[ad_1]
A non-profit called the Public Health Institute (PHI) this week released its 5th annual State of Cannabis Report, which offers snapshot scorecards of jurisdictions in almost every county in the state. A product of PHI’s Getting it Right from the Start project, the scorecards track the adoption of recommended policies by California counties and cities. “The 2023 scorecards bring to light a patchwork of local policies that continue to fall far short of what is necessary to prevent the cannabis industry from following in the footsteps of Big Tobacco,” said PHI Tuesday in announcing the report. “Despite examples of localities that have led the way, many have not yet opted to go beyond basic state law to promote public health, protect youth, or advance social equity.”
Despite its stated emphasis on public health, however, PHI barely registers the fact that medical cannabis programs exist, and essentially disregards the health concerns of patients who utilize cannabis to treat their maladies. Instead, the scorecard issued by PHI assesses California localities based on specific policies it would like to see enacted that go beyond the regulations required by California.
“Governor Newsom’s October 8th veto of the Cannabis Candy Child Safety Act (AB1207-Irwin) made it evident that it is up to local governments to protect kids from these cannabis risks,” said Dr. Lynn Silver, MD, MPH, the founder of the project and a pediatrician. “And the need is urgent. These scorecards offer practical information for communities on how to provide legal access without driving up harmful consumption, keeping our kids safer.”
The scorecard is based on a 100-point scale, per the announcement, with “the higher score representing the more robust public health protections enacted over the last five years, and measured across six categories: retailer requirements, taxes and prices, product limits, marketing, smoke-free air, and equity and conflicts of interest.”
The program has developed scorecard methodology for both brick-and-mortar retailers and standalone delivery services, but considering the inevitable drag on sales they would incur, adoption by these groups has not been as robust as the program would like to see.
“Only 10 of the 539 California localities enacted any cannabis product restrictions,” complained PHI in its announcement. “A handful of innovative pioneers, however, illustrate the kinds of robust local action possible. SLO prioritizes retail applicants that offer low-THC products and Grass Valley and Cathedral City tax high-potency products more heavily. Recognizing the role of flavors and kid friendly marketing in initiating youth use, Contra Costa County, Watsonville, and Chico prohibit flavored inhaled products. Three jurisdictions ban cannabis-infused beverages (like orange soda). Monterey County authorizes its Health Officer to review products annually to ensure that packages are not attractive to children.” [Bold in original]
While restricting sales of cannabis to minors is a desirable public policy, incidents of “kid friendly marketing” have been generally overblown by activist groups whose intention is to reduce or impede access to certain cannabis products by adults. That is also an objective of the PHI scorecard, which prohibits “therapeutic or health claims on cannabis products, packages, or ads,” prohibits the sales of cannabis-infused beverages, limits potency, advocates a tax by THC content, and prohibits discounting on cannabis products, to name a few of the restrictions it would like to see enacted statewide.
Oddly, PHI’s methodology is a goulash of policy recommendations that includes prioritizing “equity applicants when issuing cannabis business licenses,” and requiring “hiring to prioritize low-income, transitional, or other workers from communities disadvantaged by the war on drugs.” It also contains a conflict-of-interest provision that prohibits “on-premises patient evaluations, prescriber ownership or other financial relationships with retailers, industry representation in oversight, or industry communication with application evaluation committee members.”
Notwithstanding its advocacy of equity in licensing, the methodology clearly wants the state to allow fewer cannabis outlets, not more. “Despite industry claims to the contrary,,” claims the announcement, “2023 data show that 63% of Californians live where they can legally buy cannabis (up from 56% in 2019). Many more are within an easy trip to retailers in neighboring jurisdictions. Only 3 of 58 counties had no location allowing legal sale, 36% of jurisdictions allow storefronts, and an additional 19% allow sales only by delivery, including 68 which don’t issue local licenses but permit delivery from outside their jurisdiction.” [Bold in original]
A perusal of scorecard issued for actual California counties and jurisdictions within those counties reveals scores that range from zero up to 51, the highest score achieved in the current rankings, which are for year 2022. We did not have the time or the patience to look at every scorecard, but of the ones we did look at, not one limited high potency products or prohibited discounting of products. The jurisdictions that scored higher than others tended to be those that had additional restrictions on business signage, issued health warnings to customers, dedicated tax revenue to youth, prevention, or equity programs, and mandated equity in hiring.
The California Jurisdictions’ Cannabis Policy Scores can be found here.
[ad_2]
Source link
