ArticleCannabis (Albuquerque, N.M.)2022
Local Laws Regulating Cannabis in California Two Years Post Legalization: Assessing Incorporation of Lessons from Tobacco Control.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surveillance of Cannabis Strains Using Online Data: Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Observational
- Cannabis policy priorities and public health: a survey of elected officials in California.BMC public health · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Medicinal and combined medicinal/recreational cannabis use in California following the passage of Proposition 64.Journal of cannabis research · 2025Article
- The Impact of Adult Cannabis Use Legalization in California: A Qualitative Review of Subject Matter Expert Opinions on Proposition 64.Cannabis (Albuquerque, N.M.) · 2025Article
- Associations of Local Cannabis Policy and Retail Availability in Northern California with Adverse Adolescent Mental Health Outcomes.Substance use & misuse · 2025Article
- Age-Gating and Marketing Differences Between Storefront and Non-Storefront Cannabis Retailers.Cannabis (Albuquerque, N.M.) · 2025Article
- Cannabis Use During Early Pregnancy Following Recreational Cannabis Legalization.JAMA health forum · 2024Article
- Association of Local Cannabis Policy and Retail Availability With Cannabis Use and Problematic Cannabis Use Among Adolescents in Northern California.American journal of public health · 2024Article
- Prevalence and trends of suspected cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome over an 11-year period in Northern California: An electronic health record study.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2024Observational
- Racial, ethnic, and neighborhood socioeconomic disparities in local cannabis retail policy in California.The International journal on drug policy · 2024Article
- A statewide study of disparities in local policies and tobacco, vape, and cannabis retail environments.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.