Cannabis Social Equity Initiatives Across 5 US States Case Studies of Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Missouri.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Morgan Speer, Rishika Chakraborty, Y Tony Yang, Cassidy R LoParco, Carla J Berg
{"title":"Cannabis Social Equity Initiatives Across 5 US States Case Studies of Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Missouri.","authors":"Morgan Speer, Rishika Chakraborty, Y Tony Yang, Cassidy R LoParco, Carla J Berg","doi":"10.1097/PHH.0000000000002191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Given the historic cannabis-related injustices in the US, several states that have legalized nonmedical cannabis also launched social equity (SE) initiatives involving criminal justice reform, equitable entrepreneurship assistance, and community reinvestment programs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This manuscript explores SE initiatives across 5 states.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Case studies of 5 states were conducted using a drug policy framework. Two researchers dual-coded cannabis-related SE policies pertaining to expungements/pardons, equitable entrepreneurship assistance, and revenue allocation (as of December 2024).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Missouri.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Colorado, Washington, and Massachusetts implemented pardons for certain offenses; Connecticut and Missouri implemented expungement. There was variability in the eligible offenses and numbers of pardons and expungements granted across states. Regarding entrepreneurship assistance, the states' SE eligibility criteria were similar, albeit with some distinctions (eg, income restrictions, veterans). Each state either reserved licenses for SE applicants or had specific SE licenses. The states offered similar trainings but used distinct approaches (such as accelerator programs or role-specific tracks). Additionally, financial benefits, such as grants, loans, and fee waivers, differed across states. Each state implemented cannabis sales taxes, which varied in level and type (retail sales tax vs. excise tax). Revenues across states were directed to cannabis program costs, the general fund, and health care and educational initiatives and organizations, although there were differences in allocation across states.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings highlight the important efforts these states have made toward SE goals. However, given the varied approaches and limited evidence base, ongoing evaluation across states is needed to inform effective future SE initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":47855,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health Management and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Health Management and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000002191","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Given the historic cannabis-related injustices in the US, several states that have legalized nonmedical cannabis also launched social equity (SE) initiatives involving criminal justice reform, equitable entrepreneurship assistance, and community reinvestment programs.

Objective: This manuscript explores SE initiatives across 5 states.

Design: Case studies of 5 states were conducted using a drug policy framework. Two researchers dual-coded cannabis-related SE policies pertaining to expungements/pardons, equitable entrepreneurship assistance, and revenue allocation (as of December 2024).

Setting: Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Missouri.

Results: Colorado, Washington, and Massachusetts implemented pardons for certain offenses; Connecticut and Missouri implemented expungement. There was variability in the eligible offenses and numbers of pardons and expungements granted across states. Regarding entrepreneurship assistance, the states' SE eligibility criteria were similar, albeit with some distinctions (eg, income restrictions, veterans). Each state either reserved licenses for SE applicants or had specific SE licenses. The states offered similar trainings but used distinct approaches (such as accelerator programs or role-specific tracks). Additionally, financial benefits, such as grants, loans, and fee waivers, differed across states. Each state implemented cannabis sales taxes, which varied in level and type (retail sales tax vs. excise tax). Revenues across states were directed to cannabis program costs, the general fund, and health care and educational initiatives and organizations, although there were differences in allocation across states.

Conclusions: Findings highlight the important efforts these states have made toward SE goals. However, given the varied approaches and limited evidence base, ongoing evaluation across states is needed to inform effective future SE initiatives.

横跨美国5个州的大麻社会公平倡议——科罗拉多州、华盛顿州、马萨诸塞州、康涅狄格州和密苏里州的案例研究。
背景:考虑到美国历史上与大麻相关的不公正,一些将非医用大麻合法化的州也启动了社会公平(SE)倡议,包括刑事司法改革、公平创业援助和社区再投资项目。目的:本文探讨了5个州的SE倡议。设计:使用药物政策框架对5个州进行案例研究。两名研究人员对大麻相关的SE政策进行了双重编码,涉及取消/赦免、公平创业援助和收入分配(截至2024年12月)。地理位置:科罗拉多州、华盛顿州、马萨诸塞州、康涅狄格州和密苏里州。结果:科罗拉多州、华盛顿州和马萨诸塞州对某些罪行实施了赦免;康涅狄格和密苏里州实施了删除。各州的合格罪行以及赦免和免除的数量各不相同。关于创业援助,各州的SE资格标准是相似的,尽管有一些区别(例如,收入限制,退伍军人)。每个州要么为SE申请人保留许可证,要么拥有特定的SE许可证。各州提供了类似的培训,但采用了不同的方法(如加速器项目或特定角色的培训)。此外,助学金、贷款和学费减免等经济利益在各州之间也有所不同。每个州都征收大麻销售税,其水平和类型各不相同(零售销售税与消费税)。各州的收入用于大麻方案费用、普通基金以及保健和教育倡议和组织,尽管各州的分配情况有所不同。结论:研究结果强调了这些州为实现SE目标所做的重要努力。然而,考虑到不同的方法和有限的证据基础,需要在各州之间进行持续的评估,以便为有效的未来SE倡议提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Public Health Management and Practice
Journal of Public Health Management and Practice PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
287
期刊介绍: Journal of Public Health Management and Practice publishes articles which focus on evidence based public health practice and research. The journal is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed publication guided by a multidisciplinary editorial board of administrators, practitioners and scientists. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice publishes in a wide range of population health topics including research to practice; emergency preparedness; bioterrorism; infectious disease surveillance; environmental health; community health assessment, chronic disease prevention and health promotion, and academic-practice linkages.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信