Suchergebnisse

ImportanceAs marijuana continues to be legalized in many states, little is known about best regulatory practice, exposing the population to significant potential harm.ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which potential best practices, including those from tobacco control, were incorporated into state and local marijuana policies in California.Design and settingCalifornia legalized medical marijuana in 1996 and adult recreational use in 2016, effective in January 2018. A cross-sectional study with data collection and analysis from February 1 to November 30, 2019, measured the adoption of potential demand reduction and youth protection best practices, including restrictions on sales, products, marketing, warnings, and taxation. Laws in effect by January 31, 2019, were verified and all 539 California local jurisdictions were studied.Main outcomes and measuresAdoption of potential best practices in marijuana laws for demand reduction and youth protection.ResultsThe laws of 534 of California's 539 jurisdictions (99%) were successfully identified; 263 of these 534 jurisdictions (49%) allowed any retail sale of marijuana, covering 57% of the state's population. More than one-third of jurisdictions allow sales of marijuana for adult recreational use (203 of 534 [38%]); of those, 122 allow storefront dispensaries and 81 allow sales by delivery only. A total of 257 of 534 jurisdictions (48%) allow medical sales. Of 147 jurisdictions allowing medical or adult use dispensaries, 93 (63%) limited the number of licenses, with a mean of 1 store for every 19 058 residents (range, 154-355 143). The state imposed no limits on number of dispensaries or deliverers. Forty-two jurisdictions increased the state-specified distances required between dispensaries and schools. Only 8 jurisdictions allowing retail sales imposed restrictions on products exceeding state regulations; 1 prohibited sale of flavored products, 3 prohibited sale of marijuana-infused beverages, and 5 imposed additional restrictions on edible marijuana products. No jurisdictions limited potency of products sold, although 1 established a potency-linked tax. The state did not limit or tax potency, except for establishing a standard 10-mg dose of tetrahydrocannabinol for edible marijuana products, nor did they limit manufacturing or sale of flavored products. The state required only a health warning in 6-point font on packages. Twenty-seven jurisdictions required additional health warnings in stores or on packages, 27 allowed onsite consumption of marijuana products, and 13 allowed marijuana-related events. More than half of jurisdictions legalizing any cannabis commerce (154 of 289 [53%]) did not tax marijuana locally and little revenue was captured for prevention. Much of the state excise and cultivation taxes is slated for youth substance use prevention and treatment.Conclusions and relevanceIn implementing legalization of marijuana in California, local policies varied widely. Where marijuana was legalized, many lessons from tobacco control to reduce demand, limit harm, and prevent youth use were not adopted, potentially creating greater risk of harm.

ImportanceAs marijuana continues to be legalized in many states, little is known about best regulatory practice, exposing the population to significant potential harm.ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which potential best practices, including those from tobacco control, were incorporated into state and local marijuana policies in California.Design and settingCalifornia legalized medical marijuana in 1996 and adult recreational use in 2016, effective in January 2018. A cross-sectional study with data collection and analysis from February 1 to November 30, 2019, measured the adoption of potential demand reduction and youth protection best practices, including restrictions on sales, products, marketing, warnings, and taxation. Laws in effect by January 31, 2019, were verified and all 539 California local jurisdictions were studied.Main outcomes and measuresAdoption of potential best practices in marijuana laws for demand reduction and youth protection.ResultsThe laws of 534 of California's 539 jurisdictions (99%) were successfully identified; 263 of these 534 jurisdictions (49%) allowed any retail sale of marijuana, covering 57% of the state's population. More than one-third of jurisdictions allow sales of marijuana for adult recreational use (203 of 534 [38%]); of those, 122 allow storefront dispensaries and 81 allow sales by delivery only. A total of 257 of 534 jurisdictions (48%) allow medical sales. Of 147 jurisdictions allowing medical or adult use dispensaries, 93 (63%) limited the number of licenses, with a mean of 1 store for every 19 058 residents (range, 154-355 143). The state imposed no limits on number of dispensaries or deliverers. Forty-two jurisdictions increased the state-specified distances required between dispensaries and schools. Only 8 jurisdictions allowing retail sales imposed restrictions on products exceeding state regulations; 1 prohibited sale of flavored products, 3 prohibited sale of marijuana-infused beverages, and 5 imposed additional restrictions on edible marijuana products. No jurisdictions limited potency of products sold, although 1 established a potency-linked tax. The state did not limit or tax potency, except for establishing a standard 10-mg dose of tetrahydrocannabinol for edible marijuana products, nor did they limit manufacturing or sale of flavored products. The state required only a health warning in 6-point font on packages. Twenty-seven jurisdictions required additional health warnings in stores or on packages, 27 allowed onsite consumption of marijuana products, and 13 allowed marijuana-related events. More than half of jurisdictions legalizing any cannabis commerce (154 of 289 [53%]) did not tax marijuana locally and little revenue was captured for prevention. Much of the state excise and cultivation taxes is slated for youth substance use prevention and treatment.Conclusions and relevanceIn implementing legalization of marijuana in California, local policies varied widely. Where marijuana was legalized, many lessons from tobacco control to reduce demand, limit harm, and prevent youth use were not adopted, potentially creating greater risk of harm.

OBJETIVO: Identificar a percepção de disponibilidade e oferta de apoio social informal e formal entre idosas de uma localidade de baixa renda do Município do Rio de Janeiro. MÉTODOS: Estudo descritivo, de corte seccional realizado por meio de inquérito domiciliar com 369 (83,5%) idosas da comunidade. RESULTADOS: As mulheres tinham condição social desfavorável (49,3% eram não letrados, 71,3% não tinham companheiro, 62,3% referiram renda mensal de até um salário mínimo e 22,0% não tinham renda). Os tipos de apoio informais mais recebidos foram dinheiro, cuidado pessoal e companhia para se locomover. No entanto, elas se apoiavam no cuidado dos netos, moradia e dinheiro. Apenas 20% declararam receber apoio do Estado ou instituições, destacando-se, sobretudo, a cesta básica. As três principais fontes desses apoios formais foram: governo municipal, Igreja e governo estadual. CONCLUSÃO: O fluxo das relações de troca foi maior no sentido das idosas para suas famílias do que o contrário. Ao cuidar dos netos, as idosas possibilitavam que seus filhos trabalhem e, consequentemente, aumentem a renda familiar. ; OBJECTIVE: To identify the perceived availability and provision of informal and formal social support among elderly women in a low income area of the municipality of Rio de Janeiro. METHODS: This is descriptive and cross-sectional study; done by using household survey with 369 (83.5%) elderly in the community. RESULTS: Elderly women had an adverse social condition (49.3% were illiterate, 71.3% had no partner, 62.3% reported a monthly income of up to minimum wage and 22.0% had no income.) The most common informal types of support were: money, personal care and companionship for locomotion. However, they relied on the care of grandchildren, housing and money. Only 20% reported receiving support from the state or institutions, most of them as basic food. The three main sources of formal supports were: the municipal government, the church and, the state government. CONCLUSION: The trade of relations had more weight on the side of the older, because the when the elderly cares for their grandchildren, the parents could work and thus increase the household income. ; OBJETIVO: Identificar la percepción de disponibilidad y ofrecimiento de apoyo social informal y formal entre ancianas de una localidad de baja renta del Municipio de Rio de Janeiro. MÉTODOS: Se trata de un estudio descriptivo, de corte seccional, realizado por medio de encuesta domiciliar con 369 (83,5%) ancianas de la comunidad. RESULTADOS: Las mujeres tenían una condición social desfavorable (49,3% eran analfabetas, 71,3% no tenían compañero, 62,3% informaron una renta mensual de hasta un salario mínimo y 22,0% no tenían renta). Los tipos de apoyo informales más frecuentes fueron dinero, cuidado personal y compañía para la locomoción. Sin embargo, ellas apoyaban en el cuidado de los nietos, vivienda y dinero. Apenas 20% declararon recibir apoyo del estado o instituciones, destacándose, sobre todo, la alimentación básica. Las tres principales fuentes de esos apoyos formales fueron: gobierno municipal, iglesia y gobierno estatal. CONCLUSIÓN: El flujo de las relaciones de intercambio fue más fuerte desde las ancianas hacia sus familias. Debido a que, al cuidar de los nietos, las ancianas posibilitaban que sus hijos pudiesen trabajar y, consecuentemente, aumentar la renta familiar.