two Years Post Legalization: Assessing Incorporation of Lessons from Tobacco Control.

Alisa A Padon, Kelly C Young-Wolff, Lyndsay A Avalos, Lynn D Silver

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cannabis (Albuquerque, N.M.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Local Cannabis Policy and Cannabis Use by California High School Students Before and After Statewide Retail Legalization.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alisa A PadonPrevention Policy Group, Public Health Institute.
Kelly C Young-WolffDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California.
Lyndsay A AvalosDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California.
Lynn D SilverPrevention Policy Group, Public Health Institute.
Kaiser Permanente · USPublic Health Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

cannabiscannabis lawcannabis policycannabis regulationmarijuana policytobacco control

Identifiers

PMID37287931
PMCPMC10212255
OpenAlexW4309496711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.