BACKGROUND:Cannabis exposures reported to the California Poison Control System increased following the initiation of recreational cannabis sales on 1 January 2018 (i.e., "commercialization"). We evaluated whether local cannabis control policies adopted by 2021 were associated with shifts in harmful cannabis exposures. METHODS:Using cannabis control policies collected for all 539 California cities and counties in 2020-2021, we applied a differences-in-differences design with negative binomial regression to test the association of policies with harmful cannabis exposures reported to California Poison Control System (2011-2020), before and after commercialization. We considered three policy categories: bans on storefront recreational retail cannabis businesses, overall restrictiveness, and specific recommended provisions (restricting product types or potency, packaging and labeling restrictions, and server training requirements). RESULTS:Localities that ultimately banned storefront recreational retail cannabis businesses had fewer harmful cannabis exposures for children aged <13 years (rate ratio = 0.82; 95% confidence interval = 0.65, 1.02), but not for people aged >13 years (rate ratio = 0.97; 95% confidence interval = 0.85, 1.11). Of 167 localities ultimately permitting recreational cannabis sales, overall restrictiveness was not associated with harmful cannabis exposures among children aged <13 years, but for people aged >13 years, a 1-standard deviation increase in ultimate restrictiveness was associated with fewer harmful cannabis exposures (rate ratio = 0.93; 95% confidence interval = 0.86, 1.01). For recommended provisions, estimates were generally too imprecise to detect associations with harmful cannabis exposures. CONCLUSION:Bans on storefront retail and other restrictive approaches to regulating recreational cannabis may be associated with fewer harmful cannabis exposures for some age groups following statewide commercialization.

Objectives. To assess whether cannabis control policies that may protect public health were adopted evenly across California localities with differing sociodemographic compositions.Methods. From November 2020 to January 2021, we measured cannabis control policies for 241 localities across California and linked them to data on the characteristics of the communities affected by these policies. We evaluated whether disadvantaged communities were more likely to allow cannabis businesses and less likely to be covered by policies designed to protect public health.Results. Localities with all-out bans on cannabis businesses (65% of localities) were disproportionately high-education (55.8% vs 50.5% with any college) and low-poverty (24.3% vs 34.2%), with fewer Black (4.4% vs 6.9%) and Latinx (45.6% vs 50.3%) residents. Among localities that allowed retail cannabis businesses (28%), there were more cannabis control policies in localities with more high-income and Black residents, although the specific policies varied.Conclusions. Cannabis control policies are unequally distributed across California localities. If these policies protect health, inequities may be exacerbated.Public Health Implications. Uniform adoption of recommended cannabis control policies may help limit any inequitable health impacts of cannabis legalization. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(11):1640–1650. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307041 )

Background Employees with fluoridated drinking water access at work can reap oral health benefits. The purpose of this study was to assess the availability, appeal, and promotion of fluoridated tap water in publicly accessible spaces compared with retail beverages at the University of California, San Francisco. Methods The authors collected information on beverages available in publicly accessible spaces at University of California, San Francisco hospitals and campuses in San Francisco, California, from December 2019 through February 2020 using a web-based survey tool. Data collected included fluoridated water and retail beverage locations; type of water or retail beverage source; number of water sources per station; cleanliness, flow, and any obstruction of water sources; proximity of water stations to retail beverage locations; signage near the beverage locations about water and beverage consumption; and type of retail beverages available. Results Fluoridated water stations were identified in 230 locations and had 377 water sources (for example, traditional drinking fountain and motion-sensor bottle-filling station). One water station was available for every 80 students and employees; however, 25% were obstructed, dirty, or had unsatisfactory flow. Approximately 1 in 5 watercoolers lacked disposable cups. Of 41 retail beverage locations identified, 29% had a water station within sight. Only 11% of beverage locations had signage encouraging healthier beverage choices. Conclusions A systematic assessment of work site access to fluoridated water can provide actionable evidence to improve availability, appeal, and promotion. Practical Implications This study provides a model to assess work site availability of fluoridated drinking water that can be used for future evaluations.

Background. Employees with fluoridated drinking water access at work can reap oral health benefits. The purpose of this study was to assess the availability, appeal, and promotion of fluoridated tap water in publicly accessible spaces compared with retail beverages at the University of California, San Francisco. Methods. The authors collected information on beverages available in publicly accessible spaces at University of California, San Francisco hospitals and campuses in San Francisco, California, from December 2019 through February 2020 using a web-based survey tool. Data collected included fluoridated water and retail beverage locations; type of water or retail beverage source; number of water sources per station; cleanliness, flow, and any obstruction of water sources; proximity of water stations to retail beverage locations; signage near the beverage locations about water and beverage consumption; and type of retail beverages available. Results. Fluoridated water stations were identified in 230 locations and had 377 water sources (for example, traditional drinking fountain and motion-sensor bottle-filling station). One water station was available for every 80 students and employees; however, 25% were obstructed, dirty, or had unsatisfactory flow. Approximately 1 in 5 watercoolers lacked disposable cups. Of 41 retail beverage locations identified, 29% had a water station within sight. Only 11% of beverage locations had signage encouraging healthier beverage choices. Conclusions. A systematic assessment of work site access to fluoridated water can provide actionable evidence to improve availability, appeal, and promotion. Practical Implications. This study provides a model to assess work site availability of fluoridated drinking water that can be used for future evaluations.