FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4383065536> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4383065536 endingPage "550" @default.
• W4383065536 startingPage "541" @default.
• W4383065536 abstract "The cannabis legalization movement in the United States has experienced unprecedented success in the past decade due to a wave of grassroots reforms in states across the country. The current legalization movement began in 2012, when Colorado and Washington became the first two states to legalize the use and sale of cannabis for adults aged ≥ 21 years. Since then, the use of cannabis has been legalized in 21 states, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Washington, DC. Many of these states have explicitly framed the law change as a rejection of the War on Drugs and its harms, felt disproportionately in Black and Brown communities. However, racial inequities in cannabis arrests have increased in states that have legalized cannabis for adult use. Moreover, states working to implement social equity and community reinvestment programs have made little progress toward their goals. This commentary describes how US drug policy, racist in intention, gave way to drug policy that perpetuates racism, even when its ostensible or stated goal is equity. As the United States prepares for national legalization of cannabis, it is critical that we break away from past legislation and mandate equity in cannabis policy. Developing meaningful mandates will require us to acknowledge our history of using drug policy for the racist goals of social control and extortion, study the experience of states that are trying to implement social equity programs, listen to Black leaders and other leaders of color who have developed guidance for equity-focused cannabis policy, and commit to a new paradigm. If we are willing to do these things, we may be able to legalize cannabis in an anti-racist way that will stop causing harm and enable us to effectively implement reparative practices. The cannabis legalization movement in the United States has experienced unprecedented success in the past decade due to a wave of grassroots reforms in states across the country. The current legalization movement began in 2012, when Colorado and Washington became the first two states to legalize the use and sale of cannabis for adults aged ≥ 21 years. Since then, the use of cannabis has been legalized in 21 states, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Washington, DC. Many of these states have explicitly framed the law change as a rejection of the War on Drugs and its harms, felt disproportionately in Black and Brown communities. However, racial inequities in cannabis arrests have increased in states that have legalized cannabis for adult use. Moreover, states working to implement social equity and community reinvestment programs have made little progress toward their goals. This commentary describes how US drug policy, racist in intention, gave way to drug policy that perpetuates racism, even when its ostensible or stated goal is equity. As the United States prepares for national legalization of cannabis, it is critical that we break away from past legislation and mandate equity in cannabis policy. Developing meaningful mandates will require us to acknowledge our history of using drug policy for the racist goals of social control and extortion, study the experience of states that are trying to implement social equity programs, listen to Black leaders and other leaders of color who have developed guidance for equity-focused cannabis policy, and commit to a new paradigm. If we are willing to do these things, we may be able to legalize cannabis in an anti-racist way that will stop causing harm and enable us to effectively implement reparative practices. The movement to legalize cannabis at the state level is, in part, a response to the War on Drugs. Although ballot initiatives legalizing cannabis for adult use in Colorado (2012), Washington (2012), Oregon (2014), and Alaska (2014) did not mention the War on Drugs or social equity provisions for people harmed by it, arguments in favor of legalization included these themes.1Martin Jonathan Seattle Times staff. Voters approve I-502 legalizing marijuana. The Seattle Times, 2012Google Scholar, 2State of ColoradoPersonal use and regulation of marijuana. Colorado Secretary of State, 2011, 3State of Washington. Initiative Measure No. 502: An act relating to marijuana. https://lcb.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/I-502/i502.pdf2011.Google Scholar, 4State of OregonControl, Regulation, and Taxation of Marijuana and Industrial Hemp Act. Secretary of State, 2014, 5State of Alaska. An act to tax and regulate the production, sale, and use of marijuana. https://www.elections.alaska.gov/petitions/13PSUM/13PSUM-Proposed-Law.pdf2013.Google Scholar States that later legalized retail cannabis, such as Massachusetts (2016), Illinois (2019), New Jersey (2020), and New York (2021), named the War on Drugs as a primary reason for legalization.6Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2016/Chapter3342016.Google Scholar, 7The State of Illinois. Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act. Vol 410 ILCS 7052019. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=3992&ChapterID=35.Google Scholar, 8The State of New JerseyNew Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act.2021https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2020/PL21/16_.PDF?_gl=1*1ezps1q*_ga*NDgzODQ0NzM4LjE2NDE1OTY5OTA.*_ga_MK89HXF6NQ*MTY0NDMzNjk0MC4zLjAuMTY0NDMzNjk0MC4wGoogle Scholar, 9The State of New YorkThe Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (“MRTA”).2021 These states began to call for reparative cannabis policy within the laws. For example, the Illinois law states: “[I]n the interest of remedying the harms resulting from the disproportionate enforcement of cannabis-related laws, the General Assembly finds and declares that a social equity program should offer, among other things, financial assistance and license application benefits to individuals most directly and adversely impacted by the enforcement of cannabis-related laws.”7The State of Illinois. Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act. Vol 410 ILCS 7052019. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=3992&ChapterID=35.Google Scholar The New York law states that the cannabis control board has the discretion to determine the number of registrations, licenses and permits to be issued, suggesting they do so “in a manner that prioritizes social and economic equity applicants with the goal of fifty percent awarded to such applicants.”7The State of Illinois. Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act. Vol 410 ILCS 7052019. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=3992&ChapterID=35.Google Scholar Despite the increasing emphasis on equity in state cannabis law, hopes that legalization would end racial inequities in cannabis arrest rates were not realized, nor were benefits to communities that were harmed by the War on Drugs. Research from states that have legalized cannabis for adult use shows that although the total number of arrests for cannabis have decreased, racial inequities in arrests remain or continue to increase.10Edwards E Greytak E Madubuonwu B et al.A Tale of Two Countries.2020,11Gunadi C Shi Y Cannabis decriminalization and racial disparity in arrests for cannabis possession.Soc Sci Med. 2022; 293114672Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar States that have sought to implement social equity provisions have not achieved what they hoped.12Nurys CamargLong past time for Mass. to take equity seriously in marijuana industry. The Boston Globe, 2021Google Scholar,13Title S Fair and Square: How to Effectively Incorporate Social Equity Into Cannabis Laws and Regulations. Drug Enforcement and Policy Center. Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law, 2021Google Scholar Today, most cannabis companies are owned by White men.14Berke Jeremy Lee Yeji Jesse Top executives at the 14 largest cannabis companies are overwhelmingly white men, an Insider analysis shows. Business Insider, 2021Google Scholar,15Taylor Amiah Black cannabis entrepreneurs account for less than 2% of the nation's marijuana businesses. Fortune, 2022Google Scholar Thus, a great deal of work remains to bring equity and justice to cannabis policy, enforcement, and the industry at large. To understand why recent efforts to advance equity through cannabis laws have not been more successful, it is critical to understand the history of US drug policy, the War on Drugs, and the degree to which drug policy developed as a tool for social control. With an estimated 300 million users worldwide (3.86% of 7.8 billion people), cannabis is the most commonly used internationally regulated drug today and likely has been throughout most of human history.16United Nations Office of Drugs and CrimePrevalence-general.2020, 17Merlin MD Archaeological Evidence for the Tradition of Psychoactive Plant Use in the Old World.Economic Botany. 2003; 57: 295-323Crossref Google Scholar, 18Ren M Tang Z Wu X et al.The origins of cannabis smoking: Chemical residue evidence from the first millennium BCE in the Pamirs.Sci Adv. 2019; 5: eaaw1391Crossref PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar The first law governing cannabis in the United States appeared less than a century ago,17Merlin MD Archaeological Evidence for the Tradition of Psychoactive Plant Use in the Old World.Economic Botany. 2003; 57: 295-323Crossref Google Scholar,18Ren M Tang Z Wu X et al.The origins of cannabis smoking: Chemical residue evidence from the first millennium BCE in the Pamirs.Sci Adv. 2019; 5: eaaw1391Crossref PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar but the history of regulating drugs can be traced back to 1750 BCE when Hammurabi's Code protected the Babylonian patrons of taverns and users of alcohol.19King LW The Code of Hammurabi. Trans. Paulo J. S. Pereira, 1915 However, when drug policy was rebooted in the second millennium, it was strictly tied to the economic interests and the imperialism of powerful countries:In its initial stages, the effort to control drugs at an international level was aimed at limiting the reach and effects of colonial empires. Psychoactive substances were a glue of empires in the period of European colonial expansion from about 1500 until the late 19th century. From the point of view of those seeking to create markets and dependence on trade, psychoactive substances were an obvious choice; once the demand for them has been created, it becomes self-sustaining. Thus, psychoactive substances became a favourite commodity from which to extract revenues for the state, either with excise taxes or through a state-run or farmed-out monopoly.20Humphreys K Edwards G Caulkins JP et al.Drug policy and the public good. OUP Oxford, United Kingdom2010Google Scholar It might be surprising to see no discussion of civil liberties, civil rights, the costs and benefits of incarceration, or potential effects on health—all elements that characterize the contemporary drug policy conversation. The truth is that drug policy developed from the greed of nations. Nowhere in history is this more evident than in the Opium Wars fought between Great Britain and China in the 19th century or in domestic US policy in the 20th century. Arab traders introduced opium to the Chinese sometime between the fifth and seventh centuries. The drug was praised and widely used to “cure” diarrhea, induce sleep, and reduce pain.21Feige C Miron JA The opium wars, opium legalization and opium consumption in China.Applied Economics Letters. 2008; 15: 911-913Crossref Scopus (8) Google Scholar The English arrived in China in the 17th century and opened the first legal opium trading station in China in the 18th century. Later, between the late 18th and the early 19th centuries, Britain's East India Trading Company obtained a monopoly on opium from the two major trading ports of India and began exchanging it for tea from China.22Beeching J The Chinese Opium Wars. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, United Kingdom1977Google Scholar By 1729, opium use had become a social problem deemed unacceptable by the Chinese emperor, who delivered an edict forbidding the sale of opium for smoking. Throughout the century, the Chinese government was wary of the increasing British influence on their country through the opium trade, resulting in another imperial edict banning the import of opium. The following century and a half were characterized by the moral purism of officials who went to increasingly desperate lengths to end what they saw as a moral failing. For the citizens of China, this meant increasingly punishing laws against the use of opium, including capital punishment for addiction to opium and for the sale of opium. Nevertheless, opium use continued to increase. For the British traders importing the opium, hostility and violence became sanctioned tactics of the Chinese government, leading to the Opium Wars. After losing both wars, the Chinese had little choice but to agree to terms very favorable to the British: opium was legalized in China in 1858 and taxed at a rate of approximately 8%.21Feige C Miron JA The opium wars, opium legalization and opium consumption in China.Applied Economics Letters. 2008; 15: 911-913Crossref Scopus (8) Google Scholar Although the current context in cannabis policy is quite different, there are many lessons to be learned from this period. Opium was a tool of revenue extraction and international political control for the British Empire. It is one of the clearest examples of how drug policy can be used to the advantage of one group of people at the expense of another. At the same time, the moral purism of the Chinese government which posed ever-harsher penalties for drug use despite having no evidence of the effectiveness of such practices, bears much resemblance to the War on Drugs in the United States. In the late 19th century, smoking opium was largely considered a cultural norm of the Chinese Americans who worked on building the railroads and other industries in the American West. Like many examples of race-specific drug use stereotypes, however, this was a false oversimplification. The truth is more complex, involving the socioeconomic drivers of race and class hierarchies as well as the economic prospects of White Americans. The competition for jobs between working class White people and Chinese immigrants led to a campaign of excluding Chinese immigrants from the labor force between 1875 and 1880.23Helmer J Vietorisz T Drug use, the labor market and class conflict. Drug Abuse Council, Inc., Washington, DC1974Google Scholar There is no record or official notice of Chinese-operated opium dens until this large-scale labor exclusion period.23Helmer J Vietorisz T Drug use, the labor market and class conflict. Drug Abuse Council, Inc., Washington, DC1974Google Scholar Opium use became a part of this hostile stereotype against Chinese immigrants and was even conflated with leprosy at times.24Trauner JB The Chinese as Medical Scapegoats in San Francisco, 1870-1905.California History. 1978; 57: 70-87Crossref Scopus (47) Google Scholar These misconceptions and racist stereotypes fueled an anti-Chinese campaign (Figure 1) that concluded in the first opium legislation in the country enacted in San Francisco in 1875. “It was its character as a Chinese habit, not as a narcotic, which warranted the earliest legislation against opium in the country.”23Helmer J Vietorisz T Drug use, the labor market and class conflict. Drug Abuse Council, Inc., Washington, DC1974Google Scholar A similar story can be told about cocaine and Black Americans a few decades later. In the early 20th century, horror stories regarding the actions of Black men using cocaine were widespread. Newspapers reported that “negro cocaine fiends” were raping White women, with the police powerless to stop them.25Hungtinton Williams E Negro cocaine “fiends” new southern menace. New York Times, 1914Google Scholar However, inpatient psychiatric treatment data, policing data, and import records from that time paint a very different picture, revealing low prevalence rates for cocaine or any drug use among Black people in the South.23Helmer J Vietorisz T Drug use, the labor market and class conflict. Drug Abuse Council, Inc., Washington, DC1974Google Scholar,26Brecher EM Licit and illicit drugs. The Consumers Union Report on narcotics, stimulants, depressants, inhalants, halluncinogens, and marijuana—including caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA1972Google Scholar The fear spread by news outlets coincided with the “peak of lynchings, legal segregation, and voting laws all designed to remove political and social power from [Black people].”27Musto DF The American disease: Origins of narcotic control. Oxford University Press, 1999Google Scholar Cocaine use peaked in 1907, followed by a sharp decrease and stabilization at low rates during World War I, a period during which Black people used cocaine at significantly lower rates than white people.26Brecher EM Licit and illicit drugs. The Consumers Union Report on narcotics, stimulants, depressants, inhalants, halluncinogens, and marijuana—including caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA1972Google Scholar The hypocrisy and campaigns of racism and stigma may be hauntingly familiar to readers who lived through the crack epidemic in the United States. If we had paid attention to this lesson of history, perhaps we could have avoided the incalculable damage of this period. Unfortunately, history was allowed to rhyme, and the same playbook of racist rhetoric, images, and stigma paved way for more punitive drug policies, including the infamous 100:1 sentencing disparity for the posession of crack cocaine to powder cocaine established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.28Blumstein A The notorious 100: 1 Crack: powder disparity–the data tell us that it is time to restore the balance.Federal Sentencing Reporter. 2003; 16: 87-92Crossref Google Scholar,29United States Sentencing CommissionReport to congress: mandatory minimum penalties in the federal criminal justice system.Federal Sentencing Reporter. 2012; 24: 185-192Crossref Google Scholar Before federal drug policy legislation was considered in the United States, cannabis, opiates, and cocaine were popular and largely unexceptional everyday items in American life.27Musto DF The American disease: Origins of narcotic control. Oxford University Press, 1999Google Scholar The lack of regulation of these substances allowed for the proliferation of “patent medicines”, i.e., over-the-counter concoctions often brewed with psychoactive substances in a proprietary formula. The most famous example is the original formulation of Coca-Cola that contained a form of cocaine, however, numerous other products used psychoactive substances marketed with a familiar blurriness between medicinal and recreational use (Figure 2). Although there were some federal drug policies that preceded it, the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 dramatically changed the landscape of drug use in the United States, as well as how we view people who use drugs. Section two of the Harrison Act criminalized the act of prescribing narcotics to those who had become dependent on the drugs. This resulted in the criminalization of 250,000 people, as well as their health care practitioners.30Hohenstein K Just what the doctor ordered: the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, the Supreme Court, and the federal regulation of medical practice, 1915-1919.J. Sup. Ct. Hist. 2001; 26: 231Google Scholar Before the Harrison Act, drug use existed as a relatively safe component of the everyday life of many Americans. After the act was passed, thousands of physicians were arrested for prescribing narcotics to people who had become dependent on them, and the fear and stigma associated with using and selling narcotics spread quickly.31Epstein EJ Agency of Fear: Opiates and Political Power in America. Verso, New York1977: 104Google Scholar The arrested physicians, now serving their sentences in jails and prisons, were forced to close their clinics and abandon their patients. To meet the demand of these many thousands of drug users who no longer had access to a safe supply, the first illicit drug market developed.27Musto DF The American disease: Origins of narcotic control. Oxford University Press, 1999Google Scholar Drug use came to be widely viewed as an antisocial and degenerative activity.27Musto DF The American disease: Origins of narcotic control. Oxford University Press, 1999Google Scholar Therefore, this class of people was not just hurt by drug policy but was also created by drug policy. The origin of cannabis policy is another example motivated by racism and social control, this time against Mexican Americans in the 1930s. In this case, Mexican immigrants certainly were using cannabis, a common custom not unlike the use of alcohol among Americans. However, there was almost no awareness of, or concern about, cannabis use within law enforcement or the legal community before the 1930s. As in the case with Chinese immigrants and opium, conflict began when working class jobs were threatened.32Bonnie RJ Whitebread CH Forbidden fruit and the tree of knowledge - An inquiry into the legal history of American marijuana prohibition.Virginia Law Review. 1970; 56: 971-1203Crossref Google Scholar The Federal Marihuana Tax Act (FMTA), which criminalized cannabis, was passed in 1937. It was built on top of the prior Harrison Act in response to political pressure from states bordering Mexico. Many members of the US House of Representatives famously did not even know what cannabis was or what the act was introducing.32Bonnie RJ Whitebread CH Forbidden fruit and the tree of knowledge - An inquiry into the legal history of American marijuana prohibition.Virginia Law Review. 1970; 56: 971-1203Crossref Google Scholar The brief explanation for the new policy, and for the origins of the pressure to change it, is that cannabis was used by Mexican immigrants to the United States: if cannabis became too expensive because of increased taxes, these immigrants would return to Mexico.32Bonnie RJ Whitebread CH Forbidden fruit and the tree of knowledge - An inquiry into the legal history of American marijuana prohibition.Virginia Law Review. 1970; 56: 971-1203Crossref Google Scholar Under the FMTA, possession of cannabis without a written order was punishable with a fine up to $2000 and up to five years in prison. In 1970, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) replaced most of the federal regulations regarding psychoactive substances that came before it, including the FMTA, reinforcing the illegality of all previously regulated substances. The CSA clearly stated what the authority of the federal government would be, and also provided a framework within which all existing and new substances could be regulated based on three criteria: abuse potential, safety, and medical utility (Figure 3). Under the CSA, cannabis was classified alongside heroin and hallucinogens as a substance with a high potential for abuse that was unsafe to use under medical supervision and no accepted medical use.33U.S. Department of JusticeTitle 21 United States Code (USC) Controlled Substances Act. U.S. Department of Justice, 1970Google Scholar This decision was, and continues to be, highly controversial, with the US House Report recommending that Schedule I be applied to cannabis “at least until the completion of certain studies now under way.”34Smith A Marijuana as a schedule I substance: political ploy or accepted science.Santa Clara L. Rev. 1999; 40: 1137Google Scholar This recommendation enabled the US government to avoid the political challenge of legalizing cannabis. It also effectively repackaged the explicitly racist FMTA as a new policy, the CSA, which produced the same punitive outcomes in the name of public safety. It was not until many years later when a quotation from Nixon's aide, John Ehrlichman, was published by Dan Baum for an article in Harper's Magazine confirming what many suspected, that the CSA was also motivated by the need for social control: “You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”35Baum D. Legalize It All. Harper’s magazine. Published March 31, 2016. https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/Google Scholar Each iteration of major federal drug policy in the US has been an iteration on old policies that were explicitly racist to become new policies perpetuating racism towards the enemy of the day. The effectiveness of the CSA in reducing drug use remains largely unclear.36Spillane JF Debating the Controlled Substances Act.Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004; 76: 17-29Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 37Crosby DL Burke LB Kennedy JS Drug scheduling - What effects?.in: Paper presented at: Annual meeting of the American Pharmaceutical Association. 1978Google Scholar, 38Anthony JC The effect of federal drug law on the incidence of drug abuse.J Health Polit Policy Law. 1979; 4: 87-108Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar However, when measured as a law intended to perpetuate systemic racism, its effects are indisputable. After the passage of the CSA, President Nixon famously declared drug abuse “public enemy number one.”39Richard Nixon FoundationPresident Nixon Declares Drug Abuse “Public Enemy Number One”. Richard Nixon Foundation, 2016Google Scholar This statement to the nation marked the beginning of the modern War on Drugs in the United States. Since that time, the War on Drugs has caused enormous harm to Black and Brown individuals, families, and communities. It is a public health crisis.40Alexander M The New Jim Crow. Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press, New York2012Google Scholar, 41American Public Health AssociationPolicy Number 20206: A Public Health Approach to Regulating Commercially Legalized Cannabis Policy Statements.2020, 42American Public Health AssociationPolicy Number LB20-04: Structural Racism is a Public Health Crisis: Impact on the Black Community.2020 In 2018, Black people were arrested for cannabis possession at nearly four times the rate of White people, although national data indicate similar rates of use and that White people are more likely than Black people to report having used marijuana at least once in their lives.10Edwards E Greytak E Madubuonwu B et al.A Tale of Two Countries.2020,43Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2019 NSDUH Detailed Tables, Table 1.25B. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2019-nsduh-detailed-tables. Published 2020.Google Scholar These arrests have led to the mass incarceration of Black and Brown Americans.40Alexander M The New Jim Crow. Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press, New York2012Google Scholar Numerous studies document the harm that occurs during incarceration, including increased exposure to violence and sexual assault44Acker J BP Arkin E Leviton L Parsons J Hobor G Mass Incarceration Threatens Health Equity in America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ2019; higher rates of communicable disease, including COVID-1945Natoli LJ Vu KL Sukhija-Cohen AC et al.Incarceration and COVID-19: Recommendations to Curb COVID-19 Disease Transmission in Prison Facilities and Surrounding Communities.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar; higher rates of chronic health conditions46Massoglia M Remster B Linkages Between Incarceration and Health.Public Health Rep. 2019; 134: 8S-14SCrossref PubMed Scopus (75) Google Scholar; and nutritionally inadequate food and degrading living conditions.44Acker J BP Arkin E Leviton L Parsons J Hobor G Mass Incarceration Threatens Health Equity in America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ2019 Studies also report the harm that occurs following incarceration as a result of having a criminal record. Outcomes include unstable housing and reduced employment opportunities, which in turn lead to financial strain and poor physical and mental health outcomes.44Acker J BP Arkin E Leviton L Parsons J Hobor G Mass Incarceration Threatens Health Equity in America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ2019,47Alang S McAlpine D McCreedy E et al.Police brutality and Black health: Setting the agenda for public health scholars.Am J Public Health. 2017; 107: 662-665Crossref PubMed Scopus (199) Google Scholar Incarceration also has intergenerational effects. Children of incarcerated parents experience the loss of a parent's care and loss of stability, increased rates of poverty, homelessness, foster care placement, and negative physical and mental health conditions, such as asthma and depression.44Acker J BP Arkin E Leviton L Parsons J Hobor G Mass Incarceration Threatens Health Equity in America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ2019 Furthermore, even when arrests do not result in incarceration, they often lead to many of the same long-term negative consequences as incarceration because entanglement in the legal system increases policing and other forms of social control and reduces access to adequate employment and housing.40Alexander M The New Jim Crow. Mass incarc" @default.
• W4383065536 created "2023-07-05" @default.
• W4383065536 creator A5066465721 @default.
• W4383065536 creator A5088326277 @default.
• W4383065536 date "2023-06-01" @default.
• W4383065536 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W4383065536 title "Cannabis Policy in the 21st Century: Mandating an Equitable Future and Shedding the Racist Past" @default.
• W4383065536 cites W1016833489 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W1899159612 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W2002482713 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W2087848624 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W2095161567 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W2095691123 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W2098776952 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W2115848250 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W2286858989 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W2602516952 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W2944811075 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W2949899735 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W3124744333 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W3201447315 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W4200430769 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W4205503456 @default.
• W4383065536 cites W4220729879 @default.
• W4383065536 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2023.05.001" @default.
• W4383065536 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37414505" @default.
• W4383065536 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4383065536 type Work @default.
• W4383065536 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W4383065536 countsByYear W43830655362023 @default.
• W4383065536 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4383065536 hasAuthorship W4383065536A5066465721 @default.
• W4383065536 hasAuthorship W4383065536A5088326277 @default.
• W4383065536 hasBestOaLocation W43830655361 @default.
• W4383065536 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W4383065536 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W4383065536 hasConcept C2777056318 @default.
• W4383065536 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4383065536 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W4383065536 hasConceptScore W4383065536C118552586 @default.
• W4383065536 hasConceptScore W4383065536C144024400 @default.
• W4383065536 hasConceptScore W4383065536C2777056318 @default.
• W4383065536 hasConceptScore W4383065536C71924100 @default.
• W4383065536 hasConceptScore W4383065536C73484699 @default.
• W4383065536 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W4383065536 hasLocation W43830655361 @default.
• W4383065536 hasLocation W43830655362 @default.
• W4383065536 hasOpenAccess W4383065536 @default.
• W4383065536 hasPrimaryLocation W43830655361 @default.
• W4383065536 hasRelatedWork W1506200166 @default.
• W4383065536 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W4383065536 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W4383065536 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4383065536 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W4383065536 hasRelatedWork W2999908913 @default.
• W4383065536 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W4383065536 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
• W4383065536 hasRelatedWork W3108674512 @default.
• W4383065536 hasRelatedWork W3112600857 @default.
• W4383065536 hasVolume "45" @default.
• W4383065536 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4383065536 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4383065536 workType "article" @default.