Morgan Speer, Rishika Chakraborty, Y Tony Yang, Cassidy R LoParco, Carla J Berg
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Cannabis Social Equity Initiatives Across 5 US States Case Studies of Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Missouri.
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.
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.