Tuesday, December 31, 2019
As reported in this local article, "On the day before recreational cannabis becomes legal in Illinois, Gov. J.B. Pritzker announced he was pardoning more than 11,000 people who had been convicted of low-level marijuana crimes." Here is more:
“When Illinois’ first adult use cannabis shops open their doors tomorrow, we must all remember that the purpose of this legislation is not to immediately make cannabis widely available or to maximize product on the shelves, that’s not the main purpose, that will come with time,” Pritzker said to a crowd at Trinity United Church of Christ on the Far South Side. “But instead the defining purpose of legalization is to maximize equity for generations to come.”
Pritzker, who has touted the social equity elements of the recreational pot law he signed this summer, was joined Tuesday by state, county and local leaders including Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, who has already begun the process of clearing the records of those with low-level marijuana convictions in her jurisdiction.
The 11,017 people pardoned by Pritzker will receive notification about their cases, all of which are from outside Cook County, by mail. The pardon means convictions involving less than 30 grams of marijuana will be automatically expunged.
Pritzker and other elected officials said they believe Illinois is the first state to include a process for those previously convicted of marijuana offenses to seek relief upon legalization of cannabis. “This is justice,” said Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton. “And this is what equity is all about, righting wrongs and leveling the playing field.”...
Officials estimate there are hundreds of thousands of people with marijuana-related convictions in Illinois who could be eligible for relief. Those with criminal convictions can get a copy of their criminal record and start the process, though many of the cases will be automatically expunged by the state in the next couple of years.
The Illinois State Police are searching criminal records to identify eligible cases, which are then sent to the state’s Prisoner Review Board. After the board reviews the cases, the names of those eligible for relief are sent to the governor’s office to be considered for pardon. After Pritzker issues the pardon, the attorney general’s office automatically files petitions on the person’s behalf to expunge the records.
State’s attorney offices across the state are also being notified of eligible cases, which can then be vacated by a local judge. In Cook County, prosecutors are working with California-based Code for America to search for convictions involving less than 30 grams of cannabis. Those cases have resulted in both misdemeanor and Class 4 felony convictions....
Individuals with cases involving 30 to 500 grams of cannabis can also be eligible for relief, but the process won’t be automatic, instead requiring the person to file motions to vacate the conviction, according to the governor’s office.
While a pardon forgives a conviction, an expungement erases it from the public record. When a judge vacates a conviction, it overturns it as if it never happened. When a case is expunged, the case is hidden from public view, but it could be viewed by law enforcement if they obtained a court order.
Many of the elected officials noted that enforcement of marijuana-related offenses have disproportionately affected minorities. The Rev. Michael Pfleger, of St. Sabina Church on the South Side, said the elected officials on the stage had done their job, but it would be up to business leaders in the new industry to provide financial mobility for those individuals. “Employ these individuals," Pfleger said to the crowd. “Give them a job.”
Ald. Walter Burnett Jr., of the 27th Ward, noted that a pardon for an armed robbery conviction decades ago changed his life and allowed him to serve in public office. He invoked Martin Luther King Jr.'s words to describe how he felt when his record was expunged and how others might feel when they hear news of the pardons. “Free at last,” Burnett said. “Free at last. Thank God almighty, they are free at last.”
December 31, 2019 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Race, Gender and Class Issues, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, December 30, 2019
Reviewing the year that was 2019 with a round-up of reviews of the year (and decade) in marijuana reform
This holiday season has brought not only the usual "year in review" pieces, but also a number of "decade in review" accountings of big changes since the start of 2010. Interestingly, I have not seen too many "decade in review" pieces focused on marijuana reform developments even though so much has happened in this space since 2010. This new NBC News piece by Zachary Siegel, headlined "Opioids, pot and criminal justice reform helped undermine this decade's War on Drugs," covers some of this ground in a broader context. Here is an excerpt:
If shame was a potent force in fighting against the company that oversold opioids, it was the shedding of stigmas that characterized the massive shift in public opinion toward marijuana in the past decade — which transformed more than that on just about any other policy across the American landscape. In 2000, 63 percent of Americans said the use of marijuana should be illegal, according to polling from Pew Research Center. By 2010, that number had dropped to 52 percent, and for the last 10 years it continued to plunge, shifting the balance in favor of marijuana. In 2019, a full two-thirds of Americans believed cannabis should be legal.
There is no way to characterize this but as a loss for the so-called War on Drugs. Marijuana not only continued to be consumed — with nearly 55 million people who indulge, it’s one of the most widely used drugs — but now, thanks to the legalization drive, there’s a chance to right wrongs of the past. For instance, once legalization goes into effect in Illinois on Jan 1, 2020, the city of Evanston will use tax revenue on cannabis to fund reparations for black residents....
So how did 80-year-old cannabis laws finally begin to crumble this past decade? Though very different in properties and ill effects, marijuana’s image shifted for some of the same reasons that opioids changed the drug conversation in America: White people being criminalized, the medical industry having a role in how to calibrate use of the drug, and a feeling among both liberals and conservatives that filling up jails with users was a waste of lives and money.
Cannabis laws didn’t change all by themselves, and it’s important to recognize the role that grass-roots advocacy played. “The remarkable progress of marijuana legalization over the past decade was driven not by for-profit interests but by people and organizations who care first and foremost about freedom, justice, compassion and human rights,” said Ethan Nadelmann, the founder and former director of the Drug Policy Alliance, the nonprofit that helped get cannabis on the ballot in numerous states.
There is, of course, so much more to say about the past decade in marijuana reform, way too much to say in a single book, let alone a single blog post. Rather than try to cover all that ground, I will be content here to just link to a number of 2019 "year in review" pieces about marijuana reform:
From the National Law Review, "Puff, Puff, Passed: 2019 Marijuana Laws in Review and 2020 Projections"
From MG Magazine, "The Evolving Cannabis Industry: a 2019 Year-End Review"
From The Hill, "2019 was a historic year for marijuana law reform — here's why"
From JD Supra, "The Year in Weed: 2019 Edition"
And from the Dayton Daily News, "Ohio medical marijuana: What happened in the first year"
December 30, 2019 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, December 24, 2019
Alabama Medical Cannabis Study Commission recommends legislation to create medical marijuana program for Yellowhammer State
As reported in this local article, "Friday, the Alabama Medical Cannabis Study Commission voted to recommend legislation that would legalize marijuana for persons with diagnosed medical conditions." Here is more:
The commission voted twelve in favor and three against. Three members abstained. State Health Office Scott Harris voted against the bill.
The proposed bill would allow farmers to grow marijuana, doctors to prescribe marijuana for certain listed conditions, transporters to transport the product, dispensaries to sell the product, and would designate a state testing lab to perform the tests on the product sold on the state.
A new state agency, the Alabama Medical Cannabis agency would regulate cannabis in Alabama. The commission would strictly regulate the product from planting to sell so that all product would be accounted for and limited to grown and produced within the state of Alabama.... The draft did not allow for a smokable products or for edible products such as marijuana gummies and brownies. There is no provision for the legalization of home gardeners to grow marijuana for their own use....
The Commission is chaired by State Senator Tim Melson, R-Florence. Melson is a physician who introduced medical marijuana legislation during the last legislative session. That bill passed the state Senate; but ran into fierce opposition in committee in the Alabama House of Representatives. Senator Melson will introduce this bill, which was recommended by the Commission, in the 2020 Alabama legislative session.
Some marijuana advocates are arguing for a much broader legalization of cannabis in Alabama, including the legalization of recreational marijuana. They have also criticized the ban on edible marijuana products and smokable product as well as the ban on the sell of marijuana plant material. They have also questioned the legality of the ban on importing marijuana products into the state.
During the commission meetings, Melson said that he would join with Senators skeptical of his bill in fighting to defeat any effort to pass recreational marijuana. Some opponents of medical marijuana have told the Alabama Political Reporter that they oppose passage of medical marijuana; because it is an incremental step towards the legalization of recreational marijuana.
Whether or not the state passes a medical marijuana bill will be decided in the Alabama legislature next year.
The full report is available at this link; it is short and reader-friendly.
The title of this post is the clever title of this interesting new report from California's Legislative Analyst's Office released last week. (Hat top: Crime & Consequences.) Here is part of the report's "Executive Summary":
Proposition 64 (2016) directed our office to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2020, with recommendations for adjustments to the state’s cannabis tax rate to achieve three goals: (1) undercutting illicit market prices, (2) ensuring sufficient revenues are generated to fund the types of programs designated by the measure, and (3) discouraging youth use. This report responds to this statutory requirement and discusses other potential changes to the state’s cannabis taxes. While this report focuses on cannabis taxes, nontax policy changes also could affect these goals.
Proposition 64 established two state excise taxes on cannabis. The first is a 15 percent retail excise tax, effectively a wholesale tax under current law. The second is a tax based on the weight of harvested plants, often called a cultivation tax. (The measure authorizes the Legislature to amend its tax provisions without voter approval, but the scope of this authorization is unclear.)...
We analyze four types of taxes: basic ad valorem (set as a percentage of price, such as the current retail excise tax), weight-based (such as the current cultivation tax), potency-based (for example, based on tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]), and tiered ad valorem (set as a percentage of price with different rates based on potency and/or product type). Our analysis focuses primarily on three main criteria: (1) effectiveness at reducing harmful use, (2) revenue stability, and (3) ease of administration and compliance. No individual type of tax performs best on all criteria. For example, tiered ad valorem and potency-based likely are best for reducing harmful use, but basic ad valorem is easiest to administer. Given these trade-offs, the Legislature’s choice depends heavily on the relative importance it places on each criterion. That said, the weight-based tax is generally weakest, performing similarly to or worse than the potency-based tax on the three main criteria....
Any tax rate change would help the state meet certain goals while likely making it harder to achieve others. On one hand, for example, reducing the tax rate would expand the legal market and reduce the size of the illicit market. On the other hand, such a tax cut would reduce revenue in the short term, potentially to the extent that revenue could be insufficient. Furthermore, lower tax rates could lead to higher rates of youth cannabis use. With a thriving illicit market, however, much of the cannabis used by youth could avoid taxation. Where possible, this report provides quantitative estimates of the short-term effects of rate changes....
We view reducing harmful use as the most compelling reason to levy an excise tax. Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature replace the existing retail excise tax and cultivation tax with a potency-based or tiered ad valorem tax, as these taxes could reduce harmful use more effectively. If policymakers value ease of administration and compliance more highly than reducing harmful use, however, the Legislature might prefer to keep the existing retail excise tax. In contrast, we see little reason for the Legislature to retain the weight-based cultivation tax....
If the Legislature decides not to adopt a potency-based or tiered ad valorem cannabis tax, we nevertheless recommend that the Legislature eliminate the cultivation tax. In this case, we recommend that the Legislature set the retail excise tax rate somewhere in the range of 15 percent to 20 percent depending on its policy preferences.
December 24, 2019 in Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Data and Research, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Taxation information and issues , Who decides | Permalink | Comments (1)
Friday, December 20, 2019
New Jersey and South Dakota are first two states (of many to come?) with marijuana reform officially on the 2020 ballot
Though we are still 11 months away from Election Day 2020, this past week two state already made official that its voters will have a marijuana reform proposal to consider. Here are the basics via press reports:
New Jersey residents will decide whether to legalize marijuana in the Garden State, after both houses of the state Legislature voted Monday to put the question on the 2020 ballot. The measure passed the state Senate in a 24-16 vote at the Statehouse in Trenton on Monday afternoon, while the state Assembly voted 49-24 with one abstention....
Gov. Phil Murphy made legalizing marijuana for those over 21 one of his campaign promises. In the nearly two years since he took office, the initiative has seen several setbacks. State Senate President Stephen Sweeney announced in late November he would not take the bill to the floor, and would instead seek to put it to the ballot for voters to decide.
From South Dakota: "Medical Marijuana Measure Makes SD Ballot"
Petitions submitted for an initiated measure on legalizing marijuana for medical use have been validated and the measure will appear on South Dakota’s 2020 general election ballot. According to a press release by Secretary of State Steve Barnett, the petitions were officially validated Thursday. It will be titled Initiated Measure 26. An initiated measure currently requires 16,961 valid signatures in order to qualify for the ballot.
My understanding is that there could be as many as a half-dozen additional states, including Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Nebraska and North Dakota, that could end up having marijuana ballot measures for voters in 2020.
December 20, 2019 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Initiative reforms in states, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
The title of this post is the title of this article by multiple authors forthcoming in the Journal of Addiction Medicine. Here is its abstract:
Objective: Beliefs about marijuana use and prevalence of use may be associated with the legalization status of the state of residence. We examined differences in views and rates of use of marijuana among residents in recreationally legal, medically legal, and nonlegal states.
Methods: We surveyed a nationally representative online panel of US adults (N¼ 16,280) and stratified results by marijuana legalization status of states. We compared views of residents of recreational states on benefits and risks of marijuana use to residents in other states.
Results: The response rate was 56.3% (n ¼ 9003). Residents in recreationally legal states were more likely to believe marijuana could be beneficial for pain management (73% in recreationally legal states, 67% in medically legal states, 63% in nonlegal states; P value: <0.0001), provide relief from stress, anxiety or depression (52% in recreationally legal states, 47% in medically legal states, 46% in nonlegal states; P value: 0.01), and improve appetite (39% in recreationally legal states, 36% in medically legal states, 33% in nonlegal states; P value: <0.009). In addition, residents in recreational states were significantly more likely to believe that smoking 1 marijuana joint a day is somewhat or much safer than smoking 1 cigarette a day (40.8% in recreationally legal states, 39.1% in medically legal states, and 36.1% in nonlegal states; P value: <0.0001). Residents of recreationally and medically legal states were more likely to believe second-hand marijuana smoke was somewhat or much safer than second-hand tobacco smoke (38.3% in recreationally legal states, 38.3% in medically legal states, and 35.7% in nonlegal states; P value: 0.003). Past-year marijuana use in any form (20% in recreational, 14.1% in medical, 12% in nonlegal) and past-year marijuana use of multiple forms (11.1% in recreational, 6.1% in medical, 4.9% in nonlegal) were highest among residents of recreationally legal states. Overall, prevalence of past-year use of any form of marijuana use was more common among residents of recreationally legal states compared with other states (20.3%, confidence interval [CI] 19.5, 21.1 in recreationally legal states; 15.4%, CI 14.7, 16.2 in medically legal states; 11.9%, CI 11.2, 12.6 in nonlegal states).
Conclusions: Residents in recreationally legal states were most likely to believe marijuana has benefits, marijuana smoke is safer than tobacco smoke, and have the highest rate of marijuana use. This is cause for concern, given the tide of commercialization, growing number of high-potency cannabis products, and favorable media coverage promoting use for health problems.
Friday, December 13, 2019
Eight Senators (all Dems) write to federal agencies inquiring about efforts to advance medical marijuana research
This webpage with the heading "Senators Request Update from Federal Agencies on Progress Towards Issuing Long-Delayed Licensing of Marijuana Manufacturing for Research Purposes" reports on a notable new letter from some federal lawmakers. Here are the basics:
United States Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Cory Booker (D-Conn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), requesting an update on the progress of the federal government's efforts to facilitate research on medical marijuana by issuing needed manufacturing licenses. The senators seek guidance on how the DEA will make these licenses available to qualified researchers in a timely manner given that the federal government has a unique responsibility to coordinate medical marijuana research efforts -- and has delayed issuing these licenses in the past.
"With millions of American adults having access to recreational marijuana and a growing number seeking the drug for medicinal purposes, the federal government is not providing the necessary leadership and tools in this developing field," wrote the lawmakers. "Evidence-based public policy is crucial to ensuring our marijuana laws best serve patients and health care providers."
The lawmakers have requested responses no later than January 10, 2020, to better understand both the DEA's decision-making, and its work with HHS and ONDCP to expand medical marijuana research. "This research is crucial to developing a thorough understanding of medical marijuana and would be invaluable to doctors, patients, and lawmakers across the nation," wrote the lawmakers.
The full letter is available at this link, and it starts this way:
We write to inquire about your respective agencies' ongoing efforts with regard to scientific research on the potential health and therapeutic benefits of marijuana when used for medical purposes ("medical marijuana"). In light of the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) most recent announcement that it will issue additional marijuana manufacturing licenses for research purposes — an announcement that comes three years after a similar yet unfulfilled DEA commitment — we are also requesting written guidance on how the DEA will make these licenses available to qualified researchers in a timely manner.
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
As reported in this press release, yesterday the National Cannabis Roundtable (NCR) "pledged its commitment to fostering social justice, equity, and diversity in the cannabis industry [through] the launch of NCR’s Corporate Social Responsibility program." Here is more from the release:
Looking to do their part to reduce the negative impact of the War on Drugs, specifically in those communities disproportionately affected by it, NCR members will commit time, talent and financial resources to pursue social justice measures, equity in business and diversity and inclusion within member companies. More information about NCR’s Corporate Social Responsibility Pledge can be found here.
“We are not just having a conversation about how the cannabis industry can benefit those most impacted by decades of discriminatory drug policy, we are taking action,” said Dr. Chanda Macias, MBA, Ph.D., Owner of NHHC, and First Vice Chair of NCR. “It is critically important to the future success of cannabis in America that we build justice and equity into the very fabric of this burgeoning industry.”
Some states with legal cannabis, including Massachusetts, California, and most recently Illinois, have developed social equity programs through their license structure, but no state has pushed businesses to take a reflective look at their own operations. NCR’s Corporate Social Responsibility program is our members’ effort to address that void and to ensure real outcomes with regard to justice, equity and diversity and inclusion.
NCR Executive Director Saphira Galoob said that members will begin 2020 assessing their internal practices – providing a baseline look at where they are today through the goals and activities outlined in the social responsibility pledge while developing targets for greater impact within their own operations. “Our members are passionate about promoting social responsibility in this fast-growing industry,” said Saphira Galoob, NCR Executive Director. “NCR is proud to bring cannabis into the mainstream and harness its potential to benefit our communities.”
NCR will engage subject matter experts from minority, adversely impacted, and designated beneficiary communities to advise the organization on the effectiveness and impact of CSR. These subject matter experts will work with NCR members and staff to ensure the integrity of the program and to measure performance and accountability.
The full five-page NCR Corporate Social Responsibility Pledge can be viewed at this link here, and it makes for an interesting read. The document sets forth three "Core Values" labeled as "Social Justice" and "Social Equity" and "Diversity and Inclusion in Business." The document then sets out four "pillars of equal importance ... meant to provide a baseline for all participants in NCR." These pillars are "1) Criminal Justice; 2) Equity in Business Opportunity; 3) Jobs & Employment; 4) Health Education and Health Disparities."
Writing in Forbes, Mike Adams has this amusing commentary under the headline ""Federal Marijuana Legalization Is A Lock – But How, When?". Here are excerpts:
Although pro-pot groups insist that 2019 has been the best year ever in the realm of cannabis reform, the reality is not much progress has transpired. It is only revered as the “best year” because even less occurred in the years that came before it. But no matter how you size it up, nothing plus bupkis still equals squat. In spite of everything, marijuana remains illegal across most of the United States.
At the state level, many advocates predicted that New York and New Jersey would be the next to legalize weed. Well, that didn’t happen. In fact, Illinois swooped in and legalized first, making both states look like dorks. But aside from that, no other significant pot laws were passed at the state level in 2019. We also learned that police are still out there arresting more than 600,000 pot offenders nationwide every year — mostly small timers, too.
In addition, some states, like California, are having trouble curbing the black market, and tainted pot products, most of which were initially believed to be counterfeits, are finding their way into legal dispensaries. To make matters worse, the cannabis industry, as a whole, is struggling to keep it together long enough to see profitability. Layoffs are prevalent and some of the nation’s most popular cannabis magazines are at risk of going under. There’s just no possible way that 2019 should be considered a banner year for cannabis.
Federally speaking, parts of Congress dilly-dallied around with the notion of forging some kind of change in the realm of national cannabis reform, but the powers against it are still too strong to penetrate. Rumor has it that the cannabis trade’s legislative pride and joy known as the SAFE Act is presently being gnawed on by rats in the basement of the Senate chamber. Its last words were reportedly, “Y’all know I’m not really a marijuana bill, right?” And the MORE Act, the proposal that got everyone to stop giving two-flying squirts about SAFE, well, that sucker has already been buried out behind the Capitol building alongside last year’s great green hope, the STATES Act. Remember that one? No? Don’t feel bad, no one does. No one cares. The point is that cannabis hopefuls have spent all year yapping about legislation that doesn’t have what it takes to go the distance.
But the stakes are about to change in 2020, which could set the nation up for legal weed the following year. There’s only one catch. Americans – 66 percent of which are on board with legalizing the leaf the same as beer and tobacco – have to vote in the next election. And for the right people.
The first thing all cannabis hopefuls need to come to grips with is that the SAFE Act and the MORE Act are dead. No, that’s not official or anything. There hasn’t been a press release issued saying that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Republican-dominated Senate are refusing to entertain these bills before year’s end. But trust me on this one – SAFE and MORE are finished.
They could, however, be resurrected in 2020. But for either of them to get any further attention, the legislative process would have to start from the very beginning. And unless the Republicans in the Senate have a change of heart in the next few months, the prospect of getting these bills or any others aimed at legalizing weed nationwide isn’t going much further next year than they did in 2019. Remember, as of January, Congress is still playing with the same losing team.
It is the November election when all the magic could happen. It’s a time when the stoner stars could align and contribute to getting America high again. But that all depends on the nation’s political loyalty when it comes time to vote. There are several Senate seats up for grabs. It is conceivable that the Democrats could win these seats and take control over the Senate. If that happens, McConnell, the man presently standing in the way of cannabis reform in the U.S, would be dethroned as Senate Majority Leader. That’s when the cannabis debate could really find its footing in both chambers. Because there would no longer be anyone on the Hill that cares enough to try to stop it. And anyone who did oppose would surely be out voiced by Democratic rule.
Furthermore, a Democratic president (except for Joe Biden) would undoubtedly support most cannabis legislation, and there is even a solid chance that President Trump would sign off on it if he wins a second term. Unless, of course, Trump decides to make a statement by stamping it with a veto just to prevent the Democrats (the same ones trying to have him impeached) from making any progress. Grudges tend to have an extremely long shelf life when it comes to politics.
But here’s the deal. If both Trump and the Democrats find success in the next election, the best-case scenario for getting marijuana legalization done at the federal level in 2021 is for Trump to make it his idea and let the Democrats follow suit.
December 11, 2019 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
Saturday, December 7, 2019
Busy times over the last couple weeks has kept me from finding time to blog about a lot of notable recently-published marijuana research. Making up for the silence, here is a review of the pieces that recently caught my attention:
"Using recreational cannabis to treat insomnia: Evidence from over-the-counter sleep aid sales in Colorado" by authored by Jacqueline Doremus, Sarah Stith and Jacob Vigil published in Complementary Therapies in Medicine
"What Have Been the Public Health Impacts of Cannabis Legalisation in the USA? A Review of Evidence on Adverse and Beneficial Effects" authored by Janni Leung et al. published in Current Addiction Reports
"Are Marijuana and Alcohol Substitutes? Evidence from Neighboring Jurisdictions" authored by Benjamin Hansen as a working paper
"Frequency of cannabis and illicit opioid use among people who use drugs and report chronic pain: A longitudinal analysis" authored by Stephanie Lake et al. published in PLOS Medicine
"Trends in college students’ alcohol, nicotine, prescription opioid and other drug use after recreational marijuana legalization: 2008-2018" authored by Zoe Alley, David Kerr and Harold Bae published in Addictive Behaviors
"Postmaterialism and referenda voting to legalize marijuana" authored by John Frendreis and Raymond Tatalovich published in the International Journal of Drug Policy
"Psychotic disorders hospitalizations associated with cannabis abuse or dependence: A nationwide big data analysis" authored by Manuel Gonçalves‐Pinho, Miguel Bragança and Alberto Freitas published in International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research