Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 23, 2025

Disruption of Frontal Lobe Neural Synchrony During Cognitive Control by Alcohol Intoxication
Published on: February 6, 2019
Alignment in local approaches to alcohol and cannabis control policy: A case study of California cities and counties
Ellicott C Matthay1, Leyla Mousli2, Dorie E Apollonio3
1Center for Opioid Epidemiology and Policy, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, 180 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016, USA.
Background:
Public health experts have urged governments around the world to regulate newly legalized cannabis as they do alcohol to effectively and efficiently protect health. However, research evaluating the alignment of alcohol and cannabis policies is sparse. We assessed similarities and differences in local alcohol and cannabis control policies across California, and characterized localities adopting distinct policy approaches.
Methods:
Using standard legal epidemiologic techniques, we collected and coded local alcohol and cannabis control policies relevant to public health for 12 California counties and all incorporated cities within them (N=241). We assessed whether localities were equally stringent on alcohol and cannabis policies by comparing overall restrictiveness (summed policy scores) and 9 specific provisions that applied to both substances. We captured distinct local alcohol-cannabis policy approaches using latent class analysis, and examined this classification in relation to local demographic, socioeconomic, political, and retail market characteristics.
Results:
All 241 localities permitted alcohol sales, while 71% banned cannabis sales. Among those that did not ban cannabis sales, more stringent alcohol policy scores were associated with more stringent cannabis policy scores (linear regression coefficient: 0.16 [95% CI: 0.07, 0.25]). Local governments rarely adopted the same provisions for alcohol and cannabis (e.g., limits on hours of sale, advertising restrictions), and only two regulated the co-location of cannabis and alcohol outlets. Localities that were restrictive on alcohol yet permissive on cannabis (12%) were more urban, politically progressive, and had more low-income and racial/ethnic minority residents. Localities that were more permissive on alcohol and restrictive on cannabis (51%) were more socioeconomically advantaged.
Conclusion:
We found few similarities between local alcohol and cannabis control policies. California's experience suggests that, as governments around the world legalize cannabis, lessons learned from regulating alcohol are not routinely applied to cannabis, particularly in communities distinguished by high social and economic advantages.
More Related Videos
07:31Murine Drinking Models in the Development of Pharmacotherapies for Alcoholism: Drinking in the Dark and Two-bottle Choice
Published on: January 7, 2019
05:40The Motivation for Alcohol Reward: Predictors of Progressive-Ratio Intravenous Alcohol Self-Administration in Humans
Published on: April 28, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Drug Control Governance: Regulatory Bodies and Their Impact
Drug Regulation
Community Based Intervention
Foundations of Community Mental Health Programs
Central to the success of community-based interventions is the...
CNS Depressants: Alcohol and Nicotine
Combined Effects of Drugs: Antagonism
The most common type is receptor antagonism, where one drug acts as an antagonist to block the effects of another drug by...
Protection of Alcohols
Protection
It defines a protecting group as the masking agent to make the more reactive species inert to a given set of conditions. This concept is depicted via the illustration of liquid flow through different outlets in an assembly of pipes. The analogy helps to understand the role...