This study estimated the extent of cannabis deliveries in violation of local delivery bans in California to assess the need for enforcing local bans on nonmedical cannabis delivery and the relevance of expanding home deliveries of medical cannabis to any part of California (i.e. Senate Bill (SB) 1186).

Adults who used cannabis in the past month were selected from the 2021 and 2022 California Health Interview Surveys (CHIS) (n = 6,841). Delivery policies affecting study participants were determined by linking residential coordinates and corresponding jurisdictions to the California Cannabis Local Laws database. Associations between delivery policy and use of a delivery service were tested in logit models.

Findings: The two principal findings were the high percentage of deliveries to banned jurisdictions (37.6 %) and the null association between a delivery ban and use of a delivery service. Although exclusive medical users had significantly greater odds of home delivery than nonmedical cannabis users, the association was not moderated by delivery policy.

Authors conclude that violation of local cannabis delivery bans was common practice in California in 2021 and 2022. While subsequent enactment of Senate Bill 1186 reduced local delivery restrictions on medical cannabis, delivery bans on nonmedical cannabis remain common. Thus, jurisdictions that ban the activity should consider greater enforcement of delivery laws.

Summary: State and local policies prohibiting the sales of flavored tobacco have been effective in curtailing retail availability and sales of products across the United States. Less is known about the use of flavored tobacco which could vary as a function of type of ordinance, product category, policy implementation, and other factors.

The 2019–2020 California Health Interview Surveys (CHIS) were used to estimate flavored and nonflavored tobacco use among adults residing in a California jurisdiction with a comprehensive, partial, or no-flavored tobacco sales restriction (FTSR). Multinomial logistic regression models, which accounted for clustering within jurisdictions, were separately developed for outcomes corresponding to use of any tobacco, noncigarette tobacco products (NCTPs), electronic nicotine delivery systems, and conventional cigarettes. Individual-level effects of policy on tobacco use were estimated due to the overlap between the survey periods and effective policy dates.

Findings: Approximately 22% of Californians were subject to a partial or comprehensive FTSR by December 31, 2020. Accounting for potential confounders, residents of jurisdictions with a comprehensive FTSR (vs. no ban) had 30% lower odds of using any flavored tobacco. The strongest and only statistically significant association by product category was exposure to a comprehensive FTSR and use of a flavored NCTP. Null or positive associations were primarily observed between a partial FTSR and flavored tobacco use, as well as associations between any FTSR and nonflavored tobacco use.

Recent passage of a statewide ban in California will close gaps from the patchwork of local policies and eliminate most partial FTSR exemptions. However, state law still exempts the sales of some flavored tobacco products (e.g., hookah), leaving jurisdictions the option of enacting comprehensive FTSRs that may be more effective than partial FTSRs in reducing use of flavored tobacco.

Read the Publication:

• Journal Article: Variation in Adults' Use of Flavored Tobacco Products by Sales Restrictions in California Jurisdictions