Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The New Cannabis Policy Taxonomy on APIS: Making Sense of the Cannabis Policy Universe

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The Journal of Primary Prevention Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism’s Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS) is, for the first time, adding legal data pertaining to recreational cannabis use to its current offerings on alcohol policy. Now that Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia have legalized aspects of recreational cannabis, and more states are considering it, there is an urgency to provide high-quality, multi-dimensional legal data to the public health community. This article introduces the Cannabis Policy Taxonomy recently posted on APIS, and explores its theoretical and empirical contributions to the substance abuse literature and its potential for use in policy research. We also present results of interviews with public health experts in alcohol and cannabis policy, which sought to determine the most important variables to address in the initial release of cannabis policy data. From this process, we found that pricing controls emerged as the variable singled out by the largest number of experts. This analysis points to a host of vital policies that are of increasing importance to public health policy scholars and their current and future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. APIS data have been used extensively in scholarly research. To date, APIS staff have tracked 146 articles published in peer reviewed journals (see: http://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/peer-reviewed_publications_using_apis_data.html), and many more uses and examples of APIS data and concepts are available in scholarly and popular books, doctoral dissertations, master’s theses, white papers, training documents for practitioners and activists, and news articles (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism).

  2. Alcohol distribution in the U.S. is three-tiered and consists of producers, distributors, and retailers. Producers may sell products to wholesale distributors who may then sell them to retailers. Finally, retailers may sell to consumers. The impetus for this system, put in place after Prohibition, was to regulate the alcohol industry so that vertical integration of the three tiers was prohibited. The intention was to prevent abuses (e.g., counterfeit and dangerous products), and to promote responsible competition and effective collection of taxes on alcohol (Bonnie & O'Connell, 2004).

References

  • Bonnie, R. J., & O’Connell, M. E. (Eds.). (2004). Reducing underage drinking: A collective responsibility. National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Developing a Strategy to Reduce and Prevent Underage Drinking. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • Caulkins, J., Kilmer, B., Kleiman, M., MacCoun, R., Midgette, G., Ollglesby, P., et al. (2015). Considering marijuana legalization: Insights for Vermont and other jurisdictions. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaloupka, F. J., Grossman, M., & Saffer, H. (1998). The effects of price on the consequences of alcohol use and abuse. In M. Galanter (Ed.), Recent developments in alcoholism, volume 16: The consequences of alcohol (pp. 331–346). New York: Plenum Press (PMCID: PMC3860576).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Governing Data: State Marijuana Laws Map. (2015). Governing the states and localities. http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-marijuana-laws-map-medical-recreational.html. Accessed 9 December 2015.

  • Gruenewald, P. (1993). Alcohol problems and the control of availability: Theoretical and empirical issues. In M. Hilton & G. Bloss (Eds.), Economics and the prevention of alcohol-related problems: Proceedings of a workshop on economic and socioeconomic issues in the prevention of alcohol-related problems, October 10–11, 1991. Research monograph 25. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, J. (1989). The primary prevention of alcohol problems: A critical review of the research literature. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50(1), 54–88. doi:10.15288/jsa.1989.50.54 (PMID: 2648075).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS) Web site. https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/Home.html. Accessed 9 December 2015.

  • Newsom, C., Humphreys, K., & Soltani, A. (2015). Pathways report: Policy options for regulating marijuana in California. www.Safeandsmartpolicy.org. Accessed 9 December 2015.

  • Rush, B. R., Gliksman, L., & Brook, R. (1986). Alcohol availability, alcohol consumption and alcohol-related damage: The distribution of consumption model. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 47(1), 1–10. doi:10.15288/jsa.1986.47.1 (PMID: 3485738).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stockwell, T., & Gruenewald, P. (2001). Controls on the physical availability of alcohol. In N. Heather & T. Stockwell (Eds.), The essential handbook of treatment and prevention of alcohol problems. West Sussex: Wiley (RC 565 I5342 2004).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the public health scholars who were consulted in the course of this project and the manuscript reviewers whose close reading of it greatly improved the final version. This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract No. HHSN275201300002C.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sue Thomas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendment or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klitzner, M.D., Thomas, S., Schuler, J. et al. The New Cannabis Policy Taxonomy on APIS: Making Sense of the Cannabis Policy Universe. J Primary Prevent 38, 295–314 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-017-0475-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-017-0475-6

Keywords

Navigation