Racial, ethnic, and neighborhood socioeconomic disparities in local cannabis retail policy in California

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 SUBSTANCE ABUSE International Journal of Drug Policy Pub Date : 2024-08-03 DOI:10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104542
Bethany J Simard , Alisa A Padon , Lynn D Silver , Lyndsay A Avalos , Aurash J Soroosh , Kelly C Young-Wolff
{"title":"Racial, ethnic, and neighborhood socioeconomic disparities in local cannabis retail policy in California","authors":"Bethany J Simard ,&nbsp;Alisa A Padon ,&nbsp;Lynn D Silver ,&nbsp;Lyndsay A Avalos ,&nbsp;Aurash J Soroosh ,&nbsp;Kelly C Young-Wolff","doi":"10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Policies governing legal cannabis commerce can vary widely within a U.S. state when local control exists. Disproportionate distribution of policies allowing retail sale, protecting public health, or promoting equity in licensing may contribute to differences in health and economic outcomes between sociodemographic subgroups. This cross-sectional study jointly examined racial, ethnic, and neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics of Californians subject to specific local cannabis policies to identify such disparities.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Local laws in effect January 1, 2020, governing retail cannabis sales (bans, expanding buffers from youth-serving sites, restricting advertising, promoting equity in licensing, and capping outlets) were determined for California's 539 jurisdictions. The number of Asian, Black, Latinx, and white residents in socioeconomic advantaged versus disadvantaged neighborhoods (Census block groups) was determined using 2015–2019 American Community Survey data. We estimated proportions of the sociodemographic subpopulations covered by specific policies based on the block group's jurisdiction. To ascertain disparities in coverage proportions were compared across subgroups using Z-tests with the Bonferroni correction.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Residents of socioeconomically advantaged neighborhoods were more likely to live in jurisdictions allowing retail cannabis commerce than those in disadvantaged neighborhoods (61.7 % versus 54.8 %). Black residents in advantaged neighborhoods were most likely to live where retailing was allowed (69 %), and white residents in disadvantaged neighborhoods least likely (49 %). Latinx and Black populations from disadvantaged neighborhoods were most likely to live in jurisdictions with stronger advertising restrictions (66 %). Equity in licensing policy was more prevalent for Black residents living in advantaged neighborhoods (57 %) than disadvantaged neighborhoods (49 %).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Local cannabis policies potentially protecting public health and social equity are unequally distributed across race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic characteristics in California. Research examining whether differential policy exposure reduces, creates, or perpetuates cannabis-related health and socioeconomic disparities is needed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48364,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Drug Policy","volume":"131 ","pages":"Article 104542"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Drug Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395924002263","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Policies governing legal cannabis commerce can vary widely within a U.S. state when local control exists. Disproportionate distribution of policies allowing retail sale, protecting public health, or promoting equity in licensing may contribute to differences in health and economic outcomes between sociodemographic subgroups. This cross-sectional study jointly examined racial, ethnic, and neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics of Californians subject to specific local cannabis policies to identify such disparities.

Methods

Local laws in effect January 1, 2020, governing retail cannabis sales (bans, expanding buffers from youth-serving sites, restricting advertising, promoting equity in licensing, and capping outlets) were determined for California's 539 jurisdictions. The number of Asian, Black, Latinx, and white residents in socioeconomic advantaged versus disadvantaged neighborhoods (Census block groups) was determined using 2015–2019 American Community Survey data. We estimated proportions of the sociodemographic subpopulations covered by specific policies based on the block group's jurisdiction. To ascertain disparities in coverage proportions were compared across subgroups using Z-tests with the Bonferroni correction.

Results

Residents of socioeconomically advantaged neighborhoods were more likely to live in jurisdictions allowing retail cannabis commerce than those in disadvantaged neighborhoods (61.7 % versus 54.8 %). Black residents in advantaged neighborhoods were most likely to live where retailing was allowed (69 %), and white residents in disadvantaged neighborhoods least likely (49 %). Latinx and Black populations from disadvantaged neighborhoods were most likely to live in jurisdictions with stronger advertising restrictions (66 %). Equity in licensing policy was more prevalent for Black residents living in advantaged neighborhoods (57 %) than disadvantaged neighborhoods (49 %).

Conclusions

Local cannabis policies potentially protecting public health and social equity are unequally distributed across race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic characteristics in California. Research examining whether differential policy exposure reduces, creates, or perpetuates cannabis-related health and socioeconomic disparities is needed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加利福尼亚州地方大麻零售政策中的种族、民族和社区社会经济差异。
背景:如果存在地方管制,美国各州的合法大麻商业政策可能大相径庭。允许零售、保护公共健康或促进许可公平的政策分布不成比例,可能会导致社会人口亚群体之间在健康和经济结果方面的差异。这项横断面研究联合考察了受特定地方大麻政策影响的加利福尼亚人的种族、民族和社区社会经济特征,以确定此类差异:确定了加利福尼亚州 539 个辖区 2020 年 1 月 1 日生效的规范大麻零售的地方法律(禁令、扩大青少年服务场所的缓冲区、限制广告宣传、促进许可证发放的公平性以及设置销售点上限)。利用 2015-2019 年美国社区调查数据,确定了社会经济优势社区(人口普查街区组)与弱势社区(人口普查街区组)中亚裔、黑人、拉丁裔和白人居民的数量。我们根据街区组的管辖范围估算了特定政策所覆盖的社会人口亚群的比例。为了确定覆盖比例的差异,我们使用 Z 检验和 Bonferroni 校正对不同亚群进行了比较:社会经济条件较好的街区居民比条件较差的街区居民更有可能居住在允许大麻零售商业的辖区内(61.7% 对 54.8%)。优势社区的黑人居民最有可能居住在允许零售大麻的地区(69%),弱势社区的白人居民最不可能居住在允许零售大麻的地区(49%)。来自弱势社区的拉丁裔和黑人居民最有可能居住在广告限制较严格的辖区(66%)。生活在优势社区的黑人居民(57%)比生活在劣势社区的黑人居民(49%)更倾向于许可政策的公平性:结论:在加利福尼亚州,有可能保护公众健康和社会公平的地方大麻政策在种族、民族和社会经济特征方面分布不均。需要开展研究,探讨不同的政策是否会减少、造成或延续与大麻相关的健康和社会经济差异。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
11.40%
发文量
307
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Drug Policy provides a forum for the dissemination of current research, reviews, debate, and critical analysis on drug use and drug policy in a global context. It seeks to publish material on the social, political, legal, and health contexts of psychoactive substance use, both licit and illicit. The journal is particularly concerned to explore the effects of drug policy and practice on drug-using behaviour and its health and social consequences. It is the policy of the journal to represent a wide range of material on drug-related matters from around the world.
期刊最新文献
Increases in employment over six months following Khanya: A secondary analysis of a pilot randomized controlled trial of a peer-delivered behavioral intervention for substance use and HIV medication adherence in Cape Town, South Africa. The criminal careers of Australian drug traffickers. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cannabis cultivation and use in 18 countries. How does climate change impact people who use alcohol and other drugs? A scoping review of peer reviewed literature. Tackling the overdose crisis through unionization a response to Rivera & Friedman (2024).
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1