ReviewThe International journal on drug policy2023
Cannabis industry campaign expenditures in Colorado, 2005-2021.
Review in The International journal on drug policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Threaten, Distract, and Discredit: Cannabis Industry Rhetoric to Defeat Regulation of High-THC Cannabis Products in Washington State.Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe cannabis industry has been described using the commercial determinants of health framework because it seeks to increase sales and profits through efforts to change the political environment. To increase understanding of these cannabis industry's efforts, this study describes cannabis industry campaign contributions in Colorado through an analysis of public records.
methodsWe reviewed datasets posted online at the Colorado Secretary of State's Transparent in Contribution and Expenditure Reporting (TRACER) Campaign Finance System. We generated descriptive data on cannabis industry contributions to elections and conducted regressions to identify predictors of contributions, and associations between lagged contributions and a legislator's cannabis industry score (how closely aligned lawmaker's legislative history is with the cannabis industry from -1 to 1).
resultsBetween 2005-2021, 429 cannabis-affiliated contributors gave $4,658,385 (2021 inflation-adjusted) to 512 electoral committees. Contributions came primarily from non-profits (45%), businesses (27%), and individuals (25%). After recreational legalization in 2012, contributions from non-profit donors with industry ties gave way to contributions from cannabis businesses, business owners, and lobbyists. Cannabis industry contributions to local and state-wide ballot initiative campaigns historically made up the majority of the industry spending, but contributions to candidate committees more than tripled between the 2009-2010 legislative cycle and the 2019-2020 cycle. From 2017-2020, every $10,000 in lagged campaign donations from cannabis industry affiliated contributors was associated with a 0.245-point increase in a legislator's cannabis industry score (p=0.04).
conclusionCannabis-affiliated interests made substantial campaign contributions in Colorado. Public health advocates should monitor industry connections to lawmakers and industry tactics used to mask the source of political contributions. Continued surveillance of the cannabis industry is essential to exposing conflicts of interest and preventing undue industry influence.
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.