Words Can Be Deceiving: A Review of Variation Among Legally Effective Medical Marijuana Laws in the United States.

Q3 Social Sciences Journal of Drug Policy Analysis Pub Date : 2014-12-01 DOI:10.1515/jdpa-2014-0001
Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Priscillia Hunt, Anne Boustead
{"title":"Words Can Be Deceiving: A Review of Variation Among Legally Effective Medical Marijuana Laws in the United States.","authors":"Rosalie Liccardo Pacula,&nbsp;Priscillia Hunt,&nbsp;Anne Boustead","doi":"10.1515/jdpa-2014-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When voters in two US states approved the recreational use of marijuana in 2012, public debates for how best to promote and protect public health and safety started drawing implications from states' medical marijuana laws. However, many of the discussions were simplified to the notion that states either have a medical marijuana law or do not; little reference was made to the fact that legal provisions differ across states. This study seeks to clarify the characteristics of medical marijuana laws in place since 1990 that are most relevant to consumers/patients and categorizes those aspects most likely to affect the prevalence of use, and consequently the intensity of public health and welfare effects. Evidence shows treating medical marijuana laws as homogeneous across states is misleading and does not reflect the reality of medical marijuana lawmaking. This variation likely has implications for use and health outcomes, and thus states' public health.</p>","PeriodicalId":38436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","volume":"7 1","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jdpa-2014-0001","citationCount":"92","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2014-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 92

Abstract

When voters in two US states approved the recreational use of marijuana in 2012, public debates for how best to promote and protect public health and safety started drawing implications from states' medical marijuana laws. However, many of the discussions were simplified to the notion that states either have a medical marijuana law or do not; little reference was made to the fact that legal provisions differ across states. This study seeks to clarify the characteristics of medical marijuana laws in place since 1990 that are most relevant to consumers/patients and categorizes those aspects most likely to affect the prevalence of use, and consequently the intensity of public health and welfare effects. Evidence shows treating medical marijuana laws as homogeneous across states is misleading and does not reflect the reality of medical marijuana lawmaking. This variation likely has implications for use and health outcomes, and thus states' public health.

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
言语可以欺骗:对美国有效医用大麻法律差异的回顾。
2012年,当美国两个州的选民批准娱乐性使用大麻时,关于如何最好地促进和保护公众健康和安全的公开辩论开始受到各州医用大麻法律的影响。然而,许多讨论被简化为各州要么有医用大麻法,要么没有;几乎没有提到各州的法律规定不同这一事实。本研究旨在澄清自1990年以来实施的与消费者/患者最相关的医用大麻法律的特点,并对最有可能影响使用流行程度的方面进行分类,从而对公共卫生和福利的影响程度进行分类。有证据表明,将各州的医用大麻法律视为同质化是一种误导,并不能反映医用大麻立法的现实。这种差异可能会影响使用和健康结果,从而影响各州的公共卫生。
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
Journal of Drug Policy Analysis
Journal of Drug Policy Analysis Social Sciences-Health (social science)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Frontmatter Don’t Let the COVID-19 Crisis Go to Waste: Breaking Through the Status Quo & Flattening the Opioid Epidemic Curve An Examination of Racial Disparities in Misdemeanor Marijuana Possession Arrests Following Reforms in Four U.S. Jurisdictions Did the 2018 Farm Bill’s Hemp Provisions Decriminalize Marijuana? Problematising ‘Recovery’ in Drug Policy within Great Britain: A Comparative Policy Analysis Between England, Wales and Scotland
×
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