Five Years After Cannabis Legalization, Is It Time to Ease Restrictions on Promotion?

In the spring of 2024, the federal government is expected to report on its legislative review of the Cannabis Act (2018). One of the most contentious issues is whether to relax restrictions on cannabis promotion. This commentary describes the tension between the public health aims of legalization and the secondary aim of displacing the illicit market. We maintain that among jurisdictions that have legalized cannabis, Canada stands out as having the stated primary objective of safeguarding public health, and its restrictions on promotion are evidence-based and innovative. These measures must be preserved, even in the face of growing industry pressure to loosen them.

Punitive legal responses to prenatal drug use in the United States: A survey of state policies and systematic review of their public health impacts.

BACKGROUND: Punitive legal responses to prenatal drug use may be associated with unintended adverse health consequences. However, in a rapidly shifting policy climate, current information has not been summarized. We conducted a survey of U.S. state policies that utilize criminal or civil legal system penalties to address prenatal drug use. We then systematically identified empirical studies evaluating these policies and summarized their potential public health impacts. METHODS: Using existing databases and original statutory research, we surveyed current U.S. state-level prenatal drug use policies authorizing explicit criminalization, involuntary commitment, civil child abuse substantiation, and parental rights termination. Next, we systematically identified quantitative associations between these policies and health outcomes, restricting to U.S.-based peer-reviewed research, published January 2000-December 2022. Results described study characteristics and synthesized the evidence on health-related harms and benefits associated with punitive policies. Validity threats were described narratively. RESULTS: By 2022, two states had adopted policies explicitly authorizing criminal prosecution, and five states allowed pregnancy-specific and drug use-related involuntary civil commitment. Prenatal drug use was grounds for substantiating civil child abuse and terminating parental rights in 22 and five states, respectively. Of the 16 review-identified articles, most evaluated associations between punitive policies generally (k = 12), or civil child abuse policies specifically (k = 2), and multiple outcomes, including drug treatment utilization (k = 6), maltreatment reporting and foster care entry (k = 5), neonatal drug withdrawal syndrome (NDWS, k = 4) and other pregnancy and birth-related outcomes (k = 3). Most included studies reported null associations or suggested increases in adverse outcome following punitive policy adoption. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of U.S. states have adopted policies that respond to prenatal drug use with legal system penalties. While additional research is needed to clarify whether such approaches engender overt health harms, current evidence indicates that punitive policies are not associated with public health benefits, and therefore constitute ineffective policy.

Threaten, Distract, and Discredit: Cannabis Industry Rhetoric to Defeat Regulation of High-THC Cannabis Products in Washington State.

OBJECTIVE: Washington State legislators have attempted to regulate high delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cannabis to reduce cannabis-related harms. Historically, industry actors of other health-compromising products have influenced governments' adoption of evidence-based regulation policies. A better understanding of the industry rhetoric can be used by public health advocates to develop counterarguments and disseminate alternative narratives that protect the public's health. We analyzed the arguments used by cannabis industry actors opposing regulations to de-incentivize the availability and use of high-THC products in Washington State. METHOD: We analyzed 41 testimonies transcribed from 33 cannabis industry actors in 3 public bill hearings and one legislative work session that occurred between 2020 and 2023. Using a deductive thematic analysis, informed by industry actors' arguments opposing regulation of alcohol, tobacco, and high-sugar beverages, we developed a codebook to analyze and identify themes within cannabis industry rhetorical strategies. RESULTS: We identified three main rhetorical strategies used by cannabis industry actors to oppose THC content regulation: threaten, distract, discredit. The most frequently used rhetorical strategy was threats to economic benefits, public health, and the will of the people. The other two most apparent strategies were distracting from the bill's focus by introducing a tangential topic and discrediting the science that supported regulation of cannabis products with high THC concentration or its advocates. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis industry actors have leveraged several arguments used by industry actors of other health-compromising products to undermine initiatives to advance public health. They have also adapted rhetoric from other industries to the unique conditions of the cannabis regulatory landscape.

Wars in Gaza and Beyond: Why Protecting the Sacredness of Health Matters.

This Viewpoint discusses the importance of safeguarding health access in times armed conflict worldwide and the need to bolster compliance with international humanitarian law.

When Public Health Goes Wrong: Toward a New Concept of Public Health Error.

Studies of public health decisions that have had harmful effects tend to disagree about what constitutes a public health error. Debates exist about whether public health errors must be culpable or not, as well as about what the criteria for judging public health errors should be.

Vaccination Mandates-An Old Public Health Tool Faces New Challenges.

This Viewpoint discusses how federal vaccine requirements have helped thwart vaccine-preventable diseases as well as how growing public resistance to vaccines and judicial and legislative limits to vaccination mandates may change that.

Chapitre 3. Perturbateurs endocriniens : un enjeu sanitaire, environnemental et scientifique, éthique et juridique.

Endocrine disruptors are substances capable of interfering with our hormonal system, leading to deleterious effects. Given the many sources of exposure, the challenge is to understand the role played by these substances in the development of certain pathologies. Assessing their effects on health is therefore a scientific challenge and an important public health issue.

Fix the backlash against public health.

Societies generally have reacted to deadly epidemics by strengthening health systems, including laws. Under American federalism (the constitutional division of power between states and the federal government), individual states hold primary public health powers. State legislatures have historically granted health officials wide-ranging authority. After the anthrax attacks in the United States in 2001, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) supported the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, which granted public health officials even more expansive powers to declare a health emergency and respond swiftly. But all that ended with COVID-19, as state legislatures and courts gutted this authority. The next pandemic could be far deadlier than COVID-19, but when the public looks to federal and state governments to protect them, they may find that health officials have their hands tied behind their backs.

The Supreme Court Is Harming Public Health and the Environment.

This Viewpoint looks back at the US Supreme Court's 2021 and 2022 terms and forward to the 2023 term and beyond with a focus on decisions that affect health care, public health and safety, environmental policy, and social equity.

Navigating complex trade-offs in public health interventions.

Public health, just as any policy-related field, faces the evergreen problem of turning knowledge into action. Among other problems, there is a clash between the inherent complexity of public health problems and the inevitable push, by decision-makers and the public, to simplify them. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown the insufficiencies of our current epistemological, methodological and normative apparatus to handle such crises in a timely manner. Despite this, several authors have been arguing for the importance of engaging global crises such as Covid-19 in ways that do not oversimplify key dimensions of the issues involved. In this paper, we contribute to this emerging scholarship. Building on existing work in the field of environmental problem-solving, we propose an integrative approach to navigating complex trade-offs in public health interventions. Briefly put, we propose that decision making should be informed by an analysis of any given problem from four distinct, but interrelated, lenses: (i) values and valuation, (ii) process and governance, (iii) power and inequalities and (iv) scientific evidence, methods and concepts. This normative framework, we argue, can help with spelling out the complexity of public health problems and with spelling out the rationale behind public health decision making to non-specialists and the general public. We illustrate our approach using the controversy over wearing face masks in the Covid-19 pandemic.