Because of this closed network of potential buyers and smoking their own product, they only have enough money to purchase cannabis in small increments. This puts them in a situation where they don’t make much, if any, money at all. Thus, many cannabis sellers quickly resign themselves to the status of “helper,” part-time dealer, or simply a user that sells to smoke for free.Another facet that I found unique about the group is that none of them considered themselves drug dealers. Some referred to themselves as “herbalists,” some called themselves “helpers,” but none would call themselves drug dealers or refer to cannabis as a drug. They refused to use the term drug dealer or drug because of the negative connotations associated with them. They would frequently refer to their clients or customers as “patients” even though they admitted that only some of the visitors to the dispensary were actual medical patients. Moreover, they considered the act of selling to be helping. The Kings, as discussed prior, believed that cannabis could cure all the evils of the world so any instance of selling to an individual would be an instance of helping them or helping the world. This is in direct contrast to the more economic motivations discussed by the various criminological theories of drug selling . Back to the original questions of this dissertation, why do these users smoke sell and sell and how do they understand those processes. What I found was mostly inconsistent with the criminological theories prominent within the discipline. I found no instances of structural and social strain that lead to innovation. Nor did I find evidence of social disorganization among the Kings or their neighborhood. Rather, industrical drying racks what I found was a group of individuals who had an understanding of what cannabis is, does, and can be that was radically different than mainstream social conceptions of this plant.

Although many will be quick to dismiss the act of smoking cannabis as nothing more than a juvenile stoner act practiced by a group pot smoking hippies, mainstream culture heavily influences our outsider perception of this substance. In order to truly understand the practice of drug using and selling, it is important to take an interactionist and culturally relativistic understanding to this practice. Thus, we can see that meaning, interpretation and action is not a simple universal understanding. Instead, interpretation and meaning is socially constructed just as the Kings would suggest our social world is. Given the large and significant number of cannabis users in the United States today , the fact that more research on cannabis users motivations is not so scant is astounding. Moreover given the radical social and legislative changes going on in the U.S. today, the lack of research that examines the motivations of cannabis use and cannabis dealers is even more flabbergasting. Given the social significance that hallucinogens have held throughout history and the significance and social impact of the war on drugs, I would assume that researchers would seek to move beyond the old moralistic criminal control and pathological medical theories. Considering the overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness of cannabis for treating a myriad of diseases, and the fact that many states, four as of this writing, and the District of Columbia, have legalized recreational use of cannabis it is perplexing that within the field of criminology we still hold onto theories of drug use that are clearly no longer suitable in our modern era. Moreover, it is even more perplexing that much of the drug literature has stayed focused on problematic drug use to the detriment of cultural and social interpretations. Indeed, the majority of drug use in the U.S. is recreational and non-problematic. The majority of drug users are recreational users. Only a small percentage of the drug sing population uses the heavy drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine and heroine. Moreover, only a small percentage of the hard drug using population develops serious addiction patterns. Likewise, by conceptualizing drug use as a criminal problem in need of control, and by conceptualizing users as deviants, criminals and delinquents, we as researchers, criminologists and sociologists have unwittingly, or wittingly, been complacent in the very type of thinking that produces systematic racist and classist systems of inequality. It was the goal of this dissertation to counter our moralistic and criminological assumptions about drugs, drug users and drug sellers by focusing on the life history, practices and motivations of a unique group of cannabis users, growers and sellers.

Through ethnographic and interview methodology, I sought to illustrate an understudied yet culturally and socially relevant context of cannabis use. From the viewpoint of users, growers and sellers of these substances, the criminal justice system is but an intruder on the lives of people. One, it seeks to create a paradigm shift in our understanding of drug use and drug users. Two, it contributes to the interactionist and cultural understanding of drug use by examining the social and spiritual motivations of users instead of imposing moralistic judgements. And three, it investigates an under examined and understudied phenomenon of suburban semi-legal drug markets. The findings from this study counter many of the common misconceptions about drug users and sellers. They contradict Merton’s anomie theory as at no point did the Kings indicate that they perceived that legitimate economic opportunities were blocked to them. Likewise, when asked about their motivations to start selling their answers were more altruistic and cultural than economic. The neighborhood I studied did not resemble a ghetto and none of the members discussed depression or anything of that nature that would make me believe that their use was a coping mechanism to deal with the drudgery of life. This study contributed to sociological theories of money making in the sense that some of the members, High-C and TBC in particular, saw cannabis as a way to ball and make money. Like Dohan’s study, they saw cannabis as a means of upward mobility and a way to increase their status. Unfortunately, much like the individuals in Dohan’s study, the Kings are not rich and it is questionable whether or not selling cannabis is a more effective method of making money than a good paying nine-to-five job. Rather, what I found was a complex system of beliefs and rituals that related to cannabis that rival any cultural belief system. The Kings, influenced by the Rastafarian religion and the hippy movement of the sixties, hold a set of beliefs about the healing and spiritual power of cannabis that made it appear that they believed God created the plant for humans to use. They believe the hallucinogenic power of the plant was not merely coincidental.

They believe there was a co-evolutionary symbiotic relationship that humans held with marijuana; marijuana shows humans reality, spurs human creativity, intelligence, and consciousness and cures physical and social ills, and in return, humans spread the genes of the cannabis species throughout the world. By documenting the actual motivations and perceptions of the Kings, I seek to shift our understanding that portrays it as a public health or criminal activity to a more social, spiritual and cultural understanding. Lastly, this study contributed to our understanding of suburban drug markets and the effect of legalization and regulation of drug markets. Unfortunately, the few studies that examine the operation of drug markets in the United States tend to focus on banal characteristics such as whether or not the market is indoor or outdoor and whether or not it is an open or closed market. This dissertation advances our understanding of the cannabis networks that grow, transport and distribute this plant. Moreover, commercial greenhouse benches it illuminates what occurs to markets that are in the precarious situation of being semi-legal, which has been previously under-studied by scholars. By looking at the operation of semi-legal drug markets it shows that legalization has had and overwhelmingly positive impact in reducing drug related crimes. Likewise, it illustrates the unique and ingenious mechanism dealers use to skirt around the laws. The dissertation looked at prices, markups, potency and new types of routes of administration . Likewise, it looks at the various mechanisms used to stay compliant the new laws that regulate the use and distribution of cannabis. This contributes to our understanding of drug markets and how bureaucratic organizations operate by structuring a division of labor designed to stay compliant with the ever changing laws. Additionally, this dissertation looks at the various mechanisms used by county and cities to curb the legality of the cannabis industry.Although not the original goal of this dissertation, one would be remiss to not discuss the racial, classist and gendered implications of the shift in cannabis laws in the United States. As it was not germane to my main research questions, I only breifly touched upon the racialized and gendered nature of the dispensary. I discussed how the female bud tenders emotional and sexual labor is exploited to draw in and maintain the loyalty of young male customers. I also touched upon how the dispensary itself is broken down in a racialized manner with a black security workhorse and a white male running the dispensary. The Kings themselves do not openly exhibit racial bias, to my knowledge, and they do not maliciously sexualize women, to my knowledge. Rather, their behavior mirrors trends that have been occurring in the marijuana industry since its inception. In an attempt to keep up with competition, the Kings employ physically attractive female bud tenders to work at their dispensary. This is common as most job ads for bud tenders request a photo to be sent with the application. This allows potential employers to filter out men and unattractive women. Because the job is technically “volunteer work,” anti-discrimination laws typically do not apply to this industry.One recent study on the recreational cannabis industry in the state of Washington found that the marijuana industry is mostly controlled by white males. An analysis showed that in the state of Washington, about 60% of individuals that work in Seattle dispensaries are white. However, it is important to note that this approximately reflects the racial demographics of the city. The proportion of business owners to regular employees is actually much more relevant to whether and how racial inequalities shape the industry. While the study conducted by the pot blog found that approximately forty percent of individuals that work in Washington’s dispensaries are people of color, only about nine percent of those working in production and processing are non-white . Going beyond simple statistics, when looking at business ownership in the state of Washington, one can see a clear racial hierarchy emerging. When the state of Washington did the lottery for recreational licenses , there was not a single African-American winner . Thus, as we see in the corporate world and practically every other American social institution, racial hierarchy is emerging in the legal cannabis industry. For this reason many observers suggest that the legalization of marijuana has led to a whitening of the cannabis industry. It is important to note that although recreational cannabis use is legal in some states, there are still various barriers to entry into the market in these states and selling cannabis on the street corner is still very much illegal. Thus, while black and brown Americans are being locked up across the country for selling drugs, a select group of rich white Americans are raking in profits and becoming millionaires for the exact same act.Considering the fact that many states have ballot propositions to legalize the recreational use of cannabis , and the decreasing social stigma of the cannabis industry, it is important to critically analyze the racial, class and gendered dynamics of this industry. It is furthermore important that we do not reproduce the same inequality that legalization seeks to dismantle and afford former criminals prosecuted for non-violent marijuana-related crimes the same rights as other American citizens. For it is those disenfranchised and dispossessed that have the most to gain if legalization was truly an open market. Those disenfranchised and dispossessed can pull their years of experience together and compete with big cannabusiness.I think another interesting future direction for cannabis research would be to examine the motivation of cannabis users both before and after its legalization.

One aspects of Dohan’s work is revealing about drug trades in general, he mentions how while many who deal aspire for upward mobility, he points out how few climb the ladder. Much like Venkatesh’s documented in Gang Leader for a Day, few low level dealers make any significant money. Rather, drug dealing enterprises typically operate in a pyramidal structure with middle men and those at the tope holding out the allure of making it big while exploiting labor of the low level dealers. Yet, Dohan also points to how gang’s in the Barrio serve as a form of social organization and control where traditional mechanism have disintegrated. In a similar vein, Anderson suggest the code of the street is a new form of organization and control when previous systems of control break down. Yet, Wilson’s , Anderson’s , Venkatesh’s and Dohan’s studies assumes that blocked opportunities and economic survival is what drives the sale of drugs. Consistent with this theory, many of the members of the group have been effectively barred from the mainstream economy as a result of stints in juvenile hall and jail. However, unlike drug markets dealing with harder drugs, the marijuana market is partially legal and overly saturated. In some cities, it is possible to find 30 or 40 delivery services. Much like the cannabis market in general, many delivery drivers view cannabis selling as an effective path towards economic viability and social mobility. The financial incentive for cannabis selling is only one component. Moreover, the high cost of running dispensaries and the extensive risk creates barriers other businesses do not face. For example, bank loans, credit card transactions, leasing units and security are all prohibitive costs for dispensaries. Moreover, greenhouse bench top in the middle class area of Orange County, one cannot claim the type of destitute and blocked economic opportunities that Wilson observed. Wilson’s study was conducted primarily in the innercity Chicago area, conditions far different from middle-class suburban white Orange County.

Although Wilson’s theories related to upward social mobility and economic motivations are partially correct, the Kings motivations are not inherently financial. Rather, they view selling and smoking as a symbol of prestige and disconformity to the system. Culture, ideology and counter cultural belief systems play a significant role in their motivations. As Natty explained, “We’re burning down Babylon.” In a similar light, social disorganization theories posit that conditions within urban lower class environments affect crime rates. Criminologists working within this paradigm, a perspective popularized by Chicago school criminologist McKay and Shaw , point to factors such as high-unemployment, large high-school dropout rates, deteriorated housing, poverty and large number of single parent households as contributing to despair and anti-social behavior and lack of resources to sustain social organizations and community institutions. Anti-social behavior manifests itself in ways that leads to higher crime rates in poor socially disorganized communities. Again, while it is commendable for criminologist to see delinquency, crime and drug use as emanating from social structure instead of individual pathology, an overemphasis by criminologist on focusing on poor communities has lead to a type of virtual blinders of crime and delinquent behavior elsewhere. In the middle class area of Orange County, drug use, both cannabis and other drugs, are fairly normalized. A focus on inner-city neighborhoods ignores the extensive drug use that occurs in middle class and affluent neighborhoods. Self-report surveys indicate the drug use and selling is, and has always been a phenomenon in every race and social class. As is illustrated in both surveys and my dissertation, middle-class white Americans are just as likely to use drugs as any other racial group. It appears that the main difference between the two groups drug selling and usage is the attention paid to each group by academics, researcher, the media and police.Elliot’s integrated delinquency model is a synthesis of various social process and strain theories into one comprehensive theory of drug use.

Elliot et al. argue that drug use is the result of bonding with deviant peer groups. As the social structure becomes more disorganized and the individual loses his/her pro-social ties to society, deviant peer groups fill the void for social interaction. This is a step above the rest as it synthesizes various approaches from the macro and micro level, yet its overemphasis on peer bonding downplays the fact that non-users report bonding with deviant peers . Harton and Latane note the importance of social approval in the process of using drugs. Consequently, Anderson suggests that meaning systems and new definitions of the self may be the more important explanatory factors that distinguish users from non-users. Accordingly, I suggest, that when viewing the group I am studying that it is relevant to understand the meaning and symbols to this particular culture when understanding their substance use and selling. The groups cultural beliefs will be briefly recapped later in this chapter. Theorists working in the labeling tradition typically point to two features. One, the social construction of crime and deviance; and two, the development of a criminal identity. As has been discussed throughout this dissertation, drugs historically have not had the same type of reaction that they elicit today. Many cultures consider mind-altering substances of all types gifts from Gods. Today, because of political and social forces, drugs are perceived as inherently dangerous and immoral. The second line of tradition labeling theorists operate within is the development of a deviant identity. Edwin Lemert first proposed this in 1951 when discussing why certain individuals persist in their criminal career trajectory. Lemert’s thesis is that, once labeled, the deviant undertakes an intellectual process that works to justify the behavior through the adoption of a deviant identity. One can clearly see this manifest itself with the Kings. Both Natty and Dorian were arrested and sent to Juvenile Hall at a relatively early age . Having thus been labeled by the society as deviants, they undertook an identity as deviants, took that identity, and turned it into a career trajectory.

Although many theorists working within a pro criminal justice paradigm believe juvenile hall serves as a means of rehabilitation for young kids, my research suggest the opposite. Instead of rehabilitating Natty, juvenile hall actually brought him into contact with Dorian, who would become his life-long friend and life-long cannabis business partner. In 1973, Edwin Schur wrote his seminal text Radical Non-Intervention in which he claimed that the delinquent label can actually increase delinquency. Natty was sent to juvie for a relatively minor offense that today is common place . Moreover, juvenile hall and the process of delinquent labeling has a tendency to reproduce race and class inequality. When deciding whether or not to proceed with a juvenile trial an intake officer takes a record of the juveniles’ history of mental health, history of substance use and other factors. Natty, being the child of a single mother that was addicted to drugs certainly influenced the intake officer to detain Natty. Again, juvenile hall many times has the opposite effect of rehabilitation. The fact that juvenile hall takes into account social demographics of the child into consideration when making decisions inherently reproduces racial and class inequality. This type of experience led to a strong and profound anti-systemic feeling within Natty and Dorian. In fact, The Kings Self-conception is so heavily influenced their identity as rebels and smokers that they nickname themselves off of cannabis substances. High-C is a reference to being high and TBC is a reference to THC . Natty is a reference to Dread locks. I changed the names of these individuals for confidentiality purposes, however, botanicare rolling benches their nicknames in real life are somewhat similar. Indeed, being shunned by society may have led to their radical anti-American, anti-capitalist stance. Much of their behavior is counter cultural in nature. Differential Association Differential association is highly applicable to the Kings. This theory posits that through interaction with other deviants, individuals learn the motivations, techniques, values and ideas conducive to criminal behavior . In fact, every one of the Kings mentioned peer influence when discussing their own motivations to use and sell cannabis. For both Natty and Dorian, their parents were drug addicts or at the very least, appeared to use drugs on a relatively consistent basis. Dorian’s father, before he was locked up, taught Dorian how to set up and run a growing operation and taught him a lot about the culture and some of the techniques on how to not be caught with cannabis. Natty’s mother was so permissive of drug use that she would buy alcohol for the Kings while they were still in high school. TBC and High-C were both experienced smokers before they decided to get in the medical marijuana business. Yet, they did not have the same family situation as Natty and Dorian. I personally doubt whether their parents or close family members were aware of their activities. However, their interactions with Natty and Dorian influenced them to fund the grow-op and collective. Moreover, it was particularly interesting how all of them seemed to have perceived cannabis as positive for society. This type of uniformity in thought may have been influenced by the fact that they discussed the nature of cannabis with each other and it is a social status symbol within the group to know about cannabis culture and history. Bruce Johnson’s subcultural model is a form of deviant subcultural theory. Johnson focused on a college setting in which users were separated from their parents and influenced by their teenage peers. Johnson argued that the more isolated an individual was from his parents and the more attached they were to the teenage subculture, the greater likelihood they would participate in drug use.

The relevance of Johnson’s articles is dual in that it focuses on the meanings ascribed to drug use, and the social and cultural context in which the use existed. Johnson acknowledges that there is a competition for prestige and status within peer groups and that status and prestige are attained by engaging in activities that depart from the normative demands of mainstream society. Another relevant aspect of Johnson’s study is his use of college students. Although he noted these individuals were more likely to drop out of school, it is relevant to note that the use of drugs is a product of all social and economic classes, and is not a product of a culture mired in pathology. However, although Johnson notes the inherently social nature of drug use, he digresses into moralistic judgments about how the use increases the likelihood of dropping out and participating in deviant sexual behavior, further illustrating the fact that criminology has yet to shake the conservative view of drugs as a problem in society in need of remedy. All of these previous theories and studies pointed to the fact that substance use is correlated with various other anti-social, deviant, or occasionally criminal acts. I suggest two reasons for these findings. For one, as a result of various laws and moral entrepreneurs that create anti-drug campaigns, drugs are demonized as illegal, harmful and injurious to society. Consequently, the more likely one is to hold unconventional views on society, the more likely they are to participate in unconventional behavior, of which drug use may be one. Secondly, these studies tended to focus on adolescents, who, while they experience a gap between biological and social maturity, undertake rebellious and anti-social attitudes to break out of the juvenile roles they existed in when children . Johnson’s subcultural, Elliot’s integrated delinquent, and Jessor and Jessor’s problem-prone behavior theories all focused onadolescents or teens. My study on the other hand, focused on young adults that ran a competent business. All of these studies tended to focus on adolescents that were experiencing a gap between biological and social maturity and therefore undertook rebellious attitudes and anti-social attitudes to break out of the juvenile roles they existed in when children . Moffit claims that there are two types of offenders, adolescent limited , and life course persisters . As adolescents transition into adulthood and take on more prosocial roles, the propensity for engaging in criminal offenses dissipates . This is relevant to understand why we see such high correlations between drug use and other types of anti-social behavior. It has less to do with the drugs as it does with particular life stages in American culture and the age of the group studied.

All members said underground in unison as if they knew what TBC was going to say . I am assuming they had discussions about mainstream versus underground music prior to me asking about it. For the group, conformity to the establishment, whether that be music, dress, drugs, or any other lifestyle sets one apart as a poser or a conformist. Thus, a dramaturgical hierarchy developed within the group as each member tried to conform the least to common norms and practices such as listening to mainstream music or participating in mainstream culture.One goal of this dissertation was to use a unique group of cannabis users and sellers to examine the commonly held assumptions and scholarly theories about drug use and drug users. The goal was to create a shift in our understanding of drug use, which today is still trapped in overly moralistic and pejorative assumptions about the lives, perceptions, histories and motivations of drug users. Our understanding of substance use is still largely informed by models that seek to pathologize drugs and their users and to either rehabilitate or incarcerate them. As Geoffrey Hunt explains, “In contemporary Western industrialized societies, our current approach to drugs is influenced by both a medical and a criminal vision that emerged a little more than a century ago. The concepts of addiction and ‘drug control’ have imposed themselves as the unquestionable truths of drug issues.” . Hunt goes on to explain how these two perspectives create a type of mental blinder that make it difficult to comprehend or frame the issue of drug usage in any way other than a medical or criminal problem in need of regulation and/or extermination. Moreover, cannabis drying racks commercial this has led to a pathologizing of the individual user and the social environment that the individual exists within while simultaneously ignoring social, cultural and spiritual functions the consciousness altering substance may serve.

In contrast, substance use scholars recognize that consciousness-altering substances are used and enjoyed by every known society, including our own, in some form or another. Paleontologist believe that humans may have cultivated opium and cannabis with the rise of agriculture over 10,000 years ago . And, new theories suggest that the production and cultivation of cereals, specifically rye in ancient Mesopotamia was for the purpose of manufacturing beer, and not bread, as previously theorized . Others speculate that animals used drugs before humans , and thus, substance use predates human history. Likewise, Andrew Weil argues that the desire to induce altered states of consciousness is an innate biological human drive, on par with sex and hunger. Considering the widespread use of consciousness altering substances throughout human history and perhaps even prehuman history, it is necessary to understand such uses from a more culturally relativistic perspective and to understand why these substances have such universal appeal. Despite this, the belief that drug use serves particular cultural and social functions for groups is conspicuously absent from the sociological and criminology literature. Reviewing the literature on drug use, except for a few notable cases , I found it difficult to find criminological or sociological literature on drug usage that did not entrap the issue within the medical or crime control perspective. I frequently found myself rummaging through cultural anthropologic literature in order to find literature that considers substance use from a cultural perspective. This dissertation sought to fill in this gap in the literature on substance use. Instead of taking a criminologic and/or medical perspective on drug use, I sought to understand the behavior from a cultural and socially relativistic standpoint. However, much to my chagrin, the use of these individuals neither completely refuted nor completely confirmed either the criminologic and/or medical literature or my own assumptions. This chapter will discuss the major medical and criminologic theories of drugs to see how they fit, or do not fit this group of cannabis users. The end of the chapter will discuss my observations of the group and propose a new theory to create a cultural and social understanding of drug use.

The classical or medical model of substance use frames the issue as defined by the appearance of withdrawal symptoms. One of the first sociological attempts to explain drug use was proposed by Lindesmith , although today it is regarded as belonging to the addiction model. Lindesmith countered popular notions of drug abuse at the time by suggesting that drug addiction was not the product of psychopaths’ desire to escape life, but resulted from the desire to avoid the pain of withdrawal symptoms. This perspective of drug abuse dominated up until the 1970’s . Although his theory helped to counter the more pejorative psychopath label ascribed to drug addicts by many psychologists, it did not explain why individuals used the drugs in the first place. Lindesmith discussed it as prescribed by doctors yet did not adequately address other factors that lead one person and not another, to use opiates. Likewise, his theory failed to explain the high proportion of users that took drugs on a regular enough basis for some to label that use “abuse.” Furthermore, the substance I am studying, marijuana, has relatively mild physical-withdrawal symptoms, and only for chronic long-time users. These mild withdrawal symptoms include restlessness, irritability, mild agitation and insomnia . Yet, the withdrawal symptoms are usually too miniscule and irrelevant to be termed addiction in the classical sense as proposed by Lindesmith, likewise, the theory fails to explain onset and the process that accompanies it. Lindesmith’s classical addiction model proposed that addiction was defined as withdrawal symptoms when drug using behavior, primarily opiates were removed. This failure led to the idea of psychological or behavioral dependence. This led to a psychological explanation of drug use termed the reinforcement model. Two types of reinforcement model explain drug use: positive and negative. As Bejerot explains, “The pleasure mechanism may…give rise to a strong fixation on repetitive behavior.” . In its most simplistic form, this perspective states that getting high is pleasurable and consequently, gets repeated by the user. The negative reinforcement, similar to the addiction model suggests users take substances for the purpose of avoiding physical or emotional pain. In the classic model, this pain is associated with withdrawal, in the negative reinforcement model, any type of pain can lead someone to seek out substances, such as the desire to drink if one is depressed.

As indicated earlier, both of these models fail to explain onset. And although the positive reinforcement model is particularly useful for understanding the substance I am studying, marijuana, it is telling that positive reinforcement is framed in medical jargon that seeks to situate use within an existing medical or mentally pathological framework instead of conceptualizing use as a desire for pleasure in itself. Many theories abound about cannabis’ addicting properties. Some suggest it has little to no physically addicting properties, while others suggest it has the ability to create dependence and affect an individual’s life . Most users are recreational users that use in a social context with friends. However, heavy users have the ability to develop mild physical and strong mental dependence. Researchers believe that over stimulation of the endocannabinoid system leads to changes in the structure of the brain that can lead to addiction. Similar to the Kings explanation of a balance to the world, researchers believe that the more cannabis one uses the more cannabis they will need to feel the same effect. Physical addiction is typically associated with withdrawal symptoms. The typical withdrawal symptoms of a cannabis user is irritability, mood and sleep difficulties, decreased appetite, cravings, vertical grow racks restlessness and other types of physical discomfort . My own personal experience with cannabis prior to starting the study lead me to believe that claims of marijuana addiction were exaggerated at best and a downright propagandist lie at worst. It was not until I saw addiction first hand did I see how powerful it could be for some people. The Kings for example, would smoke on average about once every hour. Likewise, Dorian explained to me that he frequently had to wake in the middle of the night to smoke cannabis because if he did not smoke he would be too restless to go back to sleep. High-C and TBC, would frequently smoke on their way to do drop offs for the collective and the other volunteers at the collective would frequently go out back and smoke every couple of hours despite ordinances preventing on-site use at many collectives. Indeed, Dorian once told me he could never work the typical nine-to-five because he smoked too much and the one job he had at Kmart he always showed up lit and would go to his car on his breaks to smoke cannabis. Furthermore, he claimed working a nine to-five kept him trapped in the system as nothing more than a corporate minion.One of the biggest concerns of marijuana opponents is the question of motivation, or lack thereof amongst cannabis smokers. As the American Council for Drug Education suggest, cannabis leads to, “A loss of ambition and initiation, a withdrawal from customary activity, and a regression to a simpler kind of life.” . Many consider cannabis as leading to a life of indolence, free from the cares of the world, and that cannabis users typically stop caring about their appearances.

The question of anti-motivation is relevant for many reasons. For one, it is a common conservative talking point that seeks to demonize a plant that has little to no dangers associated with it besides possible mild addiction. Two, the idea is promulgated through popular culture and seems to be blindly accepted as fact by both cannabis opponents and users alike. And three, it is indicative of the conservative in the box thinking indicative of society today. The common image perpetuated in the media of cannabis users, particularly espoused by groups such as the Partnership for a Drug Free America, is one where a productive, intelligent and highly motivated teenager uses cannabis, rebels, and retreats to a life of indolence and sloth. The user typically becomes a school dropout, working for minimum wage if working at all, all the while, living in their parents’ basement playing video games and eating junk food. Ironically, this is neither entirely truthful nor a complete lie. In order to understand the effect cannabis can have on and individual and his or her motivation one must understand the nature of drugs and drug usage. There are a variety of factors that can and does affect the high an individual user may experience, things such as route of administration, cannabis type and strength, an individual’s expectations and predispositions and the set and setting. Perhaps the most significant of these is the type of cannabis and the type of strain and the differing chemicals coumpounds within each strain. Based upon the type of strain, a veteran user typically wants a certain feeling and experience. Users typically use this to help them calm down, ease nervousness and restlessness, manage physical pain and help them to sleep. In this context, many cannabis users who consume indica dominant strains during the day can experience fatigue and anti-motivation. I know many users who consume indica dominant cannabis throughout the day and these individual typically resort to a life of idleness and apathy. Dorian told me a story about Jenna, a cannabis user he met at a collective. He told me the cannabis helped to relax her when she is around other people. Unfortunately, he also told me it makes her extremely tired and she ends up sleeping a lot. He told me she slept until 4pm each day. He said, she looked like she had slept all day, she didn’t wear makeup and seemed to have shown up to the collective in the exact same clothes she wore to sleep. Natty told me he ran in to many users at the Corner that fit this description, many people did not shave and looked unkempt. This is perhaps one of the worst aspects of cannabis use, especially for medical cannabis patients. Many patients need the pain relief and anti-nausea effect cannabis provides, but experience the cannabis as working during, and temporarily after the hallucination. Many wish they could get the relief without the high associated with the plant. Cannabis plants high in CBD and low in the psychoactive THC may help with this. CBD is a cannabinoid that mellows the mood and calms nerves while curbing the hallucinogenic effects of THC .

Unfortunately, that appears far from the case, as the modern legalization debate has been more focused on the financial opportunities cannabis provides rather than how it reproduces racial inequalities.What is cannabis? As this brief analysis of cannabis history shows, the answer is not a simple one. Considered by some as medicine, others as a guide to spiritual enlightenment, others the road to perdition and still others, human consciousness. Although it would be easy to paint all these ancient cultures as naïve, superstitious and ignorant of drugs, this is an ethnocentric view of a plant that has historically held a social significance that should not be underestimated. It’s powerful influence on human culture and its social significance spread it to every country on earth. And it is today still the most widely used illicit substance on earth. What I feel is particularly noteworthy about the history of marijuana is its transition from being considered a spiritual, religious and medicinal plant with the power to connect with the divine to a dangerous schedule I narcotic that is believed to lead to schizophrenia, suicide, murder and sex crimes. Although recent years and legislation such as Proposition 215 and Colorado and Washington’s legalization of the plant seems to suggest a step forward in viewing the plant as a non-addictive herb with medical qualities, there is a sense in which the power and beauty of the plant is still not recognized in our culture the way it was millennia ago. It is the goal of this dissertation to study and understand the perceptions of this plant by a group of cannabis growers, sellers and users from a relativistic perspective.Most collectives that exist in Southern California operate in disguise. Natty told me that he had a friend that worked at a collective that was raided. Luckily, because of some technicality, his friend was not prosecuted, clone rack but they did have to shut down the collective. Because of this, Natty made sure to keep the collective as hid as possible.

Although The Corner attempted to keep the collective hidden, Natty also tried to make sure people knew The Corner existed. He posted the location of the collective on a website called Weedmaps. Weedmaps is a type of social networking community for marijuana users to find, review and discuss cannabis, recommending physicians and dispensaries. Weedmaps uses a proximity map for the user to locate dispensaries and doctors around their area. They also have a link to delivery services around the area that the user is located. Weedmaps charges to list a delivery service. It appears there are a lot of amateur pot growers who wish to be listed as a delivery service without being associated with a collective. This way Weedmaps eliminates competition and keeps the organization more legitimate. Natty suggested there was an inherent danger with posting the collective on Weedmaps or any other type of social networking site, it alerts the police and federal agencies to the location of a collective, putting the Kings at risk of harassment by the local authorities. Although cannabis collectives are legal in California and are protected under SB420, various cities, Costa Mesa not included, have enacted local ordinances so restrictive that it makes it virtually impossible to operate within them. Any violation of a restrictive ordinance gives local police the ability to effectively shut down collectives or prevent them from operating. Furthermore, the local police have the ability to inform federal agents about the operation of a collective that they believe does not follow the rules. Since cannabis is still illegal on a federal level, federal agents can raid dispensaries at will. Despite president Obama claiming that federal agents would no longer be used to raid legal medical marijuana collectives, it still frequently occurs . Natty told me that cops never came in to the collective, but he strategically placed a “going out of business” sign on the front door of the collective a week after it opened to make the police think the collective was going to close soon. Natty told me the cops rarely do full on raids without warning. He told me that the cops typically find a small violation by the collective and uses that as an excuse to threaten to shut it down. After the threat of a raid, most collectives shut down their operation and move them to a location nearby, typically with the same staff. Most office buildings that house collectives rent to collectives on short-term leases because of the risk involved with the business.

Many of these office buildings tend to be unused, hidden or not centrally located, and deteriorating. I believe these are usually the only office buildings that will lease to medical marijuana dispensaires. Some collectives are stationed in buildings that look like they could only be inhabited by an illegal business. Unfortunately, the only way to keep a consistent and steady stream of patients was to advertise on Weedmaps and risk harassment by local authorities. The entrance lobby was plain with chairs and magazines on a coffee table that looked like a doctor’s office for the patients to sit on while they waited to be called in to the collective. The lobby has a series of video cameras to deter would be robbers. The front counter is where the patient shows their identification card and provides the collective with their recommendation letter . The rec, as it is frequently referred to, is examined by the front clerk and is confirmed by the recommending physician’s office. While a patient waits for the collective to confirm the legitimacy of the rec, the patient fills out new patient paperwork and signs an agreement that they will not visit another collective . After filling out the paperwork, and the legitimacy of the rec is confirmed, the patient becomes a member of the collective or cooperative and the plants that the patient can consume and possess are conferred to the collective. By conferring possession to the collective it allows the collective and the growers to possess much more cannabis than they would be able to legally hold without the aggregate possession. The front desk clerk then scans and copies all of the necessary documentation and inputs them into a computer that holds a database of all of the collective’s members. The front desk volunteer also serves as a bud tender at the shop. After the patient becomes a full member, the patient is shown through the door. The security guard also serves as an informal door attendant. The security guard serves the dual function of making patients feel safe, while discouraging would be robbers. Once the patient walks through the door, they are greeted with a very tranquil ambiance. The ambience is cool and mellow with reggae playing from the speakers and the smell of incense stirring the air. While the original entrance lobby was designed to give the impression of an official doctor’s office or pharmacy, the ambience inside the collective is designed to make the patient feel welcome and relaxed. In fact, Lucy Natty’s girlfriend and Corner co-manager frequently shows up with her dog as the dispensary pet.There are typically two attractive female volunteers that stand behind the counter at the shop. The Bud tenders are there to help the patients find the item they seek. Lucy is the most common tender, and her friends also help at the collective.

There is a gendered division of labor that exists in the cooperative. The Kings prefer to have Lucy and her friends work the counter while the male workers serve as delivery drivers. Lucy told me many times she would prefer to be the delivery driver, but that she understands that delivering cannabis to people outside of the dispensary might put her at risk of sexual assault or injury. Thus, the females to some degree use their sexuality to lure customers back to the dispensary, and the males deliver the goods to personal homes or other locations. Dispensary “volunteers” as they are called are a critical component to the functioning of the medical marijuana system. There are extreme inconsistencies between strains, strengths, and potency. Thus, the employees are critical to helping the patient select the right strain, strength and potency. The volunteers of the collective are kind of a mix between pharmacist and wine connoisseurs, hydroponic shelves informing the patients of types of cannabis, to effect, potency and even flavor. A common name for a collective employee is a “Cannasouir” or Bud Tender. Likewise, the staff at The Corner will typically ask a patient if they are comfortable with another patient being in the collective with them at the same time. This helps the staff maintain a level of privacy for their patients. Although The Corner members to maintain their privacy, its typically unnecessary as anybody who is at a collective must be relatively permissive about cannabis use. Some people however are private individuals and would like to keep their use a secret and those people typically use delivery services. The Kings explained that older people and females are more likely to use delivery services. The Kings explained that it was rare for patients to not allow others to join them in the dispensary when they are present. For those that prefer privacy, it is typically the elderly and females who may feel uncomfortable around people they do not know. Likewise, they explained that people that are already high on cannabis are much more likely to use delivery services as driving to a dispensary becomes too difficult for many. The inside of the collective is broken down into three sections. The cannabis in bud form is at the front. The bud is kept in glass cabinets like those that one would see at jewelry counter. The bud itself was kept in medium sized mason jars for the employees to pull out so the patients can smell the cannabis. Edibles, lollipops tinctures, topicals, concentrates and waxes are positioned at the left. In a mini-fridge near the edibles is a series of soda pop like drinks that contain THC. To the right there are pre-rolled joints and various souvenirs handed out to first time patients. To the furthest right is the cashier hidden behind another bulletproof glass wall where the donation to the collective is made. Tight security is necessary at the dispensary. Although it is a semi-legal operation in California, the fact that it is associated with marijuana, a banned substance in many areas of the world, makes it a frequent target for thieves and robbers. It is frequently suggested that the massive amount of money dispensaries hold, instead of the cannabis, is what makes the dispensaries attractive to criminals . Collectives typically carry massive amounts of cash, as banks will not do business with them. The Corner skates around this buy processing transactions under a different name. A trip through the back store of a marijuana dispensary is quite intimidating as you see pounds of cannabis in large bags littering the floor. Natty told me that if the DEA ever raided the place that there is no paper trail linking any volunteers to the collective. He told his volunteers that if the collective was ever raided to jump on the other side of the counter and say they were patients. There was no accounting of employees’ social security numbers or other information. Bud tender volunteers were paid under the table. This helped the employees avoid prosecution in the event of a raid. They typically have a lot of cash, as many patients do not like to have a credit card trail of their visits to collectives. However, when patients utilize their card and the volunteers swipe the card through their phone with a device the credit card statement is encrypted with a weird name such as garden nursery that is suggestive of a nursery rather than a dispensary. The back wall has an assortment of bubblers, pipes, bongs, ash catchers, adapters, down stems, vaporizers, vape cartridges and percolators, many of which can be combined together. It is quite interesting to see the massive assortment of materials that can be used to consume cannabis. Marijuana can be consumed through smoking joints, bowls, pipes, bongs, bubblers, hookahs and blunts; dabbing, or vaping. These different contraptions are used to consume different types of cannabis products such as cannabis, resin and oil . It is even more fascinating to think about the way these contraptions have evolved over the past two decades.

The limitations to this study is that by employing ethnographic study, the results found here may not be representative of the entire population or community of marijuana smokers or sellers. Thus, while the study should be highly valid, it may lack in reliability and consistency. Furthermore, it is difficult to access these populations, as marijuana smoking, growing and selling is still an illegal venture under federal law. Thus, although ethnographic data may not be as reliably consistent as other methods, it allows for an indepth study of a relatively understudied and difficult to access population. Likewise, this study could serve as a counter to the usually negative and scornful popular ideas about marijuana sellers so abundant in American culture.The question of objectivity is a common conundrum faced by researchers employing qualitative ethnographic methods. Can an individual be both objective of a group while simultaneously being deeply embedded enough to truly understand the culture and ethos of the group at hand? I believe that the only way to truly understand a group is to live like they live, think like they think, and adopt their philosophy in life. Objectively understanding the group comes through stepping back occasionally and distancing oneself. I have known the group members understudy for the past 15 years. Subsequent chapters will discuss how I know them. Being both and insider from knowing the group so long, and an outsider in the sense of studying the group from a sociological standpoint puts me in a unique position to do both. Therefore, while objectivity may be a question to be addressed, I believe that being both objective and immersed is possible and ideal.As Peirce suggest, vertical farming equipment supplier the self is an integral part of the research process and should be fully articulated in research and should not be downplayed or neglected. Krieger contends that by detaching oneself from the people being studied renders their experiences and lifestyles more difficult to see and understand.

In field studies conducted today it is common to divulge how the researcher knows the research participants. Such writing helps to grapple with biases that the researcher may possess, but it also serves as a critique of positivist methods that emphasize strict scientific detached observations. One critique of this outsider scientific approach is that many claim those European anthropological and urban ethnographic studies of minority communities tend to reproduce neo-colonial relationships with their subjects . As will become clear in this dissertation, this research is not simple, cold, passive and neutral science. Rather, it reflects a yearning for positive change and greater understanding of a vulnerable population that participates in a demonized practice. Likewise, I did sought the opposite of reproducing domination. I sought to illustrate an understudied and poorly understood dynamic of drug use that has historically been shunned and demonized an ostracized by the scientific literature. My first experience with this group, which will be documented in more detail later, occurred nearly fifteen years ago. At the time the group understudy were lowly cannabis dealers. They all lived in close proximity to me and through mutual friends, we got to know each other. These people were all life-long friends. In fact, even though I had access to a unique group of people, I never once thought to do a dissertation on their activities because I never thought of them as anybody other than people I knew. With this group, I frequently saw myself as an insider. In methodological literature, an insider is any researcher that shares a similar social location be it race, class or gender . As a working class male growing in the middle class neighborhood of Costa Mesa, I shared many of the same background characteristics of the group understudy. However, I did not share the same racial status as the group. This never seemed to deter me from being a part of the group however. In fact, I personally believe they forgot that I was conducting a study at all. These were people I have known for decades and the fact that I was conducting ethnographic research did not for a short period of time did not seem to change their behavior. The problem with insider knowledge however stems from the critique that a pure insider can never be truly objective and therefore, their observations are biased and tainted. I personally agree with both positions and sought to situation myself as best I could as both an insider and outsider.

Many sociological researchers would contend that me being a different racial group then the group understudy would make me an outsider . These researchers are primarily concerned about whites studying African Americans or Latinos because of the ability of researchers to reproduce racist and neo-colonial ideas. It was a question that came into my mind as I originally formulated the idea for this dissertation. Studying the drug rituals of middle class white suburbanites seemed like more of a joke than a real study. Moreover, one thing I realized I was doing was reproducing the ideas that white drug use was inherently non-problematic. One reason I wanted to illustrate this was not to reproduce racist assumptions that white drug use is non-problematice while minority drugs use is chaotic. Rather, I wanted to illustrate that drug use itself, is normal and ubiquitous in all social classes and racial groups. The unique access I had with this group allowed me to show this other side of drug use and selling. However, my status as an outsider comes about not so much by my race class or gendered social location, but by my position as a graduate student. As a strict observer and interviewer, I did not participate in the acts, routines and livelihoods of my subjects. The worlds of experiences that they conveyed to me could only be written down and copied to the best of my ability. I did not experience the hallucinations. I did not experience growing and caring for plants. And, I did not participate in the operation of a dispensary. Moreover, there were theories and beliefs they held that I still do not fully understand or relate too. They told me however, that one cannot understand the multiple reality of our world without experiencing another world. Their experiences and biases are unique and different from mine. Although they, much like I am, are critical of society, they take it to an extreme that borderlines near paranoia. When discussing their hatred of Republicans and their belief in domination of the world that only cannabis allows you to see, I did not share that view. Likewise, I am frequently critical throughout this dissertation of the factuality of their beliefs and their methods to solve the problem of domination. Yet, although our opinions frequently diverge, and the opinions of the Kings frequently diverge as well, I try to present their beliefs and activities as neutral as possible while maintaining objectivity as much as possible.

Although I consider myself and outsider within, the themes and ideas brought forth in this study are not mine, but are made possible only by the willing participation of the members at study. Thus, the thoughts and ideas are theirs, not mine yet written and told through the eyes of an outsider within researcher. This chapter is a general overview of marijuana. It looks at the plants origins, scientific classification and its unique effect on the human body and brain. Moreover, this chapter discusses the history of its cultivation, its use throughout the ages. Theories about its effects, its medicinal properties and how it was spread throughout the world were also noted. Also, this chapter touched on the effect it has on the brain and dispel some of the myths about its negative impacts on the body. It concludes with its recent history in America and California in particular as California has a unique and relatively open stance towards marijuana use.This chapter introduces the group understudy, the members of the group individually, and the research setting. It began with my “getting in” story, grow light shelves my initial introduction to the group and how I know these people. It proceeded in a narrative form describing the city and the setting and their connection to it. It will be descriptive but will incorporate various criminological and sociological macro theories to set the stage for understanding this group. Good ethnographies situate culture and experience within the broader social, political and economic climate of the time while paying attention to the racial, class and gendered dynamics of the group. Thus, the descriptive narrative introduction to the group serves as a way of introducing their life histories, and the social context in which they grew up and lived and how that led to their participation in the marijuana using and selling subculture. Various elements make this community distinctive and unique, from their self-produced music, their terminology and style of dress, to their incorporation of Rastafarian, hippie and stoner skater into their own unique infused culture. Many of these elements are directly drawn from the counter cultures seen on television and their cultural styling and marijuana use reflects that. The theories applied to this chapter were macro-level oriented as it sought to understand how the city, the setting and the larger social environment led these individuals down this path. By incorporating this macro-level orientation at the beginning, we saw how it directly weighs upon the micro-level interactions expanded upon in the subsequent chapters. I incorporated elements of conflict, labeling, Merton’s anomie and differential association into this analysis. I also critiqued social-control theory and various other theories to show why they may not be an adequate analysis for the members of this group. This chapter builds on the scholarship of marijuana and drug subcultures as a distinctively social phenomenon. This chapter looks at the practice of marijuana use and selling from a symbolic interactionist perspective. Instead of focusing on the use of marijuana as a practice that produces a desired hallucination, this takes the perspective that marijuana use, selling, and growing is a status symbol in marijuana culture. Marijuana viewed from this perspective, is a site of social bonding where adolescent can bond through a culturally unaccepted practice, and gain status and hierarchy through the production and selling of drugs. Thus, although the manifest or stated functions of marijuana use may be to enjoy a hallucination, many of my observations suggested a much more symbolic and performative latent function to participating in marijuana smoking. However, I do not discount the hallucination as a relevant aspect of smoking, as I do not see the two as mutually exclusive, in fact, I perceive the two as reinforcing. Rather, I drew attention to the manifest and the latent functions of marijuana and how it was used as a ritual to create feelings of bonding and communality amongst the group. This chapter predominantly looked at marijuana use and the practice of selling from a dramaturgical perspective. This chapter also looked at marijuana from the point of view of those who use it. This chapter focused on the use of marijuana as a reflexive critical cultural practice of the group. I suggested earlier that the reasons for using marijuana can be varied as the people who use it. Although the symbolic performative aspect of marijuana smoking is in my opinion a definite phenomenon, the use of marijuana for the hallucination is just as real. However, instead of casting marijuana use as a diversionary form of entertainment, these individuals suggest its use as a reflexive practice, a practice that allows the participants to meditate and think critically about themselves and society. Through a type of looking glass self-lens, the members of the groups view the act as a way to experience a different perception of themselves and society. This practice is understood not just as a hallucination, but as a way to be an observer of oneself and ones participation in society. Thus, reflexivity, rebellion and critical thought is the ultimate goal of this group’s marijuana use.In this chapter, I proposed an alternative view of drug use and selling. By countering common biological and criminological assumptions of cannabis, I was able to flesh out a new socio-cultural theory of drug use.

Our sampled farms were small , had conducted some form of clearing for production space, and three had constructed some form of fence or barrier around their crop. Nonetheless, specific land use practices and production philosophies differed between farms . We cannot disclose farm locations, as per our research agreement for access. Monitored farms were clustered within each watershed: one farm in Slate Creek, five in Lower Deer Creek, and two in Lower East Fork Illinois River; however, most farms were also located near other nearby cannabis farms that were not directly monitored in this study. We placed unbaited motion sensitive cameras on cannabis farms as well as in random locations up to 1.5 km from the monitored farms. This is an expansion on previous camera research that only assessed on-site wildlife at these same farms . We placed cameras approximately 0.5 m off the ground to capture animals squirrel-sized and larger. We set cameras to take bursts of 2 photos, with a quiet period of 15 seconds. To guide the placement of cameras, we overlaid the area surrounding each cannabis farm cluster with a 50 x 50 m grid and then selected a random sample of at least one quarter of grid cells . We selected a 50 x 50 m grid size because we wanted to be able to detect fine scale space use responses of wildlife. The random sample was stratified by vegetation openness and distance to cannabis farm in all watersheds, and additionally by distance to clear cut in the Slate Creek watershed, such that cameras were placed in proportion to the landscape attributes and a distance gradient was achieved. When a selected site was inaccessible, we selected a new one that also met the same stratification criteria. We rotated 15-20 cameras through the sampled grid cells, hydroponic rack system ensuring each camera was deployed for at least one round of two week duration. Because of rotations and field constraints, all cannabis sites were not monitored at the same time or for the same length of time .

Altogether, we monitored a total of 149 camera stations for a combined 4,664 trap nights. We then used a team of researchers trained to identify species found in the study area to sort photos by hand, grouping by species.To assess the local space use response of wildlife to cannabis production, we used single-season, hierarchical single and multi-species occupancy models. Our approach is a departure from the typical use of these models to estimate occupancy in that we knowingly violated multiple assumptions of occupancy models: first, because cameras were spaced relatively close together compared to the home range of species included in the study, we have likely violated the assumption of independent cameras; second, as a result of the aforementioned spacing as well as sampling across two years , we likely violated the model’s assumption of geographic and demographic closure . We have done our best to account for these violations in our use of regional fixed effects, as well as our narrow interval of replication . However, given our interest was in space use associations and not estimates of occupancy, we believe the violations are a minimal issue. This use of occupancy models is not particularly unusual, as the use of occupancy modeling to assess space use is becoming more common in wildlife response studies, and even traditional uses of occupancy modeling are influenced by wildlife space use . With the closure assumption violated, the occupancy probability estimate represents the likelihood that the animal occupied the site at any point during the study period, while the detection probability represents a combination of the probability that the species is detected and the intensity of use of the site within its larger range . This interpretation is common in camera trapping studies , but we proceed while being careful to acknowledge where appropriate that any covariate’s influence on detection probability is a combination of its effect on detection and the intensity with which an animal uses a given space. In addition, we have taken care to include variables in the detection process to account for what we anticipate to be the largest sources of variation in detectability, so that the other variables should primarily reflect space use intensity. We therefore interpret occupancy for the models as space use rather than true occupancy .

We operationalize detection as a combination of intensity of use, and camera detectability or error . For the single species occupancy models, occupancy and detection varied by species . Recall that for our models, we are interpreting occupancy as space use, and detection as a combination of detectability and space use intensity . Deer and tree squirrel occupancy probability increased with distance from cannabis farms, indicating potential avoidance. Domestic dogs, as expected, decreased in predicted occupancy with distance to cannabis farms. Interestingly, gray fox and ground squirrel occupancy probability also decreased with distance from cannabis farms, indicating that these species may be more likely to be found on and around cannabis farms . Six species had a meaningful detection response to cannabis farms . As expected, bobcat and ground squirrel detection probability increased with distance from cannabis farms, indicating that they may use areas further from cannabis farms more intensively. For ground squirrels, this implies that although they are more likely to be found closer to cannabis farms, they may use the spaces farther from farms more intensively. Again as expected, domestic dog detection probability decreased with distance from cannabis farms, confirming that they spend most of their time on and surrounding cannabis farms. Surprisingly however, deer, jackrabbit, and striped skunk detection also decreased with distance from cannabis farms. More frequent detections on occupied cannabis farms implies that these species may also be using the space on and surrounding cannabis farms more intensively . The other model covariates aside from cannabis also varied by species . For a majority of species, at least one regional intercept was meaningfully associated with occupancy probability. Elevation predicted occupancy for coyotes and striped skunks, and forest proportion predicted occupancy for jackrabbits, tree squirrels, and ground squirrels. Distance to highways was the only occupancy covariate that was not credibly non-zero for any species. As for detection, all covariates were meaningful for at least some species. The covariates for detectability, camera type and camera view, were credibly non-zero for four species all together. There was evidence for seasonal effects, with date and date2 meaningfully predicting detection for a majority of species. The activity indices had meaningful, and somewhat surprising results. Coyotes, bobcats, and tree squirrel detection was negatively associated with human activity, and ground squirrel detection was negatively associated with dog activity. However, coyote, gray fox, and jackrabbit detection probabilities were all positively associated with dog activity.For the multi-species occupancy models, almost no population-level parameters were meaningful .

No group meaningfully responded to cannabis in either detection or occupancy processes. No covariates were meaningful for occupancy or detection at the population level, aside from omnivore detection intercept. However, there was more variation at the species level . For the species that also had single species model results, the MSOM results largely matched, with occasional changes in credibility. For instance, for the deer SSOM, date and date2 were not credibly non-zero, but in the MSOM they were, even though the actual estimated values were similar in both . Despite the lack of population-level associations, some groups did have common responses to cannabis at the species level. For example, the occupancy probability for all ground bird species was credibly positive, increasing with distance from cannabis farms, which implies possible spatial avoidance of cannabis farms . For all ground bird species and both herbivore species, detection probability credibly decreased with increasing distance from cannabis farms, which may imply that these groups use areas around farms more intensively . Domestic species largely responded as predicted at the species level: cat and dog occupancy decreased with distance to cannabis, and dog and horse detection decreased with distance from cannabis . The other groupings were more mixed. Carnivores largely did not respond meaningfully to cannabis in either detection or occupancy . Omnivores had slightly more sensitivity, with three out of seven species responding meaningfully to cannabis in either occupancy or detection . For small mammals, tree squirrels and ground squirrels had opposite occupancy responses, rolling tables grow and only ground squirrels had a credibly non-zero detection response . This study assessed wildlife space use responses to active small-scale outdoor cannabis farms on private land. Our work provides a timely baseline for understanding potential wildlife community consequences from an emerging land use frontier. Our application of occupancy modeling to space use responses has yielded two main conclusions: 1) even at small scales, rural cannabis farming can affect local wildlife space use; 2) patterns of animal space use responses are species-specific, but there may be common patterns for herbivores, ground birds, and some mesopredators in how they use spaces near to cannabis farms. These results have implications for the cannabis industry and small farm strategies for conservation. Eight out of ten species modeled individually had a meaningful response to distance from cannabis farms, either in occupancy or detection. Although the population-level means were not meaningful, at an individual level, 13 out of 24 of the species included in multi-species models had a meaningful response to distance from cannabis farms, either in occupancy or detection. Our hypothesis that a majority of species would avoid farms was not supported, since the strength and direction of effects were species-specific. However, the results imply a general ability for cannabis farming to affect local wildlife space use. The relationships between occupancy and detection probabilities and distance to cannabis also indicate that there could be threshold effects relatively close to farms where the slope of the relationship is steeper , though further steps would be needed to confirm this relationship. These results are in contrast with research from the western US on vineyards and avocado production that indicates the ability of some wildlife to use farmed land in seeming preference over surrounding land uses . However, these other studies were conducted in areas where the agricultural land formed a corridor through more human-dominated land covers, which is the inverse of the landscape studied here. Our results are similar to studies on agroforestry systems with annual and perennial croplands, where there may be differential responses to agricultural land use and potential for filtering responses . Compared to the other covariates in the models, distance to cannabis farms meaningfully affected more species than any other single covariate other than the intercepts, or Date and Date2 . It was particularly surprising that wildlife responded to the physical land use of cannabis farms even more than human or dog activity, given that in other systems their space use intensity often responds more to human activity than human footprint , and is often negatively affected by the presence of dogs . This implies that cannabis farms may combine multiple potential sources of disturbance that wildlife may react to, and/or that the physical modifications for cannabis farms on their own are enough to trigger wildlife responses. More research is needed to disentangle some of the potential mechanistic pathways by which cannabis farms may affect wildlife. Overall, space use responses to cannabis were species-specific, confirming our alternative hypothesis for individual responses. While functional- or diet-group patterns are not as clear in this case as in other study systems , a few general patterns may be emerging, specifically in regard to herbivores/ground birds, and mesopredators. Our approach of using an occupancy modeling framework to assess wildlife space use associations was useful to identify some of these emerging patterns, because it allowed us to look at space use, separately from inferences on space use intensity . This is important because it helps capture different types of responses: attraction and deterrence, as well as potential behavioral shifts in activity patterns . For example, this helped identify opposing occupancy and detection responses from some herbivore and ground bird species. For medium to large herbivores and ground birds , occupancy credibly increased with distance from cannabis farms, while detection credibly decreased. This is the inverse of our alternative hypothesis that species using cannabis farms would decrease their activity intensity near to cannabis and suggests that while these species may generally avoid cannabis farms in space , the few areas that they do use, they may use more intensively.

Recent research on public land production in the broader region highlights similarities and differences between public and private land production. For example, both seem to be located relatively close to rivers and streams, with ~50% canopy cover, and in relatively young stands . However, while we may presume that all production on public lands represents new clearing for production, our results indicate that 32% of farms are on already developed and unforested parcels. Additionally, public lands provide critical refuges for many of the region’s carnivores, which may help explain why public land production appears to overlap more with carnivore habitat than our results for private land production . Perhaps most importantly at a landscape scale, farm size and total extent appear to be much smaller for legacy pathway private land cannabis mapped in this study compared to estimates of public land production practices . Despite the differences between public and private land cannabis production, private land cannabis farming still has characteristics that warrant continued research and planning. Our results suggest that legacy pathway cannabis farming could be compatible and comparable with existing rural land use in Josephine County. In order to ensure this continues to be the case, however, further attention should be given to conservation outreach, policies to support small scale farming, and attention to land use practices on farms, particularly those that may affect carnivores and coho salmon. As the industry continues to expand, policymakers and conservationists need to clarify landscape level strategies to ensure a sustainable future. Care should be taken when interpreting these results, since cannabis agriculture takes many forms and often exhibits regional differences in production practices that may influence its ecological impact . Our study, by nature of our mapping approach, evaluated outdoor production on private lands. We were unable to quantify whether the farms we mapped were illegal or licensed medically or recreationally, nor how many farms we may have missed by farmers effectively concealing their crop. Given our mapped sites included 2,227 farms in 2016 compared to the 43 recreationally licensed locations in 2016 , plant grow trays it is likely that most of the farms we georeferenced were not licensed. If this is the case, the lack of effort to conceal crops is notable.

We suspect because cannabis was pervasive , that enforcement would not have been feasible . Therefore, we were confident that our study accurately quantified the distribution of private-land cannabis production because of the visibility of both licensed and unlicensed farms from aerial imagery. Further, our data likely does not capture all of the cannabis being grown in Josephine County as we were unable to quantify concealed farms on public land or indoor cannabis production. Instead, our study offers critical insights into the ecological consequences of the growing industry in legacy production regions. The overall cultivated area of private land cannabis agriculture at the landscape scale in Josephine County in 2016 appears to be similar to small-scale rural development already occurring regionally. For example, in a county of 4,250 km2 , the total cannabis cultivation area was only 1.34 km2 . This small size is similar to other agricultural production in the county: in 2017, Josephine County produced 2.98 km2 of grapes and 0.48 km2 of vegetables . Cannabis in Josephine County was also considerably smaller in scale than other legacy cannabis-producing regions in Northern California in 2016, where averages ranged from 53-119 plants per site, compared with the median of 21 found in our study . While we do not have comparative research on the ecological effects of other agriculture in the study area, small-scale agriculture in rural areas often creates a landscape mosaic that supports species richness . The ability of small-scale cannabis farming to function like agriculture in other working lands systems, however, requires a deeper understanding of land use practices associated with cannabis production. Specifically, to be ecologically sustainable, small scale private land cannabis farms would need to create a significantly smaller ecological footprint than public land cannabis . Although the area of cultivation for cannabis in Josephine County was small, this study did not evaluate the edge effects of cannabis cultivation, nor take into account other forms of disturbance associated with the sites, such as clearing beyond the cultivated area, road construction, or water storage development. Therefore, the actual overlap and potential ecological effect from cannabis farming in the region is likely to be larger than what was documented in this study. Our understanding of these broad scale impacts would be enhanced in future studies that may be able to assess the fine scale response of wildlife on and surrounding cannabis farms.

While our study does not address direct effects of cannabis production, we did identify spatial relations of cannabis development that could pose unique risks to terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. We found that cannabis production was clustered in its distribution, which is consistent with research from northern California . Similarly, the proliferation of fences associated with cannabis could be a concern for habitat fragmentation as the industry expands . The overlap results indicate that cannabis may be grown disproportionately in forests and at higher elevations, which suggests cannabis could be associated with greater land clearing than other development on private parcels. However, the forests where cannabis was grown did not appear to be denser or older than comparable parcels. Our results indicate a large overlap of cannabis farms with areas of high projected fisher occupancy. This overlap was greater on cannabis farms than private land generally, but could be due to a higher proportion of cannabis farms located at higher elevations . However, elevation alone doesn’t explain this overlap. Fisher occupancy was projected to be higher on cannabis farms than the areas immediately surrounding them . This suggests that even at fine scales, farms are appearing in areas of potential for high quality habitat for fisher. What this overlap may mean for fisher populations is unclear, given the lack of research on the impacts of private land cannabis production. Private land cannabis has not been documented to have the same negative effects on fishers as public land production, and in particular pesticide and toxicant use appears to be lower on private land farms, according to self-reported farmer surveys . However, anecdotal reports and local news stories raise concerns for these private land farms as well, and many grower organizations have emphasized a need for stronger environmental norms among farmers. Given the remaining uncertainty, these results emphasize the potential need for conservation attention to private land farms as well. Surprisingly, the individual species differences did not add up to differences in overall carnivore richness, which was relatively consistent across the study area. This raises the possibility that the differences in carnivore distributions might be driven by competitive interactions , though finer scale research would be needed to disentangle the drivers of these species distribution patterns in relation to cannabis production. Regarding potential interactions between cannabis production and freshwater ecosystems, the picture was also somewhat mixed. There were a number of farms within 15 m of rivers and streams, but this was not surprising given the high density of rivers and streams in the study area. On average, most farms were only slightly closer to rivers and streams than the surrounding context of all private land parcels. Cannabis was located on average 273 m closer to coho salmon habitat than private parcels overall, 387 m closer to fall run chinook, and 132 m closer to winter run steel head, though the IQR intervals overlap. This proximity to freshwater in Josephine County was also generally closer than observed in other legacy cannabis regions . For example, the proportion of sites in Josephine County within 500 m of coho habitat was more than twice the proportion in northern California . Butsic et al. used intrinsic potential data rather than direct fish population data, custom grow rooms which may overestimate fish populations , so this difference could be even more extreme. Coho salmon spawn in smaller upstream tributaries that may be particularly susceptible to drought or water withdrawals . This proximity to coho may be explained by the large number of cannabis sites in proximity to small, head water streams , which could further indicate potential threat to other species that depend on these habitats, such as headwaters-dwelling amphibians. Therefore, this proximity to fish habitat could be an ecological concern if farms are drawing water from small rivers or shallow wells during the dry season .

Whether or not metrics summarizing the proximity of farms and sensitive habitats result in actual ecological harm largely depends on the individual land use practices occurring on cannabis farms. There is a rich history of different approaches to cultivating cannabis , which could lead to variation in how cannabis affects ecosystems. Unfortunately, we still do not have a complete picture of cannabis land use practices, nor their mechanisms underlying their ecological effects. So far, available published research suggests that much of small-scale private land cannabis production may not be as ecologically damaging as previously believed , though a consensus has not been reached, and effects may vary over time. Given our current knowledge, therefore, the snapshot of private land cannabis in 2016 in Josephine County does not on its own indicate widespread ecological effects. There could however be an increased concern for local biodiversity if cannabis development expands in size or intensity while remaining in the same spatial configuration—located in forested vegetation, and in proximity to a few key sensitive carnivore and fish species. Certainly, the large number of new farms in the first year of legalization suggest a rapidly expanding industry. This concern suggests a need to consider development pathways and future trajectories that sustain conservation values. The recent boom in outdoor cannabis farming has created a rapid development frontier in the 19 US states that have legalized cannabis production . For decades, outdoor cannabis was grown illegally, often in rural, remote areas, but with state-level legalization, production in those same “legacy” regions has rapidly expanded . In some of these rural, legacy-production regions, cannabis production on private lands can transform development patterns at a regional scale . This development frontier can foster new cultural, economic and demographic dynamics . Importantly, these new patterns of land use also incite concerns for ecological impact related to habitat fragmentation or degradation, potential effects on freshwater quality/availability, and direct or indirect effects on wildlife populations . To understand, reduce, or mitigate these potential impacts, it is important to identify the social and ecological factors that drive cannabis development on private lands across space and time. For example, understanding why farmers choose to cultivate at particular sites may help lawmakers craft and prioritize appropriate regulations for licensed cannabis. Additionally, spatial distribution and socio-cultural drivers are important for understanding where risks of environmental impact or human-wildlife conflict may arise, and for predicting the future trajectory of the cannabis industry. However, there remain many challenges to understanding drivers of cannabis development in these complex systems. Outdoor cannabis production in legacy regions is unique from other forms of traditional agriculture and functions as a closely tied social-ecological system. In these small-scale cannabis systems, the history of illicit farming lays a foundation for production practices that are vastly different from crops that did not have to be concealed, or that were grown following standardized agricultural practices across an industry . Given the continued barriers to bringing legacy farmers into legalized cannabis systems and the existence and persistence of illegal markets, historical context is likely to influence current growing patterns, even as they move into licit markets and expand on private lands . In addition to historical practices that initiated the industry, there are other factors that likely influence whether, where, and how cannabis is produced, including federal, state, and local regulation and enforcement, social acceptance of cannabis within a region, access to education and communication of production practices among growing communities, short- and long-term economic tradeoffs, and others. These factors will influence the spatial distribution and predominant production practices of cannabis over time, which could shift the proximity of cannabis to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitats, or alter cannabis impacts on the local environment. These perceived or actual environmental impacts from cannabis can feed back into cannabis land use via shifts in attitudes that could lead to voluntary changes of production practices, increased enforcement, regulatory changes, or shifts in community acceptance for local production .

Some students also indicated that they enjoyed learning about drugs, what is and isn’t a drug, and how to identify harmful substance use behaviors. One student noted the information they learned through RAYS was “valuable” and that they could “take [it] with [them] in life” citing the program as a “second chance” to change their health behaviors. Multiple students also noted the core components of peer involvement and tailored support. One student specifically mentioned how it “wasn’t just adults involved” but also other “kids going through things just like [them], with the same experiences that [they] have”. Enrollees also cited the people involved as important contributors to making the program helpful and enjoyable. Students described the individuals involved in administering and implementing RAYS as welcoming and open-minded, fostering a non-judgmental environment. One student noted how RAYS advocates and staff are “open and listen to what you have to say” and provide valuable support in helping the students obtain the resources they may need.The self-reflective nature of RAYS components was also brought up by multiple students. They noted how RAYS helped them to reflect on the mistakes that they had made in an educational rather than a punitive environment. These alternative to punitive approaches were highly regarded by students as something valuable and engaging. One enrollee said that they “liked that it gave [them] an opportunity to understand what [they] did wrong without just being taken out of school” while also giving them “the chance to take constructive criticism about [their] substance use”. Students also noted the community engagement piece in positive regards as something that allowed them to maintain a relationship with their peers and school community. When asked what they disliked about the program, most students noted that there wasn’t anything they felt that they strongly disliked or would like to see done differently.

Nonetheless, a few enrollees cited aspects related to the logistics of program delivery and knowledge of peer advocates. Some students believed that the program was time-consuming and interfered with their academics. For instance, indoor grow rack two students noted that they were pulled out of class to attend RAYS-related activities as required by their Restorative Plans. A few students also said that the program felt more prolonged compared to just “being suspended and then going back”. Multiple students also felt that much of the program was not a choice, despite RAYS being a voluntary program. One student noted that they felt like they were “forced” to “give a formal apology” while others did not appreciate that some of their peers acted like they did not want to be there. However, a few students did feel that more education and training for the peer advocates was needed. For instance, one student noted that they believed peer advocates needed more training on how to approach sensitive topics that may arise during discussions between advocates and enrollees. When it came to the program timeline, students who cited these aspects had mixed responses. Some believed that more time was needed to be able to complete the required components of their Restorative Plans, while others felt that the program was overextended and time-consuming. Total suspension counts by academic year for RAYS schools and non-RAYS schools are reported in Figure 3. “RAYS schools” represent the four target school sites in Nevada County implementing the RAYS program while “non-RAYS” schools are the selected comparable sites not implementing RAYS. Figure 3 presents the total number of suspensions reported to the CDE for the 2017-18 through 2021-22 academic years at these sites. Prior to the launch of RAYS in August of 2021, Nevada schools reported a higher number of suspensions overall when compared to the non-RAYS sites. Examination of these counts from pre- to post-launch of RAYS reveals a notable difference in the number of suspensions between RAYS and non-RAYS schools, with RAYS schools reporting less than half of those at non-RAYS sites after this time point.

The total number of drug-related suspensions at both RAYS and non-RAYS sites from the 2017-18 to 2021-22 academic year are presented in Figure 4. The CDE considers possession, use, sale, or furnishing of any opiates, opium derivatives, hallucinogenic substances , depressants, stimulants, alcohol, tobacco products and any other controlled substance listed in chapter 2 of the California Health and Safety Code as a drug-related incident warranting suspension. 11,14 In the 2018-19 academic year, Nevada County sites reported almost three times the number of drug-related suspensions in relation to comparable schools . Examination of these suspension counts revealed that after RAYS was implemented in August of 2021 , RAYS schools reported approximately half the amount of drug-related suspensions as the non-RAYS schools.Table 10 provides a breakdown of the exit reasons and completion statuses for all students who exited RAYS during this period . Roughly 4 out of 5 students who exited the program were marked as ‘successful completions’, meaning they completed most if not all the components outlined in their Restorative Plans. Of these successful completions, 17.94% returned and joined RAYS as peer advocates. For the remainder of the sample, RAYS services were found to be inappropriate or unsuitable for 6.25% of students, 4.17% left school or were lost to follow-up, and 8.33% left for another reason. Out of all students, 70.83% completed all components outlined in their Restorative Plans while 29.17% did not. These completion rates are in line with the program objective to reach a 75% successful completion rate among RAYS enrollees by April 2024 .The increasing utilization of restorative practices to address disciplinary incidents in school settings has highlighted the need for evaluations to assess the effectiveness of such programs in lieu of traditional punitive measures. This study reported findings from an intermediate evaluation of an RJP program with AOD use education and treatment counseling components. To properly execute this evaluation, student pretest and posttest survey data was analyzed to assess individual-level impacts of the RAYS program on AOD use behaviors and perceptions of substances, self-responsibility, and resource awareness. Process measures including all activity-level and enrollee case management data were tabulated and examined to assess implementation fidelity in meeting program goals and objectives outlined in the original grant proposal.

Discipline data was used to inform evaluation questions pertaining to changes in overall and drug-related suspensions from pre- to post-implementation of RAYS in Nevada County sites. Of the sample of students who submitted pretest and posttest data , most reported favorable behavioral changes from pre- to post-exposure to RAYS. The majority of RAYS enrollees reported a decrease in past 30-day use of alcohol, marijuana, and vapes with nicotine or just flavoring, indicating a potentially favorable impact of the program in addressing student AOD use behaviors. Additionally, exposure to the RAYS program also seemed to have an impact on student awareness of substance use support and services at their sites, with the majority of students saying they would be able to identify such entities at their schools. In general, students also had positive experiences with RAYS and believed the resources provided were helpful. Examination of the trends in disciplinary incidents from the 2017-18 to 2021-22 academic year revealed a decrease in the total number of suspensions within RAYS schools over time. In relation to comparable sites with regional and demographic similarities, schools at which RAYS was being implemented reported a decreasing trend in suspensions while non-RAYS schools reported an increase. Results from this intermediate evaluation of RAYS also allow for an assessment of implementation fidelity in meeting the original goals and objectives outlined in the project proposal and local evaluation plan . The three main goals of the program were to reduce overall suspension rates at the four target sites, reduce youth marijuana and other substance use, and increase access to SUD treatment services. Relevant process and outcome measures used to inform implementation fidelity assessment and to measure goal and objective attainment are outlined in Tables B and C in the Appendix. Process evaluation measures encompass acquisition of services, RAYS completion rates and statuses , and recidivism rate calculations. The outcome evaluation measures include variables such as the suspension rates, suspension counts, AOD use rates, indoor farming equipment and perceptions of AOD use. Assessment of success in meeting some of these goals and objectives is further discussed in the sections below as they pertain to the relevant process and outcome measure variables. One of the objectives was to reduce marijuana and other substance use among youth who participated in the RAYS program. Based on findings from pretest and posttest data, the majority of students who exited RAYS during the evaluation period reported a decrease in past 30-day use across all products including marijuana, vapes with nicotine or just flavoring, and alcohol. Students who indicated that they used marijuana or vapes reported the highest percent decreases from pretest to posttest. Given that one of the main reasons for establishing RAYS in NCSOS was to address high marijuana, vape, and other drug use rates among students, the decreases seen from pre- to post-exposure of the RAYS program is indicative of the potentially positive impacts on student substance use behaviors. Program components addressing substance use such as the harm reduction classes and SUD counseling may be playing an important role in educating students on the harms of using and providing necessary emotional and mental health support, respectively. However, pretest and posttest data for the harm reduction classes, although outlined in the project proposal, has not been collected due to logistical challenges with survey administration.

Therefore, it is recommended that harm reduction pretests and posttests be administered to students participating in this component in order to assess the specific impacts of these educational sessions on AOD use behaviors and perceptions. Nonetheless, when it comes to harm perceptions, the proportion of students who believed marijuana use was harmful was relatively low compared to other substances. These low harm perception rates for marijuana use reported among the RAYS sample are similar to national trends. For instance, in the most recent report of the MTF survey, about 22% of adolescents in the US perceived regular use of marijuana as risky.2 In comparison, 33.3% of RAYS students thought it was very or extremely harmful to use marijuana every day at pretest. This proportion decreased to 28.6% at posttest, following similar percent decreases reported in recent MTF survey cycles. Nonetheless, perceived harm of everyday vape and alcohol use was higher, but no favorable changes were noted for either product. Low perceived harm may be attributed to a variety of social and environmental factors. For marijuana specifically, researchers have highlighted increased legalization of marijuana for medicinal and recreational purposes as a factor for low harm perceptions among youth. Furthermore, growing public acceptance of marijuana has also been noted as a reason for the decrease in perceived harm among adolescents. This absence in perceived harmfulness of marijuana, despite notable decreases in use rates among RAYS students, sheds light on the potentially significant impacts that social environment and awareness of substances have on adolescent AOD perceptions. Although RAYS may play an important role in addressing use behaviors, these intermediate findings reveal the effects of the program on AOD harm perceptions was minimal. Nonetheless, more research is needed to specifically assess whether harm reduction class components may play a role in this and if not, how course components may be adapted to further target AOD use harm perceptions and awareness. It is crucial to continue monitoring AOD use rates and perceived harm over time in order to inform public health messaging and education efforts. Within the context of RAYS, it is also important that the formal evaluation consider assessing these same AOD use and perception variables at the school-wide level to compare data from the RAYS sample to the broader student body in Nevada County. This comparison will allow for a higher-level examination in order to detect any shifts in school-wide culture with regards to AOD use and harm perceptions. Previous literature has emphasized the importance of gathering data on student experiences in restorative justice programs in order to inform adaptations and enhancements.28 Furthermore, authors also highlight a gap in current restorative program evaluation research with regards to limited or the lack of student feedback in the form of quantitative and qualitative data.

After release, bags were checked for feces, which were removed with ethanol-flamed tweezers and placed in ready glass vials or 2 ml Eppendorf tubes filled with ethanol. They were refrigerated until transport to the United States and then stored at −20°C. Bags were always immersed in a 10% bleach solution, sun-dried, and washed after use. We conducted feeding trials with three common, small insectivores that frequent coffee plantations and were expected to consume the borer: Rufous-capped Warbler , Rufousbreasted Wren , and Plain Wren . Individuals were fed 0, 2, 4, or 8 borers collected in nearby plantations . Specifically, we held each bird’s mouth open and placed the borers inside with a sterilized tweezers. We then used a syringe to inject water into the bird’s mouth, inducing it to swallow the insects. Birds were then placed in mesh cages over sterilized cotton floors. Cages were checked for fecal samples every 15 minutes for 1.5 hours; stressed birds were released earlier. Though referenced in Karp et al. , feeding trial data were not previously analyzed.We poured off ethanol and weighed samples prior to DNA extraction. For all species that were strictly frugivorous, we combined samples derived from different individuals of the same species captured at the same plantation to reduce processing time and cost. The combined sample was homogenized and a <0.25 g subset was extracted. Because many more individuals were captured, black flower bucket in the second year we additionally combined samples from multiple individuals of the same species at the same plantation for all omnivores and large insectivores. Again, samples were homogenized and a <0.25 g subset was extracted. Samples from feeding trials and from small insectivores were always extracted individually. Extraction was performed with kits , modified to increase product yield .

All extractions were accompanied with negative controls with no fecal material added so that we could identify any possible sources of contamination. Following extraction, we ampliftied borer DNA through PCR with borer-specific primers . Each PCR reaction was accompanied with negative and positive controls, derived from feeding trial samples. Though primers were designed to be borer specific, we sent all amplicons of the expected size range for sequencing because many PCR cycles can result in ampliftication of non-target DNA. We used Sequencher to form consensus alignments of DNA reads from forward and reverse primers that were then compared to a borer reference sequence. Only sequences with clean, discernable peaks at target base pairs were analyzed. Those sequences with >98% similarity to borer reference sequences were deemed successful borer identifications. The next most similar sequence from another species in Genbank at the target amplicon was 85% similar.We accidentally contaminated several samples with PCR amplicons, necessitating the development of alternate primers. We ampliftied an 113 bp segment of COI, outside the previous ampliftication region, with forward and reverse primers. Reactions were carried out using the same reagents and protocols, apart from the annealing step . Products were visualized on gels, and negative controls confirmed that the contamination was previous PCR product. Because primers were not borer-specific, all products of the expected size range were sequenced and compared to reference sequences. After the borer, the next most similar sequence in Genbank was 86% similar.We assessed whether confirmed borer predators shared functional traits through compiling a trait database for birds in our study area, focusing on resource and acquisition traits that may affect pest-control provision . We used measurements from birds we captured, and a bird population dynamics dataset collected at 18 nearby sites . Wing chord length and mass were obtained from the population dynamics dataset. We also calculated the total number of captures for each species.

We collected bill width , bill length , and tarsus length from species that we trapped during fecal sample collection. Body lengths were obtained from literature . We gathered behavioral traits from literature . We translated foraging stratum into an ordinal scale , and calculated the average foraging stratum for each species. We quantified diet breadth as the number of food categories consumed . From literature and conversations with local ornithologists , we also identified species that consumed insects and the subset that specialized strictly on insects.We used Generalized Linear Mixed Models to identify variables that significantly influenced the probability of borer DNA detection in feeding trials . The model contained a logit link and binomial error structure, and the feeding trial as a random effect. Species identity, elapsed time since feeding, number of borers fed, fecal sample mass, and 2-way interactions were included as predictors. We then used backwards model selection, iteratively dropping predictor variables and comparing nested models with Aikaike Information Criteria and likelihood-ratio tests . Next, we determined whether species confirmed as borer predators shared traits. Because very few of the birds that were not involved feeding trials tested positive for borer DNA, it was impossible to use logistic regression to associate bird traits with borer predation. Instead, we created a randomization procedure in which six species were drawn at random 1000 times from a species pool , and the average trait value for these species was calculated each time. This procedure generated a null distribution for each trait that could then be compared to the average trait value of confirmed borer predators. If the observed trait value fell outside the 95% confidence interval, then we determined the trait was a significant predictor of borer-predator identity.We ampliftied and sequenced borer DNA from the feces of six species: Buff-throated Foliage-Gleaner , Common Tody-Flycatcher , Rufous-breasted Wren , Rufous-capped Warbler , White-tailed Emerald , and Yellow Warbler . The majority of detections were derived from surveys conducted in 2010 and reported in Karp et al. , even though fewer samples were collected in 2010 . In total, 30 and 27 samples yielded PCR products of the expected size range, 4 and 6 of which were >98% sequence similar to borers.

Though detections rates were low, feeding trials confirmed the efficacy of our approach. Fifteen samples yielded PCR products of the expected size range, all of which were confirmed as borers through sequencing . Additionally, detection probability increased with elapsed time since feeding. For example, models predicted that, for birds that were fed 4 borers and defecated a 0.05 g fecal pellet, detection probability increased from 10% at 20 minutes after feeding to 50% at 80 minutes after feeding. Species identity of feeding trial birds did not influence detection probability. While it is possible that positive borer detections in feeding trials could have resulted from prior consumption, no detections occurred when birds were not fed borers. Moreover, the low detection rates in non-feeding trial birds further reduce the likelihood that positive detections were the result of prior foraging. We found that functional traits differed between confirmed borer predators and other sampled species . Borer predators had narrower bills and shorter wing chords than expected. Though not significant, predators also tended to be smaller, both in mass and length . Diets were specialized , and insectivores were overly represented — only the White-tailed Emerald was not a specialized insectivore. Borer predators were not species of general conservation concern. Predators were equally abundant to other species in our study system, and were neither endemic nor listed on the IUCN red list. Leveraging traits that were over-represented in confirmed borer predators, we predicted other species that may consume the borer but no pest DNA was found in their fecal samples, likely the result of low detection rates .Ecosystem-service management necessitates identifying service providers, especially in the many agricultural systems that are rapidly expanding and intensifying . Our analysis of ~1500 fecal samples documented that six Costa Rican bird species consume coffee’s most damaging insect pest. Still, detection rates were very low: only 0.7% of analyzed samples contained borer DNA. We offer several explanations for low detection. First, we sampled the entire bird community, including frugivores which do not likely consume the borer. Second, borer abundance is low in our study system. Only 2.5% of berries across plantations are currently infested with borers, square black flower bucket whereas infestation has soared above 90% in other countries . Third, detection windows may be narrow. We detected borer DNA in only one sample defecated within 30 min of feeding. Insect DNA could be detected in Carrion Crow feces 30 minutes to 4 hours after consumption . Borers disperse most often and hence are most vulnerable to predation in the afternoon .

Because tropical weather constraints precluded afternoon sampling, a mismatch in sampling and consumption could have depressed detections. Finally, feeding trials demonstrated that false negatives are regular. Models predicted that a positive detection was ~20 times more likely when birds were fed 8 borers and defecated 0.1 g versus 2 borers and 0.01 g. In addition to DNA degradation in the gut, our extraction and PCR procedures may be prone to false negatives. First, PCR inhibitors can persist through extraction and impede DNA ampliftication from fecal pellets . Second, unlike the primers developed by Jaramillo et al. , the primers that we developed were not specific to the berry borer, meaning the primers could have ampliftied DNA from any one of the many species of insects that a bird had recently consumed. Moreover, iterant non-specific PCR binding of either primer set could generate chimeric sequences of multiple species. Accordingly, only 10 of the 57 samples that yielded PCR products of the expected size range were identified as borer DNA after sequencing. Future work could utilize a post-PCR sorting method such as next generation sequencing or cloning to help reduce the frequency of false negatives . Low detection rates suggest that there are other species that consume the borer that we did not identify. The species we did identify, however, shared traits that may be characteristic of these other predators. All identified borer predators except the nectarivorous White-tailed Emerald were strict insectivores. Unsurprising given the borer’s size , borer predators had narrow bills. Additionally, these species had short wings, ideal for navigating the dense coffee understory . It is possible that functional traits would change with a larger sample of predators; however, confirmed borer predators in Jamaican coffee plantations shared many of these traits , supporting our hypothesis that they may help predict other predators . A key difference between our studies, however, is that only one of the species that we identified as a borer predator is migratory . Wecollected our fecal samples during the period of maximum borer dispersal , a time when most migratory species are absent from Costa Rica. Because migratory species could consume borers during their secondary dispersals that occur throughout the year, future work should temporally expand sampling effort to ensure that migratory species are well represented. Our work yielded the critical management insight that managing the predators of crop pests may require looking beyond traditional conservation targets. The six documented borer predators were not rare, endemic, or listed on the IUCN red list. Traditional conservation efforts for threatened species often center on delineating large protected areas. Focusing conservation explicitly in agricultural landscapes could benefit species involved in providing critical ecosystem services to farmers . By confirming that birds consume pests, our work could thus help change attitudes towards biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes by fostering greater recognition of its role in supporting human well being. Species interactions play a pivotal role in many ecologically and economically important ecosystem processes. Uncovering the basic relationships between animals and their food is critical for managing pest control, pollination, seed dispersal, and sanitation . Molecular methods can provide us with a window into these interactions, in some instances for the very first time. Our results demonstrate how identifying just a few key interactions between predators and their prey can yield potential insights for management. Indeed, managing nature to enhance both biodiversity and human well being requires diverse approaches. Techniques and practices have already been borrowed from fields as diverse as agronomy, economics, hydrology, psychology, and sociology. Our results indicate that molecular biology offers ecologists the ability to expand their toolkit in key dimensions and, in turn, advance ecosystem service management.

Some students believed that the program was time-consuming and interfered with their academics. For instance, two students noted that they were pulled out of class to attend RAYS-related activities as required by their Restorative Plans. A few students also said that the program felt more prolonged compared to just “being suspended and then going back”. Multiple students also felt that much of the program was not a choice, despite RAYS being a voluntary program. One student noted that they felt like they were “forced” to “give a formal apology” while others did not appreciate that some of their peers acted like they did not want to be there. However, a few students did feel that more education and training for the peer advocates was needed. For instance, one student noted that they believed peer advocates needed more training on how to approach sensitive topics that may arise during discussions between advocates and enrollees. When it came to the program timeline, students who cited these aspects had mixed responses. Some believed that more time was needed to be able to complete the required components of their Restorative Plans, while others felt that the program was overextended and time-consuming.Total suspension counts by academic year for RAYS schools and non-RAYS schools are reported in Figure 3. “RAYS schools” represent the four target school sites in Nevada County implementing the RAYS program while “non-RAYS” schools are the selected comparable sites not implementing RAYS. Figure 3 presents the total number of suspensions reported to the CDE for the 2017-18 through 2021-22 academic years at these sites. Prior to the launch of RAYS in August of 2021, Nevada schools reported a higher number of suspensions overall when compared to the non-RAYS sites.

Examination of these counts from pre- to post-launch of RAYS reveals a notable difference in the number of suspensions between RAYS and non-RAYS schools, equipment for growing weed with RAYS schools reporting less than half of those at non-RAYS sites after this time point.The total number of drug-related suspensions at both RAYS and non-RAYS sites from the 2017-18 to 2021-22 academic year are presented in Figure 4. The CDE considers possession, use, sale, or furnishing of any opiates, opium derivatives, hallucinogenic substances , depressants, stimulants, alcohol, tobacco products and any other controlled substance listed in chapter 2 of the California Health and Safety Code as a drug-related incident warranting suspension. 11,14 In the 2018-19 academic year, Nevada County sites reported almost three times the number of drug-related suspensions in relation to comparable schools . Examination of these suspension counts revealed that after RAYS was implemented in August of 2021 , RAYS schools reported approximately half the amount of drug-related suspensions as the non-RAYS schools.Table 10 provides a breakdown of the exit reasons and completion statuses for all students who exited RAYS during this period . Roughly 4 out of 5 students who exited the program were marked as ‘successful completions’, meaning they completed most if not all the components outlined in their Restorative Plans. Of these successful completions, 17.94% returned and joined RAYS as peer advocates. For the remainder of the sample, RAYS services were found to be inappropriate or unsuitable for 6.25% of students, 4.17% left school or were lost to follow-up, and 8.33% left for another reason. Out of all students, 70.83% completed all components outlined in their Restorative Plans while 29.17% did not. These completion rates are in line with the program objective to reach a 75% successful completion rate among RAYS enrollees by April 2024 .

The increasing utilization of restorative practices to address disciplinary incidents in school settings has highlighted the need for evaluations to assess the effectiveness of such programs in lieu of traditional punitive measures. This study reported findings from an intermediate evaluation of an RJP program with AOD use education and treatment counseling components. To properly execute this evaluation, student pretest and posttest survey data was analyzed to assess individual-level impacts of the RAYS program on AOD use behaviors and perceptions of substances, self-responsibility, and resource awareness. Process measures including all activity-level and enrollee case management data were tabulated and examined to assess implementation fidelity in meeting program goals and objectives outlined in the original grant proposal. Discipline data was used to inform evaluation questions pertaining to changes in overall and drug-related suspensions from pre- to post-implementation of RAYS in Nevada County sites. Of the sample of students who submitted pretest and posttest data , most reported favorable behavioral changes from pre- to post-exposure to RAYS. The majority of RAYS enrollees reported a decrease in past 30-day use of alcohol, marijuana, and vapes with nicotine or just flavoring, indicating a potentially favorable impact of the program in addressing student AOD use behaviors. Additionally, exposure to the RAYS program also seemed to have an impact on student awareness of substance use support and services at their sites, with the majority of students saying they would be able to identify such entities at their schools. In general, students also had positive experiences with RAYS and believed the resources provided were helpful. Examination of the trends in disciplinary incidents from the 2017-18 to 2021-22 academic year revealed a decrease in the total number of suspensions within RAYS schools over time. In relation to comparable sites with regional and demographic similarities, schools at which RAYS was being implemented reported a decreasing trend in suspensions while non-RAYS schools reported an increase.

Results from this intermediate evaluation of RAYS also allow for an assessment of implementation fidelity in meeting the original goals and objectives outlined in the project proposal and local evaluation plan . The three main goals of the program were to reduce overall suspension rates at the four target sites, reduce youth marijuana and other substance use, and increase access to SUD treatment services. Relevant process and outcome measures used to inform implementation fidelity assessment and to measure goal and objective attainment are outlined in Tables B and C in the Appendix. Process evaluation measures encompass acquisition of services, RAYS completion rates and statuses , and recidivism rate calculations. The outcome evaluation measures include variables such as the suspension rates, suspension counts, AOD use rates, and perceptions of AOD use. Assessment of success in meeting some of these goals and objectives is further discussed in the sections below as they pertain to the relevant process and outcome measure variables.One of the objectives was to reduce marijuana and other substance use among youth who participated in the RAYS program. Based on findings from pretest and posttest data, the majority of students who exited RAYS during the evaluation period reported a decrease in past 30-day use across all products including marijuana, vapes with nicotine or just flavoring, and alcohol. Students who indicated that they used marijuana or vapes reported the highest percent decreases from pretest to posttest. Given that one of the main reasons for establishing RAYS in NCSOS was to address high marijuana, vape, and other drug use rates among students, the decreases seen from pre- to post-exposure of the RAYS program is indicative of the potentially positive impacts on student substance use behaviors. Program components addressing substance use such as the harm reduction classes and SUD counseling may be playing an important role in educating students on the harms of using and providing necessary emotional and mental health support, respectively. However, pretest and posttest data for the harm reduction classes, although outlined in the project proposal, has not been collected due to logistical challenges with survey administration. Therefore, it is recommended that harm reduction pretests and posttests be administered to students participating in this component in order to assess the specific impacts of these educational sessions on AOD use behaviors and perceptions. Nonetheless, when it comes to harm perceptions, the proportion of students who believed marijuana use was harmful was relatively low compared to other substances. These low harm perception rates for marijuana use reported among the RAYS sample are similar to national trends. For instance, in the most recent report of the MTF survey, grow tables 4×8 about 22% of adolescents in the US perceived regular use of marijuana as risky. In comparison, 33.3% of RAYS students thought it was very or extremely harmful to use marijuana every day at pretest. This proportion decreased to 28.6% at posttest, following similar percent decreases reported in recent MTF survey cycles. Nonetheless, perceived harm of everyday vape and alcohol use was higher, but no favorable changes were noted for either product. Low perceived harm may be attributed to a variety of social and environmental factors. For marijuana specifically, researchers have highlighted increased legalization of marijuana for medicinal and recreational purposes as a factor for low harm perceptions among youth. Furthermore, growing public acceptance of marijuana has also been noted as a reason for the decrease in perceived harm among adolescents. This absence in perceived harmfulness of marijuana, despite notable decreases in use rates among RAYS students, sheds light on the potentially significant impacts that social environment and awareness of substances have on adolescent AOD perceptions.

Although RAYS may play an important role in addressing use behaviors, these intermediate findings reveal the effects of the program on AOD harm perceptions was minimal. Nonetheless, more research is needed to specifically assess whether harm reduction class components may play a role in this and if not, how course components may be adapted to further target AOD use harm perceptions and awareness. It is crucial to continue monitoring AOD use rates and perceived harm over time in order to inform public health messaging and education efforts. Within the context of RAYS, it is also important that the formal evaluation consider assessing these same AOD use and perception variables at the school-wide level to compare data from the RAYS sample to the broader student body in Nevada County. This comparison will allow for a higher-level examination in order to detect any shifts in school-wide culture with regards to AOD use and harm perceptions. Previous literature has emphasized the importance of gathering data on student experiences in restorative justice programs in order to inform adaptations and enhancements.28 Furthermore, authors also highlight a gap in current restorative program evaluation research with regards to limited or the lack of student feedback in the form of quantitative and qualitative data. This study sought to address this gap in data collection through the inclusion of open text and quantitative items in the posttest instrument to gather data on student perceptions of the RAYS program and their overall experiences. Items included in the survey assessed resource awareness, self-reflection of AOD use, and the likelihood of recommending the RAYS program to peers. Overall, student resource awareness increased for substance use treatment and support services. More students believed they could find a resource or individual for themselves or a peer after going through RAYS. This puts RAYS on track to meet the program objective of increasing access to and awareness of SUD treatment services . Another quantifiable objective was to provide SUD treatment services to at least 100 students by April 2024. Based on case data, of the 63 students who enrolled in RAYS during this evaluation period, 40 were referred and participated in at least one substance use counseling session . Therefore, at this state, the program is just under 50% of the target goal. It is important to note that not all students who go through RAYS are diverted from drug-related disciplinary incidents, thus may not require SUD treatment services.Prior to the launch of the RAYS program, Nevada County sites reported higher overall and drug-related suspensions in relation to selected comparable sites in a neighboring county. Overall suspension counts were notably higher in Nevada County schools, reporting over double the number of suspensions in relation to comparable sites during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years. Nonetheless, a sharp decline in the 2021-22 academic year, after the launch of RAYS, implies some effect of the program on the disciplinary landscape in Nevada County sites. This notable reduction in the number disciplinary incidents after implementation of an RJP program has been reported in previous studies. Hashim and colleagues noted that at the 1-year mark after implementation of a restorative justice program, there was a significant reduction in the number of suspensions. This same trend is seen in the initial decline in the number of disciplinary incidents in Nevada County sites implementing RAYS.