The researchers analyzed liver samples from 84 barred owls and 10 northern spotted owls.Within the study area, 70% of northern spotted owls and 40% of barred owls tested positive for anticoagulant rodenticides.The researchers hypothesize that cannabis cultivation in the area is the main source point for the presence of dangerous rodenticides.They also determined that barred owls are a suitable surrogate for determining rodenticide levels in the threatened northern spotted owl.Gabriel, in his capacities as a UC researcher and as executive director of the Integral Ecology Research Center, a nonprofit organization based in Humboldt County, is currently carrying out reclamation projects at illegal cannabis cultivation sites in California and Oregon.In a project conducted this May in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, a team representing 11 governmental and nongovernmental entities worked at 16 cultivation sites within eight large cultivation complexes, removing 6,000 pounds of trash, which included rodenticides and more than 5 miles of irrigation lines.Mourad estimates that removal of the irrigation lines restored more than 500,000 gallons of water — daily — into affected watersheds.Agencies including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Law Enforcement and Investigations arm of the U.S.Forest Service have provided grant funding for 170 such projects, 112 of which have already been completed.In an entirely different vein, UC Davis–based cannabis research has been conducted since 2016 at the UC Agricultural Issues Center , a UC Agriculture and Natural Resources statewide program operating since 1985.The center’s broad mission is to provide research based information on the economic dimensions of emerging issues in agriculture.Cannabis, then, is right in the center’s wheelhouse.Dan Sumner, the center’s director, reports that AIC began pursuing cannabis-related work after the 2015 passage of a set of laws known collectively as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act.This legislation laid the groundwork for state regulation of medicinal cannabis and ultimately of the recreational cannabis industry.

The lead agency in regulating commercial cannabis licenses for distributors and retailers, among other business types,pot drying is the Bureau of Cannabis Control — for which, between 2016 and 2018, the AIC prepared a Standardized Regulatory Impact Analysis.In the process, the AIC advised the BCC on the economic dimensions of various regulatory scenarios — and the bureau used the center’s analysis to inform the final cannabis regulations that it issued on Jan.16 of this year.According to Sumner, a principal insight that the AIC furnished to the BCC was that, since illegal cannabis continues to be attractive to retail buyers because it is cheaper than cannabis from regulated retailers, “much of the cannabis sold in California [after legalization] would remain in the illegal segment.” Moreover, regulations that generate benefits for consumers at lower costs will help sustain the legal marketplace.In this issue of California Agriculture, three AIC researchers — Pablo Valdes-Donoso, a postdoctoral scholar; Robin S.Goldstein, principal economic counselor; and Sumner — present their research on California’s rather stringent system for testing cannabis that enters the legal market.All cannabis sold legally in the state is tested for more than 100 contaminants.Of those contaminants, 66 are pesticides — and tolerance for 21 of those pesticides is set at zero.In many cases, allowable levels of cannabis contaminants are lower than those established for food sold in the state.The researchers, drawing on data provided by testing laboratories and manufacturers of testing equipment, estimated how much it costs to test a pound of cannabis under California’s regulatory regime, as well as the cost of collecting samples.They concluded that the need to destroy batches of cannabis that fail testing accounts for a large share of testing costs.The researchers argue that, though the availability of certifiably safe and legal cannabis products may prompt some customers to join the regulated market, other customers will remain in the cheaper illegal market.They speculate that, over time, increased availability of data about cannabis testing and sales will allow for greater certainty about the effect of the testing regime on cannabis prices and demand for legal cannabis.Meanwhile, UC Davis is establishing a dedicated center for research into psychoactive cannabis and industrial hemp — the Cannabis Research Initiative.

According to Cindy Kiel, executive associate vice chancellor for research administration at UC Davis, the initiative will draw on the comprehensive strengths of UC Davis faculty in areas ranging from agricultural and environmental impacts to legal, economic and policy outcomes to human and animal health.In particular, the initiative will benefit from UC Davis’s strong emphasis on agricultural issues such as soils, water, genomics and plant science and from faculty interest in two-way interactions such as those between cannabis and the environment.Funding is envisioned to flow from the UC Davis budget, from research funds established in Proposition 64 and from outside sources such as industry partners.Funding could also flow from the federal government via the National Institutes of Health.The initiative will be headed by co-directors representing the agricultural and medical sides of cannabis research.In May, UC Davis faculty members including Chemistry Professor Mark Mascal, along with colleagues from the University of Reading in the United Kingdom, published an article demonstrating that a synthetic analogue of cannabidiol is as effective as CBD in controlling seizures in rats — and that it provides several benefits in comparison to CBD.The synthetic analogue is cheaper than herbal CBD, cannot be converted into psychoactive tetrahydrocannabinol and is not restricted by the Drug Enforcement Administration’s “scheduling” apparatus.Meanwhile, the UC Davis–affiliated Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety is studying issues such as workplace safety for cannabis workers, who face risks that include unhealthy pesticide exposure.For students, UC Davis has offered cannabis courses including the graduate-level Cannabis sativa: The Plant and Its Impact on People — and, for undergraduates, Physiology of Cannabis.Abrand-new entrant into UC cannabis research is the UC Nicotine and Cannabis Policy Center at UC Merced , established just last year to study tobacco- and cannabis-related issues in public health and public policy, especially in the San Joaquin Valley.The center, partnering with local public health departments and organizations such as the American Heart Association, aims to produce tobacco and cannabis research that places special emphasis on the San Joaquin Valley’s diverse population of teens and young adults and informs policy decisions that affect the region.The center’s flagship research initiative is a long term, survey-based effort to understand issues surrounding cannabis, tobacco and e-cigarettes.

The project is led by Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, a professor of pediatrics at Stanford University and Mariaelena Gonzalez, assistant professor in public health at UC Merced.According to NCPC Director and UC Merced Associate Professor Anna Song, the researchers intend to provide data to counties that will allow them to make informed decisions about policy.Song notes that the counties in the study area are very different from, say, the Bay Area or Southern California, so state-level data isn’t adequate for formulation of local tobacco and cannabis policy.Song reports that the center’s work will fill gaps in knowledge about cannabis intake behavior; epidemiological data is spotty, she says, because many people won’t admit to engaging in behavior that has historically been illegal and continues to be federally illegal.The researchers are also keen to understand the interconnections between tobacco and cannabis — emerging data indicates that perceptions of tobacco risk are related to perceptions of cannabis, and the relationship between the two may affect individuals’ future tobacco use.“These are the things we are trying to disentangle,” Song says.The center was founded with a $3.8 million grant from the Tobacco Related Disease Research Program, a state initiative administered by the UC Office of the President, which dispenses funds derived from the Tobacco Tax Increase Initiative, a proposition approved by California voters in 2016.Cannabis institutes at three UC campuses in Southern California — UC San Diego, UC Irvine and UC Los Angeles — conduct research on the health effects and medical uses of cannabis and its derivatives.But they differ greatly in their approach.The program at UC San Diego focuses closely on medical cannabis drying research and public safety issues.The UC Irvine program brings together medicine and law.The UCLA program has set itself the ambitious interdisciplinary task of exploring how cannabis affects society along the medical, legal, economic and social dimensions.The UC Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at UC San Diego, the oldest of the three institutes, was established when California Senate Bill 847 enabled UC to establish a program to “enhance understanding of the efficacy and adverse effects of marijuana as a pharmacological agent.” Today, the center’s cannabis research covers a broad range of clinical conditions such as neuropathic pain, autism, bipolar disorder and early psychosis — as well as public safety issues surrounding the use of cannabis and cannabinoids.A notable current CMCR study, authorized by the 2015 Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, seeks to better understand the effect on driving of THC.CMCR Director Igor Grant describes the study as “one of the first in the United States that looks in great detail into different dosages of THC and their effect on driving.” Each research day begins with study participants — already experienced with cannabis — entering driving simulators to undergo driving assessments.Participants then consume THC in specified doses and continue over the course of the day to undergo driving assessments.Meanwhile, their bodily fluids are drawn over the course of several hours.The study seeks to determine how multiple dosing strengths of cannabis affect driving and for what duration driving impairment continues after cannabis use.The research also seeks to determine if saliva or breath tests can substitute for blood samples in determining cannabis intoxication and if sobriety tests administered with iPads can supplement standard field sobriety tests.The study is led by Thomas Marcotte, a professor of psychiatry at the UCSD School of Medicine.

Another notable CMCR study, tentatively set to begin at the end of the summer, concerns autism.The research, which includes both a clinical trial and a basic science component, investigates the effect of CBD on severe autism spectrum disorder, a condition that affects one in every 68 U.S.children.In the clinical trial — overseen by Doris Trauner, a professor of neurosciences and pediatrics at UCSD — researchers will administer oral doses of CBD or a placebo to 30 children who have been diagnosed with moderate to severe autism.CBD interacts with the endocannabinoid system, a network in the human body that regulates various physiological and cognitive processes.Researchers will attempt to determine whether CBD is safe for the study population to use, whether it addresses their symptoms, whether it alters neurotransmitters or improves brain connectivity, and if so, how.In the basic science component of the study, researchers will use cells from the skin and blood of participants and, in Grant’s words, “re-engineer these cells to be neurons — to create little brain organoids, if you will.” This feat of re-engineering will allow researchers to observe how the cells function and, if CBD has benefited the subjects of the clinical trial, to investigate the associated mechanism of action.The study will be conducted with funding from the Wholistic Research and Education Foundation.Grant notes that Proposition 64 allocates $2 million annually to the CMCR.The center intends to use the funding partly to support its core facility and partly to fund small-scale pilot studies that might be conducted at the center itself, at other UC campuses or at campuses of other universities in California.As an interdisciplinary venture involving UC Irvine’s School of Medicine and School of Law, the center includes basic medical science, clinical science and jurisprudence in its purview.Daniele Piomelli, director of the center — as well as a professor of anatomy and neurobiology at the UC Irvine School of Medicine — calls cannabis “a quintessential multidisciplinary problem.” Because much existing cannabis law was written when medical knowledge about cannabis was scarce, he says, new knowledge to underpin new legislation is urgently needed.Piomelli further argues that because cannabis encompasses, for example, commercial and agricultural dimensions, researchers across disciplines must engage with each other to find realistic solutions to cannabis-related problems.“If medicine and science and law don’t talk to one another,” he says, “we’ll never have sensible legislation.” In that spirit, the center has two directors — Piomelli representing the medical side of the interdisciplinary undertaking and Robert Solomon, a clinical professor of law at UC Irvine School of Law, representing the legal side.About 30 faculty members across law and medicine are involved in the center’s work.

The differences in price ranges we report here should not be interpreted as measures of price dispersion, because we are not observing maximum and minimum prices for exactly the same products at different retailers and thus are not comparing “apples to apples,” as is traditionally required to measure price dispersion.However, concrete differences in product attributes — such as potency or grow type for minimum-priced or maximum-priced cannabis — may also vary between retailers, and may correlate with price differences , even if price differences between agricultural products do not necessarily correlate with sensory characteristics.For instance, the minimum price for one-eighth ounce of flower at a particular retailer might represent a price for outdoor-grown cannabis with a THC concentration of 15%, whereas the minimum price for one-eighth ounce of flower at another retailer might represent a price for indoor-grown cannabis with a THC concentration of 20%.By analogy, if one were to collect minimum and maximum prices for all wine at retailers around California, the minimum-maximum range could not be used to measure price dispersion in a traditional sense; in order to measure dispersion, one would have to compare, for instance, the price of the same Kendall-Jackson Chardonnay at different stores.For our research, comparing prices for identical products across retailers would not have been feasible, given the Weed maps format and our data collection methods.Our approach here, in reporting cannabis price ranges, is to make no assumptions about quality and assume that minimum and maximum prices are simply prices for different types of products.It would be interesting, in future work, to explore dispersion by collecting and comparing data on standard product types across retailers.Beyond requiring product standardization, an analysis of cannabis square pot price dispersion with respect to geographic areas would also likely require a larger data set than ours.Hollenbeck and Uetake comment that regulatory barriers to entry can facilitate the exercise of monopolistic behavior by retailers.

Dispersion measures, as proxies for competition, might help illuminate regulatory impacts.As more tax and sales data are released by government agencies, it might soon become possible for researchers to collect data sets of sufficient size and precision for dispersion to be measured.Table 2 shows average minimum and maximum prices over the course of the 21-month data collection period for the three product types that we studied, along with the number of observations in each period.In the last four rounds of data collection , we generally observe only relatively slight differences in both average prices and upward or downward movements among the three retailer groups.Both statewide and within the seven-county sample, average minimum and maximum prices for one-eighth ounce of flower and for 1 ounce of flower differed by 2.5% or less, but averages differed by up to 8.8% for 500-milligram cartridges.In table 3, we report prices over the 21-month period for the non-attrited sample of the original retail store locations whose prices we collected in October 2016.These retailers may not be representative of overall state averages, particularly after the substantial attrition from the original group of retailers that we observed beginning in November 2017.However, this set of observations avoids potentially confounding factors introduced by the changing sample composition over time.Table 3 shows substantial attrition from the original seven-county sample of 542 retailers that listed prices on Weed maps in October 2016.By July 2018, 21 months after the first round of price collection, only 74 non-attrited retailers from the original sample remained active on Weed maps or Leafly.Local police crackdowns and municipal bans in some counties surely contributed to this 86% attrition rate, which should not be interpreted as representative of statewide attrition from Weed maps or evidence of the general rate of business closures.What is more interesting, perhaps, is the basic observation that only 270 licensed cannabis retailers were listed on Weed maps in all of California in July 2018, whereas in November 2017, near the end of the unregulated market, about 2,500 California cannabis businesses operated without the need for a license.This observation suggests, at least, that many medicinal cannabis retailers that had been operating legally in 2017 had not yet obtained licenses and entered the new legal market as of mid-2018.

Figures 1, 2 and 3 show average minimum and maximum prices for one-eighth ounce of flower, 1 ounce of flower and 500-milligram oil cartridges for each round of data collection, both for legally marketed cannabis and for the 20-county unlicensed sample.In the 2016 and 2017 price data, before mandatory licensing, regulation and taxation, we observe relative stability in California cannabis price ranges for all three product types.In 2018, after licensing, regulation and taxation, we observe three patterns.First, we observe falling prices for all products between February and May 2018, which may be related to retailers’ need to liquidate untested inventory that would become illegal as of July 2018.Second, we observe generally rising prices between May and July 2018, which may be related to the introduction of mandatory testing rules.However, because of the limitations and uncertain representativeness of the Weed maps sample, as well as changes to our sampling methods in different rounds, we do not have a basis for inferring a causal relationship between testing rules or other regulatory events and our minimum and maximum price averages.Third, we observe rising maximum prices for 500-milligram oil cartridges over our last four data collection rounds.At all retailers statewide that listed prices on Weed maps or Leafly, we observed a 33% increase in maximum prices from November 2017 to July 2018.Table 2 shows that the latter pattern can be observed, with some variation, in prices both in the original seven counties and in all of California.We do not know to what extent the maximum price increases for cartridges might be attributed to the introduction of new, higher-end products with differentiated sensory or functional attributes as the market has evolved; to differentiated packaging attributes; to price increases generated by increased high-end demand; to supply-side factors; or to other market effects.In general, the price patterns we observe demonstrate little evidence of seasonality, even though wholesale cannabis prices are known to vary seasonally because of the annual outdoor harvest and consequent increase in outdoor cannabis supply in the fall and winter months.We collected eight rounds of price data from the legal California retail cannabis market during a 21-month period of regulatory transition, as cannabis was being decriminalized, legalized and regulated in stages.Given the differences between the data sets we collected and the unknowns about Weed maps that we have discussed above, readers should be especially cautious in interpreting the movements we observe as “trends.” We instead describe them as “patterns.” In general, one surprising result from our price data sets over time may be the relative lack of overall price movements in California cannabis prices, with the exception of rising maximum prices for cannabis oil cartridges in 2018.

The data we report in this paper provides one source of unique information on the retail prices of cannabis flower and oil during the state’s period of transition to a regulated market environment.We hope that our data may useful to economists and other researchers who need to make basic assumptions about characteristics of the cannabis market.We did not collect price data for numerous products now available on the legal cannabis market in California, including edibles, waxes and topicals.The market has also changed in important ways since mid-2018.Many other basic reports on price data beyond ours are still needed to understand the economics of California’s rapidly changing cannabis market.Sexual harassment continues to endure as a public health problem through its persistence in everyday life, but especially in the workplace.Recently, thanks to efforts of the #Me Too movement, issues of sexual harassment and assault in the workplace have become significantly more visible in the public sphere.As defined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission , sexual harassment is defined in terms of “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment” and “when such conduct has the purpose or effect unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance,trim tray or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment”.The EEOC also notes that sexual harassment in the workplace is classified as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 as it is a form of sex discrimination.Workplace sexual harassment is further distinguished into two categories.First, quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when a supervisor with the ability to impose rewards or disciplinary actions onto employees uses their position to coerce victims to oblige them with sexual favors.Second, a hostile work environment harassment exists when an employee regularly experiences sexual harassment because co-workers and/or supervisors frequently engage and allow such behaviors to occur in the workplace.Lastly, with the advancement of social media and virtual communication, sexual harassment does not require in-person interactions as harassment can occur virtually.Although men and women are both victims of sexual harassment, women are most often burdened by such behavior.Studies indicate 15% of men experience sexual harassment at their work compared to one in four women who report experiencing some form of sexual harassment in the work place and in 2018, 84% of charges alleging sexual harassment while at work were filed by women.

Additionally, men more often perpetuate sexual harassment against women.The United States Merit Systems Protection Board regularly conducts a survey to capture instances of sexual harassment among employees in the federal government.Their most recent report indicates men are perpetuators of sexual harassment in the workplace in 68% of all cases.Yet, despite a greater prevalence of female victimization by males, it is important to remember men can still experience harassment perpetuated by either men or women.In addition to understanding the prevalence of sexual harassment, it is important to be aware of how harassment is perpetuated in order to understand the severity and frequency of such behavior.Behaviors that constitute sexual harassment can range from nonverbal behaviors such as staring, verbal harassment including jokes and remarks of a sexual nature to unwanted physical contact and assault.The most common forms of sexual harassment reported by employees include unwanted verbal asides as well as nonverbal behaviors including sexually suggestive looks and gestures of a sexual nature.Other commons forms of sexual harassment experienced in the workplace include showing explicit material and persistently pressuring someone for a date.Although least reported, intense instances of assault and coercion are often acted out by supervisors as opposed to co-workers or customers.For instance, negative psychological outcomes spurred by sexual harassment include stress, lower self-esteem and depression.Regardless of the severity of the incident, frequent experiences with harassment at work can negatively affect a victim’s psychological well-being and attitudes surrounding their job.For example, in more severe cases of sexual harassment, one in ten women develop symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.A longitudinal study investigating sexual harassment experienced by young adults at work found that such experiences early in one’s career can have long term effects such as depressive symptoms in adulthood among male and female victims.Such findings indicate that the mental health consequences of sexual harassment are not only immediate but can have a long lasting impact on victims.Specifically, researchers propose that the stress caused by harassment can affect not only work, but other domains in one’s life such as family relationships and friendships.Therefore, stress proliferation serves as a mechanism for linking sexual harassment to an increased risk of depression among victims.In addition to effects on psychological well-being, sexual harassment also negatively affects an organization via a worker’s ability to fulfill their work responsibilities.The aftermath of such an experience can affect a worker’s ability to function in the very environment where they experienced and are at further risk of harassment.Sexual harassment can cause female workers to become withdrawn from their job, through their avoidance of tasks and refusal to show up to work altogether.Studies have also found that harassment by supervisors leads to lower employee satisfaction with their job, supervisors, promotions as well as lower job commitment by both male and female workers.Trauma and stress invoked by harassment can also cause workers to become distracted on the job and increases the risk of accidents occurring.Harassment in the workplace significantly increases employee turnover, despite mediation of work satisfaction, particularly in studies focused on female workers.As women are forced to leave their jobs because of harassment, they experience financial stress in the form of career disruption and wage loss.

However, to date very few studies have examined intrinsic functional connectivity in adolescents and emerging adults.Studies to date in adolescent and young adult cannabis users have demonstrated increased intrinsic connectivity in frontal -temporal gyrus-cerebellar regions , frontal-parietalcerebellar network , increased middle-frontal and cingulate gyrus connectivity , and increased frontal gyrus activity along with reduced middle temporal activity.Increased connectivity patterns were linked with increased symptoms of cannabis dependence and recent cannabis use frequency.In young adult males, cannabis use was linked with increased connectivity in insula and decreased connectivity in the anterior cingulate and midbrain, even after a month of abstinence.Thus, overall, young cannabis users appear to demonstrate increased intrinsic connectivity patterns, especially in frontal-limbic regions.Still, these studies were primarily in men , thus findings may not generalize to female users.Further, two studies did not control for comorbid alcohol use and despite the aforementioned link between cannabis use and affective processing, no studies to date have specifically examined affective processing networks in cannabis users.Therefore, additional research is needed to examine intrinsic connectivity in affective processing networks in larger samples that include both males and females, controlling for comorbid alcohol use.The purpose of the current study was to explore whether regular cannabis use in adolescents and young adults was associated with aberrant ifcMRI frontolimbic connectivity at rest.We employed a priori region of interest analysis focusing on regions with reported cortical differences between young cannabis users and controls, including: vmPFC , ACC , insula , and amygdala.This project utilized ifcMRI data from three collection sites from the Imaging Data in Emerging Adults with Addiction Consortium.The strength of utilizing multi-site data sets include excellent reliability and validity when combining multi-site ifcMRI data , increased generalizability of more heterogenous groups , and larger sample sizes.It was hypothesized that cannabis users would demonstrate increased intrinsic connectivity patterns in regions subserving emotional expression.Lastly, in order to interpret the findings, a secondary aim examined if group differences in connectivity were associated with cannabis grow racks users’ self-reported anxiety and depressive symptoms.

The current study examined whether cannabis use was associated with frontolimbic intrinsic connectivity using a cross-sectional design in a sample devoid of independent Axis I anxiety FIGURE 2 | Scatter plot between total depression symptoms and bilateral rAcc connectivity in cannabis users.or mood disorders.After controlling for MRI collection site, recent alcohol, and nicotine use, and abstinence from cannabis use, cannabis users demonstrated increased intrinsic connectivity between the left rACC and the following: left insula, left amygdala, and right rACC in comparison to controls, though only group differences between bilateral rACC survived after correcting for multiple comparisons.Further, we found that increased bilateral rACC connectivity was associated with greater sub-clinical depressive symptoms in cannabis users.Current findings parallel previous intrinsic functional studies indicating frequent cannabis use among youth is associated with greater connectivity between frontal and temporal regions , and increased ACC connectivity in males.Resting state connectivity increases in comparison to controls was also reported within the medial frontal gyrus among a high-risk mostly male adolescent group.The present study adds to existing literature by including more females, controlling for other substance use and cannabis abstinence period, and relating the observed connectivity differences to mood-related symptoms.Task-based studies also report altered medial PFC activity associated with cannabis use among emerging adults , suggesting chronic cannabis use is associated with region-specific changes in brain activity and connectivity among regions implicated in emotion regulation, identification, and modulation.The current findings of abnormal functional connectivity in the rACC and limbic regions, which is consistent with our previous structural findings.Our team recently reported that greater cannabis use was related to reduced left rACC volume among young cannabis users, and smaller rACC volumes were also significantly associated with lower performance in an emotional discrimination task.Further, we also found reduced right ACC cortical thickness in a sample of young cannabis users, including a subset of cannabis users with a history of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, compared to non-using controls.The ACC undergoes significant developmental shifts in functional connectivity during young adulthood , has been implicated in ones’ ability to detect and monitor self-produced errors whether one is conscious/aware of the error or not.

The ACC may be less engaged in cannabis users compared to controls during tasks requiring inhibitory control and error monitoring.The rostral subdivision of the ACC is functionally connected with the amygdala , forming a network for processing affective facets of behavior.In concert with the insula, the ACC also serves to incorporate perceptual information with autonomic and emotional information.More specifically, the rACC has been posited to have top down control influence, serving as a gatekeeper, between regions processing negative affective information and those integrating environmental stimuli, and demonstrates protracted development during young adulthood.Indeed, lesions in the rACC are posited to impair ones’ sensitivity to adjustments in personal performance during a cognitive control task.For example, cannabis users have demonstrated reduced P300 during implicit and empathic emotional processing paradigms, particularly for the highest using cannabis users that also demonstrated deficits in explicit processing of negative emotions.Thus, abnormalities in rACC structure and function may impact various behavioral aspects, including cognitive control and emotional regulation.The current study suggests that chronic cannabis use may increase intrinsic connectivity between emotion regulation regions, which was opposite of our original hypothesis.A potential interpretation may include the inefficiency of prefrontal top-down regulation, as hypothesized by Behan et al., suggesting reduced intrinsic amygdala responsiveness.Further, Pujol et al.found reduced ACC and insula connectivity; however, the study did not examine sub-components of the ACC and used seed-based rather than region of interest approaches.Thus, disruptions in rACC function may lead to challenges in modulating ones’ mood, consistent with the current study findings, or adjusting to emotionally salient internal and external information.Indeed, we also found that increased depressive symptoms among cannabis users were associated with greater connectivity between the bilateral rACC.Alterations in rACC structure and function [see ] have been previously linked with depressive and affective symptoms and antidepressant response.Though the current sample did not meet criteria for an Axis I mood or anxiety disorder, cannabis use may impact regions implicated in symptom manifestation.Although cannabis users reported significantly greater sub-clinical levels of depression, we are unable to determine whether the endorsed symptoms predated the initiation of cannabis use or whether the endorsed symptoms occurred during the course of regular cannabis use among users.Indeed, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies among cannabis using youth have found increased risk of mood and affective symptoms.

Even casual cannabis using young adults report greater depressive symptomatology.Thus, structural and functional abnormalities within the rACC observed in cannabis users may result in mood dysregulation.Alternatively, subtle mood dysregulation may be a risk-factor for riskier cannabis use consumption.Proposed theories accounting for these functional and behavioral differences in cannabis users may have multiple underlying etiologies.Chronic young adult cannabis users demonstrate abnormal CB1 receptor density in the ACC ; thus, frequent cannabis use may influence continued white matter myelination and gray matter pruning within this region, impacting structural integrity.Further, altering CB1 availability and eCB signaling may impact GABA and GLUT signaling, which is observed in the ACC of adolescents with chronic cannabis use , suggesting continued cannabis use may impact healthy ACC functioning.Indeed, rACC glutamate levels have been associated with interactions between task-positive and task-negative sub-regions , suggesting excitatory activity at rest may alter one’s ability to engage networks involved in environmental interaction.Thus, altered inhibitory eCB activity may account for changes in intrinsic ACC connectivity among users.It is also possible that abnormalities in rACC and increased symptoms of depression place adolescents and young adults at increased risk for regular cannabis use.Prospective longitudinal studies are needed to address causality.In terms of youth treatment, there are potential interventions that may target ACC functioning to improve emotional regulation and mood in cannabis users.For example, activation within the ACC was associated with positive treatment outcomes following change talk among a diverse group of cannabis-using youth.Mindfulness-based mediation and a combination of mindfulness with aerobic exercise have also been associated with ACC specific changes.Findings from the current study should be considered in light of potential limitations.Although comorbid use of nicotine products was measured, some participants may have smoked cannabis with nicotine mixed in ; this was not measured in the current study.Given the cross-sectional nature of the current study, potential differences in frontolimbic connectivity and sub-clinical mood symptoms may exist prior to the onset of frequent cannabis grow system use and serve as a risk factor for regular cannabis use during adolescence.The relationships between such factors and substance use patterns among youth have previously been investigated [see ].Therefore, prospective, longitudinal studies are necessary to determine timing and causality.In conclusion, the present multisite imaging study found that among otherwise healthy young adults devoid of independent mood or affective disorders, regular cannabis users had greater intrinsic connectivity between left and right rACC.The current study also found that greater intrinsic bilateral rACC connectivity was associated with greater sub-threshold depressive symptoms among cannabis users.Results coincide and expand uponprior intrinsic and task-based imaging projects among young adults with chronic cannabis use, suggesting altered connectivity between regions with high cannabinoid receptor density that are imperative for emotional inhibition, recognition, and regulation.As THC content continues to rise , today’s users may be at increased risk for elevated mood or anxiety symptoms.Considering these findings, it is recommended that youth delay regular use of cannabis until after peak brain maturation is achieved [see ].In light of the current paper, cannabis interventions for youth may target improving anterior cingulate functioning, including aerobic exercise and mindfulness-based approaches.Pain in Sickle Cell Disease is a major comorbidity and unique.

It can arise from acute, unpredictable episodes of vaso-occlusive crises that may begin in infancy and continue throughout life.Additionally, chronic pain, with or without acute pain crises, occurs in a large proportion of SCD patients.In a study spanning just over 31,000 patient days, 232 adult SCD patients experienced chronic pain on more than 54% of total days.Acute, painful VOCs are a characteristic feature of SCD that require hospitalization, impair quality of life, and impact patient survival.Both acute as well as chronic pain are life disabling.Opioids are the mainstay for pain management in SCD, but high doses of opioids are required and are associated with adverse effects including pruritus, tolerance and opioid-induced hyperalgesia.Rates of opioid overdose are low in patients with SCD and have not shifted with the opioid epidemic.Cannabinoids have been widely considered for treating pain to meet the demand for alternative pain management therapies.Evidence of human use of the Cannabis sativa L.plant in rituals and medicine dates back millennia.In 1970, cannabis was classified as a Schedule 1 drug in the United States , and it was deemed to have no known medical use and a high potential for abuse.Despite the prohibition of cannabis in the U.S.and many European countries, there has been steady progress in studying its constituents for their beneficial effects in many conditions.An analysis of cannabis use among people using opioids for chronic pain management reported greater pain relief with cannabis than with opioids used alone in a national survey of adults in the U.S..In addition, emerging evidence suggests that prescriptions for opioids and deaths attributed to opioid use have declined in states that have made medicinal cannabis legal.Sickle patients often report use of cannabis to manage pain.It will be an understatement to say that the opioid epidemic and Centres for Disease Control guidelines on opioid use in 2016 have added another hurdle to pain management in SCD because pain treatment for both persistent chronic and acute VOC pain is reliant on opioids.Surveys conducted on residents involved in pain management of SCD suggest that potential for opioid tolerance and dependence pose a major hurdle in prescribing opioids.Similarly, adults with SCD reported using cannabis due to increased stigmatization for seeking opioids for pain, recent inadequate opioid dosing by the prescribers, and lack of alternatives through healthcare providers.Similar challenges in opioid prescribing for pain management among providers and patients have been disruptive to lives of patients living with chronic pain in other conditions as well.Thus, inadequate pain management due to fear of opioid prescribing and dosing and stigmatization for continued requirement of opioids in SCD contribute to use of cannabis and related easily available products by the patients to find pain relief.On the other hand, it provides a compelling reason to evaluate the potential of cannabis and its many non-toxic products for the potential to treat sickle pain.

The certification process is applied to countries included in what came to be known as the Majors List .The success of the US to coerce and to induce dozens of countries to adopt its preferred models of implementing cannabis prohibitions promoted convergence of drug laws across jurisdictions and thus increased the degree of concordance between the transnational and the national levels of this TLO. However, the global diffusion of tougher cannabis laws cannot be sufficiently explained by focusing on the coercive mechanisms employed by the US alone. This diffusion was also a product of broader social transformations stimulating increasing political mobilization around law and order issues during the final decades of the twentieth century.Illustrating Durkheim’s observation that societies have a functional need to construct categories of deviance,the instigation of moral panics concerning drug abuse epidemics provide a useful tool of identifying “suitable enemies” and scoring political points.In an era during which a broader shift from welfare oriented to punitive-focused approaches to governing social marginality took place, strengthening state capacities to condemn and to penalize drug dealers and users proved to be a far more attractive project for politicians than undertaking to address the public health implications of drug use. As the primary international organization responsible for monitoring the implementation of the UN drug conventions, the INCB played an important role in facilitating the concordance between the transnational and national levels of the cannabis prohibition TLO. In its annual reports, the INCB has repeatedly supported the “gateway drug thesis,” according to which the use of cannabis serves as a risk factor in increasing the user’s probability of using harder illicit substances, such as amphetamine, cocaine, or heroin. Based on this thesis ,the Board’s 1983 Report criticized those “circles in certain countries” that “apparently assume that to permit unrestricted use of some drug,cannabis grow supplies regarded by them as less harmful, would permit better control of other drugs which they deem more perilous to health.”

This criticism was leveled at supporters of the separation of markets strategy, which came to be endorsed by Dutch policymakers at the time.In its later reports throughout the 1980s and 90s, the Board adopted an increasingly critical stance toward the Dutch attempts to depenalize cannabis usage. In its 1997 Report, the selling of cannabis in coffee shops was depicted as “an activity that might be described as indirect incitement.”The focus on the Netherlands and its singling out for disapprobation reflects the rarity of open contestations of the prohibitionist imperatives enforced by the Board during that period. The extensive institutionalization of the cannabis prohibition TLO throughout the 1980s and 1990s facilitated the international spread of tougher laws, severer penalties, and more aggressive policing strategies. However, the very success of this TLO to propagate its policy models highlighted its failure to deliver on its own promise to reduce the prevalence of cannabis use and to eliminate its illicit supply chains. The intensification of enforcement activities also brought into focus the adverse human rights impacts of implementing the prohibitionist cannabis policies. The increasing criticisms of the failures and boomerang effects of the cannabis prohibition TLO prompted both internal and external processes that eroded its legitimacy and compromised its ability to continue guiding the practices of legal actors at the national and local levels. From the early stages of the institutionalization of the cannabis prohibition TLO, it became vulnerable to criticism of its inherent input legitimacy deficiencies. As discussed earlier, the central role played by the US in shaping the goals and strategies of this TLO has largely depended on the exercise of unilateral measures of coercion and inducement. The degree to which the certification process has realized basic standards of transparency, inclusiveness, and accountability is obviously limited. The procedures by which the INCB defines and applies its compliance criteria seem conspicuously insulated from ongoing public debates regarding the impact of cannabis prohibition laws on marginalized populations.

These legitimacy deficits are conveniently set aside by proponents of the war on drugs, who tend to focus more on the ability of these measures to promote global public goods than on the quality of the processes through which these measures are created. As Niko Krisch observes, such tendency to prioritize output legitimacy considerations is pronounced in various contexts of global governance and often produces pressure to move toward more informal and hierarchical modes of transnational governance in these issue-areas.However, this view is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain in the issue-area of cannabis policy given the mounting evidence on the failure of this TLO to achieve its regulatory goals. Despite billions of dollars of investment and extensive law enforcement resources, a sizable body of scholarship has documented the growing availability of the drug during the 1990s, the widespread prevalence of its usage among adolescents, and the increasingly tolerant attitudes toward cannabis consumption among both users and non-users.Drawing analogies to the failure of the “Noble Experiment” of the alcohol prohibition period,criminologists developed thorough critiques of the underlying assumptions of the cannabis prohibition TLO. The assumption that the availability of cannabis can be meaningfully reduced by the deployment of militarized policing strategies has been criticized for overlooking the resilience of cannabis markets and their high levels of adaptability to changes in their regulatory environments. Studies have shown that rather than eliminating supply chains, such interventions served to disperse, displace, and fragment supply sources and distribution routes.In turn, such interventions precipitated a spillover of armed violence to new geographical areas and exposed otherwise uninvolved indigenous populations to new risks and insecurities. The inherent flaws of this dimension of the cannabis prohibition TLO are often illustrated by referencing the “balloon effect” metaphor, depicting the ways in which efforts to suppress the cultivation of cannabis in one geographical area causes a convenient shift of its production elsewhere. The legitimacy of the cannabis prohibition TLO has also been damaged by evidence regarding the immense human rights violations that the implementation of war on drugs policies has entailed.

Advocacy networks led by prominent transnational NGOs, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have exposed the disproportionate punishments imposed under the banner of the war on drugs in various countries. In the US, such criticism focused on the contribution of marijuana prohibitions to the nation’s internationally unparalleled incarceration rates and its distinctive patterns of racially-skewed law enforcement.A recent ACLU report using data extracted from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program indicates that between 2001 and 2010, there were over eight million marijuana arrests in the US, of which 88% were for marijuana possession.In 2010, there were more than 20,000 people incarcerated for the sole charge of cannabis possession. Outside of the US, human rights activists focused on the increasing use of capital punishments for drug offenses from the late 1980s onward, as part of the broader escalation of enforcement efforts during the war on drugs era.In China, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines, the death penalty is exercised regularly for cannabis trafficking offenses. By the mid-1990s, the criticism leveled at the cannabis prohibition TLO began to stimulate increasing advocacy activity in favor of reform. These activities failed to change the direction of drug policy making at the international level. Indeed, the “outcome document” issued in the wake of the 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session on drugs kept in place the existing framework of cannabis prohibition and did not endorse the calls to reclassify cannabis as a less dangerous drug. However, the criticism of the prohibitionist approach had a considerable transformative impact on the development of drug policies at the national and subnational levels. Before long, the diffusion of liberal cannabis policies across national borders began to jeopardize the normative settlements institutionalized by the cannabis prohibition TLO in previous decades. The efforts to liberalize cannabis regulations have focused on three distinct models of reform: depenalization, decriminalization, and legalization. Under formal depenalization regimes, the possession of cannabis is still formally prohibited; however, such prohibitions are enforced through intermediate justice measures rather than through conventional penal sanctions such as incarceration. The Netherlands pioneered the experimentation with depenalization strategies in 1976 when it formalized the use of the expediency principle to guide the enforcement of drug prohibitions. Based on this principle, Dutch prosecutors are instructed not to bring charges when cannabis use offenses take place within the user’s home or within the so-called coffee shops, where cannabis can be openly consumed and purchased.From the 1990s onward, many national and subnational jurisdictions introduced cautioning and diversion schemes to deal with drug use offenses.Cautioning schemes authorize police officers to avoid arresting suspected drug offenders under certain circumstances. Instead, the cautioning schemes require them to issue a written warning of the possible consequences of the illegal behavior.

Diversion schemes, which may operate at the pre-trial, pre-sentence, or post-conviction stages of the legal process, are intended to shift offenders from the criminal justice system and its carceral institutions to other channels of legal intervention. When applied before the sentencing stage, such measures may require the offender to participate in certain treatment and education programs as part of the bail conditions. After the sentencing stage,cannabis grow facility diversion measures may subject a convicted offender to community-based or rehabilitative measures . The widespread transnational diffusion of depenalization regimes is enabled by the structural mismatch between the actors shaping the formal rules of the international drug control system and those implementing these rules in national and local contexts.58 The diffusion of these regimes was not initiated by international organizations or powerful countries. Rather, it has evolved through uncoordinated processes of institutional isomorphism, reflecting converging professional concerns regarding the complexities of implementing criminal prohibitions that are extensively violated by ordinary citizens and that do not reflect widespread social disapprobation of the targeted activity. From the perspectives of ground-level enforcement officials and more senior bureaucratic elites, the implementation of cannabis prohibitions raised pragmatic concerns regarding the limited effectiveness of conventional penal measures and the immense costs that such efforts entailed. In democratic systems committed to the principle of legalism, it seems natural to expect that schemes of depenalization would translate into de jure changes in the statutory definitions governing processes of criminalization. The international drug conventions place constraints on the ability of national legislatures to introduce such reforms. However, the treaties also contain textual ambiguities that provide leeway for negotiating the scope and ambit of such prohibitions. The rise of the medical cannabis movement illustrates the unfolding of such processes of normative contestation. The movement began to gain ground in the early 1990s, focusing its efforts on promoting ballot initiatives at the municipal and state levels in the US.Within the next two decades, it effectively initiated the enactment of laws decriminalizing the medical use of marijuana in thirty-one states across the US and inspired norm entrepreneurs in dozens of other countries to campaign for the adoption of similar models. Countries adopting medical cannabis laws utilize the latitude allowed by the UN drug conventions regarding the definition of the term “medical and scientific purposes.” Importantly, they challenge the powerful view that marijuana has no demonstrated medical use. In this regard, the medical cannabis movement has demonstrated the effectiveness of bottom-up legal mobilization strategies operating at the subnational level to contest authoritative interpretations of transnational prohibition norms produced by powerful global actors. Building on the successes of the medical marijuana reform movement, advocacy networks in various countries have campaigned for the enactment of more radical models of decriminalizing and even legalizing the recreational use of cannabis. The seeds of this development were sown in the 1990s when European countries increased the thresholds of the amounts of cannabis possession exempted from criminal responsibility. Portugal, for example, adopted threshold parameters based on “the quantity required for an average individual consumption during a period of ten days.”Whereas Portugal adopted this policy as part of a comprehensive redesign of its drug laws on the basis of harm reduction principles,in other countries, these steps toward legalizing cannabis use were stimulated by court rulings reviewing the constitutionality of cannabis prohibitions. For example, in Argentina, a 2009 ruling by the Supreme Court struck down Article 14 of the country’s drug control legislation, which punished the possession of small amounts of cannabis with prison sentences ranging from one month to two years.