The Soviet regime had a particularly brutal impact on tradition, language, land use and life ways. Between 1945-1991 Soviet policy required nationalization, including mass collectivization of farms . Forests were transferred to the state, and private plots of land were joined into collective farms. All land was surrendered and tilled for the benefit of the larger state . During this era, clearing of Carpathian forests for agricultural development, specifically kolhospy, led to habitat fragmentation, leading to of planted spruce monoculture forests . How did these land management policies impact the gathering of plants and mushrooms? Ethnobotanical gathering practices did not stop under any colonial rule. However, these policies impacted the extent of access to land and forests where these species live, thereby shifting relationships to land and environment . Scholars state that Soviet policies also caused hybridization of Soviet knowledge into local ethnobotanical knowledge in Ukraine . After the historic collapse of the Soviet Union, tens of thousands of workers faced unemployment, which catalyzed rural depopulation and migration for work outside of Ukraine . This migration also led to the decline of traditional agricultural systems, which also changed the landscape, causing the reduction of secondary grasslands . In response and despite all these stressors, Hutsul communities’ reflexive response continues to be subsistence farming along with a gathering of wild species, fishing, and game. Today, ecosystem challenges include illegal and destructive logging, the rise of ecotourism and accompanying infrastructure development, commercial harvesting of wild species, and climate change impacts . Introduction of Ukraine to the market economy has resulted in the privatization of state properties leading to the rise of ski resorts in the region. As the main regional challenge,vertical farming supplies illegal logging is managed by organized criminal networks under the guise of semi-legitimate businesses and corporations .

The main avenues of illegality include falsification of paperwork along the supply chain, as well as fraud and collusion with government officials . Minimal legal and financial penalties tend to make these activities fairly appealing within organized crime networks. However, more recently, the use of multi-time satellite images, DNA and isotope analyses of wood, along local citizen activism has helped combat illegal logging in the region. . According to local Hutsul knowledge holders, logging in this region encourages succession of species such as Rubus idaeus, Rubus caesius, Vaccinium myrtillus, Chamaerion angustifolium, Orchis macula, and Aronia melanocarpa. These species are used, appreciated, and gathered fairly frequently but they are also noted to be highly invasive and hinder forest growth. The gathering of these species helps curb their encroachment. Illegal logging also impacts mushroom growth and nutrient cycling, weakening overall forest health. Additionally, Hutsul knowledge holders stress the impacts of external commercial harvesting of culturally important species including Vaccinium myrtillus, Arnica montana, Cetraria islandica, and Gentiana lutea has increased in recent years. Commercial harvesting of important NTFPs raises concerns expressed by communities impacted by these practices worldwide, including: 1) intensified impacts on habitats, 2) increased harvest volumes, 3) restricted access to land, as well as 4) changes in financial and technological incentives promoting intensive harvesting . In this context, commercial harvesting impacts the curative qualities of medicinal plants harvested, reduces accessibility to habitats and availability of these culturally important species to local Hutsul populations. Lastly, the convergence of colonial policies of forest mismanagement and rising threats of climate change have compounded the rise of pine bark beetle invasion. With all these factors impacting culturally important habitats such as woodlands and forests, relationship to land have been continually challenged and threatened by external governance structures. Accessibility to place in Hutsulschyna, a socio-ecological-political issue, is beginning to be addressed through the reconciliation of harmful historic forest management practices and illegal logging practices.

Despite these continual and traumatic eco-cultural-political stressors, the dialogue between landscape and Hutsul communities has not weakened. It through the continual gathering of wild and cultivated species that relationship, community needs, traditional food, and place remain intertwined and inseparable . It is the ecology of the forest understory that provides both culturally important plants and mushrooms providing for multiple needs such as food and medicine nested in cultural practice. Hutsul management of polonynas or alpine meadows, harbors successive sets of plant communities and important root medicines like arnica , and Gentian root species . In general, floral composition of polonynas is incredibly diverse, harboring a high proportion of species and habitats that are almost completely absent in the forest belt below. Ultimately, the diversity of habitats in Hutsulshchyna – garden, roadside, field, pasture, meadow, woodland, forest, toloka, alpine meadow and polonyna – provide a range of landscape interaction as well as a diversity of species use and reliance. By integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches, a more synthesized and community driven understanding of the role of ethnobotany surrounding the cultural historical center of Hutsulshchnya of Verkhovyna arises. As this study shows, an integrated qualitative and quantitative approach is necessary to elucidate the context of ethnobotanical use and communityuse implications surrounding responses to historic and present ecosystem challenges. Quantitative ethnobotanical indices , Cultural Importance , Frequency of Citation , Number of Uses , Relative Frequency of Citation , Relative Importance ) reveal information about 108 species from 79 genera and 48 families including 23 species of cultivated plants, 9 species of mushrooms and 2 species of lichens. Carpathian forests, mountains, woodlands, fields, alpine meadows, pastures, meadows, polonynas, tolokas, and roadsides serve as a biocultural reservoir for wild plant, mushroom, and lichen species while home gardens serve as places of experimentation of domesticating wild species and diversification of therapeutic remedies using cultivated species. Gathering serves multiple purposes with the overarching theme of addressing community health needs in the form of preventative care, quality control of ingredients, and surplus in times of scarcity. Although Hutsulshchyna is split between two countries, certain medicinal species uses transcend borders, grounding TEK to place.

Shared medicinal uses include 13 species that are noted in the top 20 species of cultural importance according to indices explored. Additionally, there were 35 unique place-based plants and corresponding uses that ground this TEK in the cultural, historic center of Hutsulshchyna, Verkhovyna. Lastly, unique to this study, “ecological use” was created as an attempt to integrate TEK into quantitative ethnobotanical indices, failing to capture both the depth and richness of knowledge. TEK is explored through qualitative methods including participant observation and community-based participatory action research, elucidating meaning to the role of place, phenology and gathering methods present in Hutsulshchyna. The range of accessibility to habitats in forest-dependent communities is imperative especially if it serves as a relational thread to food, medicine, and ecological grounding in cultural practice. Future indices acknowledging the variance of accessibility in today’s rapidly environmentally changing world could inform broader policy initiatives. Acknowledging TEK goes beyond the use of the organism and acknowledges derivation of place that sustains the stewardship and future accessibility of species . It is the link between use, stewardship, and culture. Typical agricultural systems attempt to control extraneous variables in order to maximize output of yield, while traditional management cultures are based on a locally-based, small-scale approaches that center interaction with natural components of the environment. The resulting system is an ethnoecosystem that embeds management as a relationship between environmental interactions and cultural practice. Current regional ecosystem challenges like illegal logging, commercial harvesting, and climate change, as well as the ripple effects of historical, colonial, environmental practices, continue to impact gathering practices and conservation status of endangered culturally important plants and their habitats. If a plant is culturally important, then the habitat or ecosystem in which it grows is by extension important. The Hutsul cultural practice of maintaining polonynas, a culturally important ecosystem, is declining,cannabis indoor greenhouse and with it the survival of plant and lichen communities that are conjoined in song, celebration, use, and cultural importance. By contextualizing the cultural importance of plants, lichens and mushrooms into their broader ecology and relationality with communities, we can learn to create meaningful stewardship policies that directly address ecosystem challenges and prioritize conservation measures. Climate change impacts, including but not limited to extreme weather events, the rise of global temperatures, and pandemic zoonotic diseases , remind us of our interconnectedness with our local and global ecosystems. With impacts not evenly distributed across the globe but felt more drastically over land, the poles, and more arid regions , areas already experiencing food insecurity will be hit hardest. Growing challenges, such as competition for finite resources including accessible, arable land minerals, water, and energy along with current, global, environmental, and economic changes are already impacting food production in response to climate change. This reality deserves attention and thoughtful, mindful action, especially for marginalized communities worldwide, specifically Indigenous Peoples and underrepresented ethnic groups, who may experience these impacts more immediately. Many Indigenous and underrepresented ethnic communities are both societally and spatially marginalized, living in edged biomes near forests, oceans, and deserts. According to the World Bank , these same communities steward an estimated 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity. Additionally, they are over represented among the world’s poorest, most destitute, and illiterate populations, as well as those displaced or threatened by environmental encroachment, wars, disasters, and socio-political stressors . Yet, many of these communities still survive and thrive, with resilience. In this case study, Hutsul communities, an ethnographic group of traditional pastoral highlanders in the eastern Carpathian Mountains of Ukraine, exemplify a socio-ecological approach to maintaining regional food system resilience and equity. Hutsuls have survived, thrived, and adapted in the face of colonial invasions, wars, food shortages, and now synergistic impacts of climate change and illegal timber harvest causing an increase of flooding events. Many Hutsul communities in the Carpathian Mountains are guided by traditional ecological knowledge in their day-to-day lives. Lived and experienced by local and Indigenous communities worldwide, TEK is cultural, spiritual, intergenerational, dynamic, place-based, environmental knowledge and wisdom; TEK, as a living knowledge base, is revisited, reinterpreted, and reevaluated consistently . TEK, the scientific method brought to life through culture, plays a significant role in meeting community needs, while adapting to environmental changes.

TEK serves as the foundational base for ensuring resilience in communities. TEK is built upon personal stories, past traumas, innovations, and current realities to inform contextually driven, resilient responses that are aligned with community needs. The path to achieving food security has a socio-ecological foundation, one that grafts community needs with a resilient, ecologically-grounded approach known as food sovereignty. Food sovereignty, as a term, can be controversial in its various meanings and origins . Here, we refer to the definition stated in the Declaration of Nyeleni of the Forum of Food Sovereignty in 2007. “Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and the right to define their own food and agriculture systems.” Within this definition emerges a powerful recognition of self-determination in how food is grown, managed and sourced. In addition, it affirms that socio-ecological relationships, rooted in sustainability, are central to this type of food system. Lastly, it states that access to healthy environments and culturally important foods are inextricably linked. Food sovereignty is not an endpoint in achieving food security; rather, it is an ongoing, adaptive capacity for a community to overcome food system threats. Adaptive capacity includes both coping mechanisms and adaptive strategies . Referring to terms commonly used in developmental studies and anthropology , coping mechanisms are short-term, quickly implemented strategies to situations that threaten livelihoods. Conversely, adaptive strategies are long-term changes implemented by communities, modifying local rules, institutions, and productive activities to ensure livelihoods. Coping mechanisms tend to emerge on individual or household levels, while adaptive strategies tend to emerge on community levels. Both coping mechanisms and adaptive strategies exist across temporal scales, whereby over time, coping mechanisms can become adaptive strategies . Through semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and long-term community based participatory action research , we identify 108 culturally important species and distinct regional environmental changes with Hutsul elders, knowledge holders, foresters, and experts. By combining quantitative ethnobotanical approaches examining species use with more in-depth qualitative approaches, we identify short-term and long term responses to regional, environmental changes resulting in the maintenance of traditional foods in Hutsul communities.

Cultural world views can be viewed on a continuum from more individuated to more integrated world views. In an individuated worldview, private, compartmentalized individual, linear, mind based, and contextually independent conception of the world is valued and common, while in a culturally integrated world view, an interconnected, reflective, cyclical or seasonal, mind/body/spirit/heart-based, contextually dependent conception of the world is valued and common . Using the framework outlined in Chávez’s work in education, I draw upon cultural continua seen in individuated and integrated cultural world views developed by the authors, specifically purpose of learning, ways of taking in and processing knowledge, interconnectedness of what is being learned and time. In many ways, the academic world in U.S. culture operates in an individuated framework, where the purpose of learning , underpinned by individual competence, drives goals, and said betterment of humanity. The mind is seen as the primary and preferred conduit of knowledge. Additionally, U.S. college and university curricula are organized primarily in an individuated way, subjects, courses, are compartmentalized and separated. There is an assumption that learning concepts in isolation will lead to greater understanding of how these parts interact within the whole. Undergraduate education tends to be thematically siloed, without introductory seminars explicitly integrating interdisciplinary thinking; the solutions to environmental, global problems rely on knowledge and ways of thinking from a myriad of disciplines. Time is structured by linear tasks that can be measured, and punctuality is linked to respect. These elements of the individuated worldview, driven by individual competence,hydroponic racks the mind being the conduit of knowledge, and linearity of time, was one that I brought into a highly integrated culture.

Part of my education in my dissertation process was understanding and living with a more integrated view of purpose, way of taking in knowledge, seeing the interconnectedness of what is being learned and a relationship-based understanding of time. Identifying with both individuated and integrated cultures, I felt conflicted by the time constraints and individuated view of the research process, especially in regard to time. It was the moment that I incorporated a more integrated worldview that my research became more collaborative, empathetic, and community-driven. A glimpse of an integrated worldview in Hutsulshchyna means that the purpose of learning is based on collective wisdom, for the betterment of the relationships surrounding us – family, community and beyond. The mind, spirit, and body as well as relationships and emotions are important ways of sensing the world and sources of knowledge. Context, connectedness, and belief that understanding how things impact one another within the community will facilitate further connection are central to community life. An example of this integrated worldview, not only present in Hutsulshchyna but also present in Ukraine is toloka, with one of the many definitions defined as collective mutual assistance . Its practice dates to the time of Kievan Rus , and writings show its definitive presence between the 17th -19th centuries . Toloka is a customary way of providing collective mutual assistance typically seen in villages. It is a moral and ethical norm, and usually done by a voluntary group of people for a community member. Its purpose is to provide rapid implementation such as harvesting a plant, building a house, joint grazing of livestock or work for the community. Community members understand that each of them can help themselves only by helping other members of the community. Knowledge creation, in the translational approach, is an iterative process that generates methods to build resilience and practical solutions for all entities engaged in the research process.

Within the broad field of ecology and environmental science, there is a rising acknowledgement of a common practice called ‘parachute science’ in which international scientists or researchers from high-income countries conduct scientific research in lower-income countries, without engaging with local communities or investing in local capacity . Bibliographic analysis of coral reef biodiversity research of scholarly articles in Scopus from 1969-2020, showed that 40% of publications with fieldwork conducted in the Philippines or Indonesia had no local scientist included . ‘Parachute science’ is driven by “outsiders” assumptions, motives, and personal needs, leading to an unfavorable power imbalance between those from the outside and those on the ground” . A translational approach specifically within the dimension of knowledge creation attempts to remedy the negative impacts and structural imbalances of parachute science. Throughout my dissertation process while living in the Carpathian Mountain region, I had opportunities to meet and develop relationships with local community members to aid in knowledge creation. Recalling back to the policy actions taken, co-authorship on a manuscript also serves as way to guide local knowledge creation. Its contribution will be evident in local policy actions spearheaded by co-authors, Maria Pasailiuk and Oleh Pohribnyi in Hutsulshchyna. One of the main goals as a result of this dissertation is its translation to a language and format that serves community members following the CARE principles3 for Indigenous Data Governance . Based on collaborative knowledge curation efforts, my goal is to co-create with Hutsul communities an ethnobotanical database within the culturally traditional Hutsul region, highlighting TEK practices of gathering and managing culturally important species . The co-created eco-cultural reservoir could be based in the Hutsulshchyna Museum in Verkhovyna, and comes at a historically important time, especially as other Indigenous groups in Ukraine are currently facing exile, cultural loss, and religious persecution from a historically colonial neighbor, Russia.

This database will serve as a critical, living knowledge base that documents the ongoing importance of culturally important species for numerous stakeholders including Hutsuls, ecologists, climate adaptation scientists, plant geneticists, linguists, anthropologists, conservationists, and community developers. It is known that the threat of bio-cultural diversity is impending, and the task goes beyond simply creating an inventory of species. Language plays a critical role in maintaining eco-cultural memory. We will document the Hutsul dialect not only focusing on local names but also the descriptive natural-history knowledge . My intent is to focus on endangered endemic species and species that have culturally influenced abundances and distributions. Through this documentation, my hope is to engage, empower and support local communities through biodiversity documentation and stewardship through culturally driven intergenerational learning, using native language-based initiatives . Knowledge creation with community members resulted in the making of a phenological gathering calendar. One of the places where I spent a lot of time was the Kryvorivnia Village Library with head librarian, Katya Yurnyuk. It was with her kindness and guidance that I was invited to go out on gathering trips with a local Women’s Collective . It was during these continual and seasonal gathering trips that I learned more about gathering practices, and various ethnobotanical uses. Additionally, it was through these gathering trips that the inception of a phenological calendar arose. This calendar, still a work in progress, will go through many iterations with community members before dissemination. With threats of climate change noted by community members, this phenological calendar would ground TEK through a community created calendar and serve as a reference point to note phenological changes over time. Facilitating local knowledge creation and curation can empower communities to direct where, in what way, and how knowledge is nested within their communities.Personal actions include lifestyle choices, advocacy, leadership, and role modeling, which can help nurture a culture of resilience . Ecologists can provide leadership and support in areas of funding, subject matter expertise, and transparent dialogue with various stakeholders through science outreach. These individual actions are personal and vary among individuals. For some ecologists, activism and advocacy may be important, forging community resilience to catalyze policy changes, relationship-building, and healing capacity. For others, science outreach and grant writing may be pivotal, providing accessibility of information and resources needed to implement policy changes. The goal is to ensure individual mobility and agency to promote resilience building within communities from a local to global scale.As an interdisciplinary ecologist, I found that access to resources stand as a common barrier facing Ukrainian scientists and researchers. Having funding to implement community projects is difficult. Leveraging my positionality, I strived to secure grants as a way of supporting community driven project ideas. Granting agencies that uphold and ask for intentional, collaborative,microgreen grow rack international work such as Fulbright scholar award and National Geographic grant have provided capabilities to partner with educational and government institutions. By securing a Fulbright scholar award and a National Geographic grant, I can help fund a proposal surrounding the ecocultural restoration of the Stone Pine in the Carpathian Mountains. Both grant agencies will provide research funds that can directly go to the implementation of this project. Vasyl Zayachuk, professor at the Ukrainian National Forestry University and Oleh Pohribnyi, forest scientist at the Hutsulshchyna National Nature Park and head of the NGO, “The Heritage of Hutsulshchyna”, proposed the idea of this ecocultural restoration project. This ecocultural restoration project attempts to address harmful colonial legacies that impacted eco-cultural practices within Hutsulshchyna.

The Austrian-Hungarian Empire, one of many historical colonizers in this region, implemented forestry practices that have negatively impacted the populations of ecologically important and vulnerable species like the Stone pine . Unfortunately, the result of destructive forest management practices of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire is still reverberating today and negatively impacting the forests of Hutsul communities. The Stone pine serves an important ecosystem protection function on mountainsides in addition to being a culturally important species to Hutsuls. This ecocultural restoration project would: 1) expand and strengthen existing monitoring of the endangered Stone pine, 2) support the development of an ecosystem service assessment of the Stone pine habitat, and 3) provide a platform for the development of a Stone pine plantation for ecocultural use. This interdisciplinary approach interweaves both quantitative and qualitative methods that will promote resilience of this diverse socio-ecological system in the Carpathians. It was the time investment that nurtured the development of these relationships that laid the foundation for future collaborative endeavors which could lead to impactful action , as seen with the Stone pine ecocultural restoration project. Securing funding is one of many direct, personal actions that ecologists can take; Others include serving as a subject expert, being an advocate and activist for resilience building within communities as well as taking leadership roles in science outreach . In many ways, the successful completion of my dissertation work took on a translational approach due to the self-evident need for self-education, transparent communication and collaboration, application to policy, integration of community-driven knowledge creation, as well as continual self-reflection on my own individual, personal actions. Self-education and consistent communication and engagement took on larger roles initially than the other dimensions of policy, knowledge curation and individual action. In many ways, it was those two dimensions that helped inform the other dimensions specifically policy as well as knowledge creation. Time constraints remain a common barrier for conducting translational research. The initial four months of self-education along with communication and engagement were a result of an unseen delay in obtaining my resident visa, which in many ways forced me to stay close to a major city. With that delay, I felt the time constraint of my one-year grant and an urgent necessity to begin the formal research process. Nonetheless, I was able to take short trips to the Carpathian Mountain region, reach out to various people and create networks which served valuable in the integrative process of engagement. While I was unaware at the time, this perceived delay ultimately served as a necessary part of the translational approach needed for this collaborative, time intensive work. In total, I spent a total of a year and half over the course of three years, living and engaging with community members. While this is significant, given the scope of work that is still left to do, it is also all-too-brief. Another challenge encountered was the struggle to measure the success of this approach . Co-publication of an article has taken a long time, with the hope that this research is identifying knowledge gaps and resulting in actionable outcomes through regional policy development. Currently, it is preemptive to say what the actionable results will be of the publication and its impact on policy integration in the region. This is the first publication of its kind voicing Hutsul perspective and as Wall et al. suggest, intentional steps taken along the way of the translational approach may be viewed as indicators to eventual success.

The experience of transitioning pear and apple orchards to wine grapes — the current paradigm of cash crop transition in this region — stands to be a useful parallel for policymakers when considering the range of possible changes that may occur within the landscape, community and economy as the potential result of further transitioning farmland to growing cannabis. Broader changes that resulted from the precedent of grapes, whether positive or negative, may stand to be a sobering example to consider for policymakers hoping primarily for economic gains to be had from expanded cannabis cultivation. As several interviewees mentioned, cannabis does not fall under Right to Farm laws, or laws that protect the right to conduct standard agricultural practices in a community. This highlights a key shortcoming of the cannabis and wine grapes analogy, as the expansion of the legal cannabis industry is not afforded the same rights as the expansion of wine grapes in an agricultural community. Nonetheless, in some areas legalization of recreational cannabis may bring with it an overhauling of the current landscape of food production, just as wine grapes did. The divide that some interviewees noted between wine producers and other food producers perhaps mirrors the divide between cannabis producers and non-cannabis producers. Interestingly, wine producers — and, as previously mentioned, the alcohol industry in general — have already made various commercial connections with cannabis producers, with collaborations ranging from a “wine and weed” conference in Sonoma in summer 2017 to cannabis-infused beer and wine. Newly developed regulations surrounding cannabis cultivation will have great significance for food producers in these counties. As they are refined,cannabis grow system it is important that policymakers continue to involve the agricultural community and intentionally incorporate their perspectives.

This should be done through outreach with individuals, organizations and food policy councils to ensure that new regulations for cannabis are not unintentionally spilling over into agriculture or otherwise compromising the diversity of producers in these counties. The interviews reported here establish a baseline knowledge of how legalized recreational cannabis intersects with agricultural communities. Future research could focus on investigating land sale and ownership data to see what land types are targeted by which type of investors in each county, and to then begin to determine what types of outcomes might be associated with these different types of investors. Meanwhile, the land situation during this transition period is fluid. In Humboldt County, after the end of the study reported here, a recent town hall meeting highlighted the economic crisis facing the community with the decline of the price of cannabis. Community members reported that property values had dropped and that large, and not small, cannabis businesses had generally been receiving the bulk of new permits . In addition to more research, a renewed effort might be made to prioritize support for farm succession planning and explore creative approaches to transitioning key pieces of farmland to the next generation of farmers who identify with the non-cannabis community. Such an initiative could bolster efforts to maintain diverse local food systems in Humboldt, Mendocino and Sonoma counties.As of February 2022, 19 states and Washington, DC, had voted to legalize recreational cannabis use in the US,1 although the US federal government classifies cannabis as a Schedule I substance with high abuse potential and no approved medical purpose despite therapeutic evidence.Canada legalized cannabis nationally in 2018,8 establishing a market based on advice from a task force including government, health, research, legal, law enforcement, and non–cannabis business representatives.

Input was solicited from advocacy organizations and cannabis companies,the latter of which seek reduced taxes and regulations.10 Research on the effects of recreational cannabis legalization on cannabis use has been inconclusive, with studies reporting different increases and decreases in consumption after legalization.One study12 found that cannabis use increased in the past year and past month among populations of Asian, Hispanic, Native American, non-Hispanic White, and Pacific Islander race and ethnicity and among individuals reporting multiple races and ethnicities who were aged 21 to 30 years in states that had legalized medical and recreational cannabis. The study found no changes in cannabis use by non-Hispanic Black individuals or for any racial or ethnic demographic group aged 12 to 20 years.Another study of cannabis consumption in Canada found increased prevalence of cannabis use among middle-aged and older adults after recreational legalization.Federal surveys conducted in 2020 by their respective governments found that 17.9% of individuals 12 years or older in the US14 and 27% of persons 16 years or older in Canada consumed cannabis in the past 12 months.Further cannabis normalization could increase consumption as well as expand the reach and strength of companies selling cannabis products. Corporate social responsibility constitutes a company’s philanthropic, ethical, and economic activities beyond profit seeking, including mitigating environmental and societal impacts.Corporate social responsibility promotes brands and secures government goodwill that protects business interests. Controversial industries, including the tobacco industry, use CSR to bolster reputations burdened by core stigma, a term indicating that products, conduct, or customers have a negative social impact. Tobacco industry CSR activities ostensibly address harms caused by its products but blame consumers and present its programs as alternatives to regulation. 

That industry’s efforts include “youth smoking prevention” programs with forbidden fruit messaging, smokers’ rights groups that resist regulation, and pharmaceuticalization, which reoriented business toward nicotine replacement therapy. The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, an international treaty adopted in 2003 to steer countries’ tobacco control programming, mitigate the global tobacco epidemic, and curb the tobacco industry’s interference in regulation, defines CSR as a form of advertising. As legal cannabis sales expand to new jurisdictions, the cannabis industry may seek to use CSR to gain legitimacy, secure approval, recruit allies, access government, and influence policy as it attempts to expand its customer base and legal markets. Past research on this question is limited: searches of academic databases found only 1 book chapter covering the CSR activities conducted by 2 cannabis companies operating in Colorado and 3 articles addressing CSR practices by cannabis companies, all of which stated that further research was needed. Comparison of cannabis companies’ CSR practices with those of the tobacco industry is useful because we can assess commonalities and differences between the practices of a nascent industry exiting illegality and a long-established sector with a product that has historically been legal. The recent legalization of cannabis in Canada and patchwork legalization of cannabis in 18 states in the US has led to the appearance of multiple smaller businesses alongside the multinational corporations in this sector. Owing to differences in the legality of cannabis within the US, cannabis businesses face varying market regulations. The prior criminalization of cannabis and resulting disparate racial and social harms has generated attention regarding how cannabis companies address diversity, equity, and inclusion, potentially influencing the focus of its CSR practices relative to the tobacco industry. We reviewed cannabis CSR activities in the US and Canada between January 1, 2012, when Colorado first legalized recreational cannabis, and December 31, 2021. We sought to determine whether cannabis companies have CSR practices similar to those of the tobacco industry because both sell substances that are recreationally consumed and harmful to public health with comparable consumption modes .For this qualitative study, we reviewed documents related to the CSR activities of cannabis companies between 2012 and 2021 using established methods from previous research of the tobacco, alcohol, and food16 industries. We sampled the 10 largest cannabis companies by market capitalization as of January 2021 identified by Nasdaq, an electronic securities trading market covering the US, Canada, and Europe. We excluded 1 pharmaceutical company making cannabis derived treatments and not involved with recreational markets, leaving 9 companies in our sample. Our data collection, coding, analysis, and writing process followed the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research reporting guideline. Our approach also relied on existing protocols for searching and analyzing industry documents. Because this study did not involve human subjects, informed consent was not applicable. This research was approved by the University of California, San Francisco, Institutional Review Board. Information regarding CSR activities was collected from August 1 through December 31, 2021, through systematic searches of cannabis company websites and Nexis Uni articles written in English. Websites were reviewed for CSR activities, including events, sponsorships, nonprofit partnerships, education initiatives, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, donations, and sales drives. Information on company websites was image captured and downloaded in PDF form. We searched Nexis Uni to find press releases and news coverage of cannabis companies’ CSR activities. Search terms included company names combined with the keywords corporate social responsibility, social equity, and donate. Subsequent snowball searches, a process in which key terms are identified in initial searches to find additional information, was used with brand and program names identified in initial searches. Philanthropic activities were included even if not labeled CSR. We identified 153 unique news articles, press releases,flood table and Web pages that are described below. We performed a content analysis to categorize evidence thematically, similar to studies used previously to analyze tobacco and pharmaceutical industry activities. One author with experience coding tobacco industry documents created a master file that summarized each cannabis company’s CSR activities provided in each document. Themes were developed inductively through iterative coding and categorization of language and informational patterns found in collected materials.

Corporate social responsibility activities with language and foci designed to mitigate cannabis prohibition harms were grouped into a theme category, as were activities with language and foci regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion; charitable contributions; therapeutic and medical cannabis access promotion; and mitigation of cannabis industry harms. We found that cannabis companies used CSR practices similarly to tobacco companies, claiming they voluntarily self-regulated by limiting youth access, making charitable contributions, and supporting advocacy organizations. We categorized activities under these classifications. When a document’s relevance or categorization was questioned, it was discussed by 2 authors until agreement was reached.Seven companies claimed their CSR activities addressed harms from past cannabis prohibition . Green Thumb Industries Inc and Cresco Labs Inc created business incubators and licensing assistance programs for members of racial and ethnic minority populations and communities harmed by cannabis prohibition. The License Education Assistance Program, launched by Green Thumb Industries Inc in 2019, reoriented programming to support 3 social equity license applicants in Illinois102 in August 2021. The Social Equity and Education Development business incubator developed by Cresco Labs Inc held 13 events between 2019 and 2020 that assisted 225 applicants pursuing Illinois retail licenses. Curaleaf Holdings Inc and Green Thumb Industries Inc funded nonprofits helping people with cannabis-related records rejoin society. Curaleaf Holdings Inc donated 10% of proceeds from BNoble cannabis product sales to 5 organizations helping formerly incarcerated people obtain work. Green Thumb Industries Inc allotted a portion of Good Green sales to a nonprofit grant program funding cannabis education, work training, employment assistance, and expungement services in communities harmed by cannabis criminalization. Green Thumb Industries Inc claimed it provided 3 Good Green grants as of 2021. Green Thumb Industries Inc collaborated with the Last Prisoner Project, a nonprofit founded by cannabis entrepreneurs dedicated to expunging sentences of formerly incarcerated people and reintegrating them. Three companies, Curaleaf Holdings Inc, Cresco Labs Inc, and Green Thumb Industries Inc, established quotas and initiatives to hire previously incarcerated people. Cresco Labs Inc and Green Thumb Industries Inc90 developed restorative justice CSR activities. Cresco Labs Inc established scholarship programs at 2 universities in Ohio for people or communities harmed by drug war policies. Green Thumb Industries Inc funded 4 scholarships in 2 Ohio schools for students seeking cannabis industry involvement. Canopy Growth Corporation, Curaleaf Holdings Inc, Green Thumb Industries Inc,81-84 Cresco Labs Inc, and Trulieve announced intentions to support efforts and organizations seeking to expunge criminal records. Six companies joined industry associations supporting restorative criminal justice: Trulieve andCresco Labs Inc joined National Cannabis Roundtable, a US trade organization, whereas Canopy Growth Corporation, Curaleaf Holdings Inc, Cronos Group Inc, and Columbia Care joined the US Cannabis Council, a coalition seeking to end federal cannabis prohibition. Between 2019 and 2020, Cresco Labs Inc claimed it spent nearly $425 000 in staff hours and contributions toward restorative justice, including more than 90 hours of staffing at expungement events, sponsorship of 8 expungement events and 1 gun exchange, and assisting restorative justice activations in California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.

The implementation of medical marijuana policies did not have any significant associations with hospitalizations related to marijuana dependence or abuse. However, it was associated with a 23% reduction in hospitalizations related to opioid dependence or abuse and a 13% reduction in hospitalizations related to OPR overdose . In Table 2, the first column for each outcome variable evaluates the indicator of medical marijuana dispensaries. Relative to generic implementation of medical marijuana legalization, the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries had comparable associations with hospitalizations related to opioid dependence or abuse and OPR overdose . The second column for each outcome variable reports results including both the indicator of medical marijuana policy and the indicator of medical marijuana dispensaries. Medical marijuana dispensaries alone did not have any independent associations with any hospitalization outcomes after indicators for medical marijuana policy implementation were also included in the regressions. In Table 3, we explored if any policy effects could be detected in the periods prior to the implementation year of medical marijuana policies. We found no evidence that hospitalization rates of any category differed between states adopting and non-adopting medical marijuana policies in the pre-policy periods. Table 3 also assesses the presence of dynamic policy effects after the implementation year. We found that the reduction in hospitalizations related to opioid dependence or abuse was most salient after 1 year of policy implementation , whereas the reduction in hospitalizations related to OPR overdose was observed in the third year after policy implementation . With respect to other policy and socioeconomic covariates, uninsured rate was associated with increased OPR overdose hospitalizations. Other covariates including marijuana decriminalization,weed trimming tray prescription drug monitoring program, and pain management clinic regulations were generally not associated with any hospitalization outcomes.

Using state-level administrative hospitalization data during 1997–2014, we found no convincing evidence that the implementation of medical marijuana policies was associated with a subsequent increase in marijuana-related hospitalizations. This result was robust to the key policy dates defined in different ways. In conjunction with the studies that demonstrated negative or null associations of medical marijuana policies to substance abuse treatment admissions , suicide rates , and crime rates , our study counters the arguments about the severe health consequences that legalizing medical marijuana may bring to the public health. It should be noted that this study does not necessarily contradict some prior research that reported an increase in marijuana use prevalence in association with medical marijuana policies . It just appears that, even if legalization resulted in an increase in the prevalence, it did not contribute to the severe health consequences that concern the public the most. Whether such findings hold in the long term needs further monitoring and investigations. This study demonstrated significant reductions in OPR-related hospitalizations associated with the implementation of medical marijuana policies. These findings were supported by the recent studies that reported reduced prescription medications , OPR overdose mortality , opioid positivity among young and middle aged fatally injured drivers , and substance abuse treatment admissions in association with medical marijuana legalization. The mechanisms for the causal connections between marijuana and OPR are not clear. As mentioned earlier, using marijuana can lead to either an increase or a reduction in OPR use depending on the use purposes and the underlying assumptions. This study appears to support the hypothesis that patients prescribed with OPR substitute OPR with marijuana, but it is not directly testable in our data. An alternative explanation for the results reported in this study is that states with medical marijuana legalization may also have tough OPR prescription regulations.

However, this hypothesis was not supported by the null associations of OPR prescription regulations estimated in this study. Future empirical evaluations are warranted to explore the use pattern of OPR and marijuana and substantiate the substituting and gateway effects of the two drugs. Consistent with prior research , policy effects reported in this study were not static. We found reductions in OPR-related hospitalizations immediately after the year of policy implementation as well as delayed reductions in the third post-policy year. Nonetheless, the availability of medical marijuana dispensaries was not independently associated with hospitalizations as suggested by other studies . A possible interpretation is that only 1 state in our data legalized medical marijuana but did not have operating medical marijuana dispensaries; a few other states opened medical marijuana dispensaries within only 1–2 years after the legalization of medical marijuana. The lack of variations in policy adoption and timing limited our ability to detect independent effects of detailed policy provisions of medical marijuana legalization. The 300% increase in hospitalization rates related to marijuana is striking. In contrast, the past-month prevalence of marijuana use increased at a much slower rate from 6% in 2002 to 7.5% in 2013 . It is unclear what factors have been driving the huge discrepancies between the trends of use prevalence and the trends of hospitalization rates. Although quite a few states legalized medical marijuana or decriminalized marijuana, this study suggested that they did not contribute to the rise of marijuana-related hospitalizations. One alternative hypothesis is the escalation in marijuana potency , which has tripled from 4% in 1995 to 12% in 2014 in the U.S. . Nonetheless, empirical evidence again did not find any associations between the potency increase and the legalization of medical marijuana . Studies to understand the growing market share of high-potency marijuana and its associations with marijuana-related hospitalizations are urgently needed. The unprecedented increase in OPR-related hospitalization rates and other related health outcomes has become a major public health crisis.

Compared to the limited research on marijuana, OPR abuse and overdose epidemic has been relatively well studied. Despite lack of evidence in this study, prescription drug monitoring programs and pain management clinic regulations have shown promises to tackle the OPR crisis in some other studies . If the causal relationship indicated in this study can be substantiated in future research, medical marijuana legalization and regulation may be considered as an alternative strategy to reduce OPR-related hospitalizations without aggravating the adverse consequences related to marijuana. Our study was subject to several limitations, most of which were related to the data used. First, some states included hospitalization records in the SID from non-community hospitals such as psychiatric facilities and Veterans Affairs hospitals, but some states did not . States may also vary on ICD-9-CM coding practice particularly for drug dependence, abuse, and overdose cases. The coding of opioid dependence or abuse may include heroin cases. The inclusion of state fixed effects should to some extent alleviate these biases in the reporting. Second, the aggregate SID data represented the total number of discharges but not the total number of patients because a patient may be admitted to hospital more than once in a year. The public-use SID were not available before 1997 and not all states participated in the SID during the study period. The findings may not be generalizable to the states that were excluded from this study. Particularly, the results may be inapplicable to California, which has the longest history of medical marijuana legalization as well as the largest population of registered medical marijuana patients and the largest number of medical marijuana dispensaries. Third, although no statistical differences in hospitalization rates between states adopting and non-adopting medical marijuana policies were revealed before policy implementation,cannabis grow setup we cannot rule out policy endogeneity issues that may be caused by time-varying unobserved factors and were not captured by the two-way fixed effects models. In addition, we were not able to examine detailed policy provisions of medical marijuana legalization such as home cultivation and requirement of patient registry because of small sample size and lack of variations. We were not able to assess OPR-related policies that were adopted by a few states most recently, such as requirements of following OPR prescribing guidelines and mandatory checking prescription drug monitoring program data by providers. This limitation, however, is unlikely to influence the study findings significantly because these policies were not adopted until the very end of the study period or after the study period. Finally, the study findings do not apply to recreational marijuana legalization. In fact, the findings are likely to alter if marijuana for recreational purpose is indeed a gateway drug to OPR. Examinations on the most recent regulations of recreational marijuana are warranted.The United Nations recently estimated that the global illegal drug trade is worth at least US$350 billion annually, and illegal drug use remains a major threat to community health and safety.In addition to the range of harm associated with the direct health effects of drugs, including fatal overdose, illegal drug use is also one of the key global drivers of blood-borne disease transmission, in particular HIV infection. Illegal drug markets also contribute to community concerns, such as high rates of violence in settings where the trade proliferates.

In response to the health and social concerns associated with illegal drug use, several UN conventions were organised to control the possession, consumption and manufacture of illegal drugs.As a result, during the last several decades, most national drug control strategies have prioritised drug law enforcement interventions to reduce drug supply, despite recent calls by experts to explore alternative models of drug control, such as systems of drug decriminalisation and legal regulation. Some unintended consequences of this approach, such as record incarceration rates, have been well documented. In addition, a small number of studies assessing aspects of drug supply, measured through indicators of drug price, purity/potency and seizures, have been undertaken to describe the global relationship between these indicators over the long term. However, systematic evaluation of these relationships is still needed to elucidate patterns of drug supply. The present study, therefore, sought to systematically identify international data from publicly available illegal drug surveillance systems to assess long-term estimates of illegal drug supply.The primary outcomes of interest were long-term patterns of illegal drug supply, measured through indicators of price and purity/potency for three major illegal drugs: cannabis, cocaine and opiates . While data on amphetamine-type stimulants exist in some countries , this class of drugs was not included given inconsistent data collection and classification, and fluctuating surveillance periods and overall data quality. A secondary outcome of interest was data on illegal drug seizures in major illegal drug source regions and, major destination markets, as identified by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime . These secondary outcome data were used as an additional proxy measure to assess the availability of illegal drugs in specific regions, as has been carried out previously. All outcomes were systematically identified through publicly available illegal drug surveillance systems. Linear-by-linear association trend tests were carried out on annual estimates of all outcomes of interest. Price and purity estimates represent median values for each year, while estimates for seizures represent crude totals of quantity seized. All price estimates are expressed in 2011 USD and are, where possible, adjusted for purity. An online search of surveillance systems monitoring illegal drugs using two a priori defined inclusion criteria was carried out. Search terms included the following: drugs, illicit, illegal, price, purity, potency, surveillance system, government data, longitudinal, annual, estimate. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were as follows: only surveillance systems that included continuous longitudinal assessments of these outcomes of interest for at least 10 years were included because we specifically sought to assess the long-term impact of enforcement-based supply reduction strategies on illegal drug price and purity/ potency. Finally, data extraction was restricted to 1990 and onwards to focus on patterns of supply during recent decades. Data were obtained through online searches of registries of surveillance systems , governmental reports and peer-reviewed publications, through referrals from experts in the field, and through data requests to relevant organisations including the UNODC. All authors had complete access to all data and all had final responsibility to submit for publication. Ethics approval was not required given that we relied exclusively on publicly available data.We identified seven government surveillance systems that met inclusion criteria. Of these, 3 reported on international data, 3 on data from the USA and 1 on data from Australia. One of the longest running surveillance system identified, the US-based Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project, is funded by the US National Institutes of Health and was established in 1975, while the most recent surveillance system was established in 2001 .

Additional detail on the LCA is provided in Appendix 5. In a final step, we then examined variation in demographic, socioeconomic, political, and retail market characteristics of the cities and counties falling into each alcohol-cannabis LCA policy class. Three localities had local governments but no people permanently residing within their boundaries; these localities were excluded from the analyses describing demographic, socioeconomic, political, and retail market characteristics by alcohol-cannabis regulatory approach. All analyses were conducted using R version 4.0.4. Analyses were not pre-registered.Across the 241 cities and counties, the average alcohol control policy stringency score was 7.7 . Fully 172 local governments banned retail businesses selling medical and recreational cannabis whereas 69 allowed at least one type of retail cannabis business. Even though receipt of home delivery of cannabis is legal statewide, cities and counties could still ban retail cannabis businesses from opening up within their borders. In the 29% of localities that allowed retail cannabis businesses to open, the average cannabis control policy stringency score was 9.0 . Local governments that banned retail cannabis businesses had less stringent alcohol regulations overall , implying an inverse relation between policies regulating alcohol versus cannabis. Among the subset of local governments that did not completely ban retail cannabis businesses , however, alcohol and cannabis control policy stringency scores were modestly positively associated. For every one-unit increase in the scaled alcohol policy stringency score we observed an average 0.37-unit increase in the scaled cannabis policy stringency score . Among the specific provisions that applied to both alcohol and cannabis,plant benches it was infrequent that local governments adopted the same policy for both . The provisions local governments most frequently adopted for both substances were requirements for local business permits and minimum distances between retail outlets and sensitive locations such as schools .

Local governments were most likely to approach alcohol and cannabis control differently when it came to the application of safety requirements such as night lighting and limits on hours of sale . After accounting for chance, only prohibitions on underage consumption showed significant agreement . Local governments in California also had the authority to regulate the co-location of cannabis and alcohol outlets by restricting how nearby cannabis outlets could be located in relation to alcohol outlets. Only two of 241 local governments took advantage of this authority by mandating a minimum distance between alcohol and cannabis outlets.The final LCA included 18 alcohol and cannabis policies. For cannabis, localities were best categorized into two classes: those that banned all retail cannabis businesses versus those that allowed at least one type of retail . For alcohol, the metrics used to select the best-fit model indicated that models with 2 or 3 classes fit the data better than models with 1, 4, or 5 classes, but did not clearly distinguish between models with 2 versus 3 classes. We therefore considered both the 2- and 3-class categorizations, which we named: “strict versus lenient” , or “universally strict”, “lenient but with social host laws”, and “intermediate restrictiveness without social host laws” . For interpretability, we present the two-class categorization of alcohol control in the main text and results for the three-class categorization in Appendix 5.Table 2 summarizes characteristics of the populations subject to the four alcohol-cannabis control approaches: strict on both alcohol and cannabis, lenient on both, strict/lenient, and lenient/strict. Overall, localities that were lenient on both alcohol and cannabis were the least population dense, least educated, with predominantly White residents, and contained the most alcohol and cannabis outlets per capita relative to localities with other alcohol-cannabis control approaches. In contrast, localities that were strict on both alcohol and cannabis tended to be urban, with intermediate levels of education and income, and high proportions of Asian residents.

Localities that were strict on alcohol but lenient on cannabis had the highest population density, with the highest levels of poverty, unemployment, the most liberal voters, the most Black and Hispanic residents, and the fewest White residents. Localities that were lenient on alcohol and strict on cannabis had intermediate population density, with the highest levels of education, least poverty and unemployment, most conservative voters, most Asian and White residents, and fewest Black and Hispanic residents.Public health experts have urged governments around the world to regulate recreational cannabis as they do alcohol, and some governments have tried to do so. Although cannabis and alcohol are different substances with different risks, there are inherent advantages in applying lessons learned from alcohol policy making to cannabis. This is the first effort to empirically examine if and how local recreational cannabis policies mirror existing alcohol policies. In this case study of 241 California cities and counties, we found little evidence that local governments were following a coordinated approach. The local governments studied here had been granted power to coordinate specific provisions in alcohol and cannabis , yet few chose to do so. All of the local governments we studied permitted alcohol sales, yet only 29% allowed businesses that sell retail cannabis. Localities with bans on retail cannabis tended to have less restrictive alcohol controls, suggesting an inverse, or discordant, relationship. Notably, only two of 241 local governments in this study chose to regulate the co-location of cannabis outlets in relation to alcohol outlets. Public health researchers have noted that under legalization, new cannabis outlets are often situated in neighborhoods already overburdened with alcohol outlets . Failure to regulate co-location could lead to the saturation of legal intoxicants in vulnerable communities, and resulting harms associated with substance use including binge drinking, crime, and cannabis use disorder . Because neighborhoods with high densities of both types of outlets are more likely to contain low-income and racial/ethnic minority residents , coordinating local policies with the explicit goal of deterring alcohol and cannabis outlet co-location is likely to be important for health equity.

The discordance we observed between alcohol and cannabis policies suggests that most local governments in California are not adapting existing alcohol controls to regulate cannabis. This discordance is indicated both by our findings that most local governments ban retail cannabis and that localities permitted retail cannabis sales rarely adopted the same specific provisions for regulating alcohol and cannabis. However, within the subset of 69 local governments that did not ban retail cannabis businesses, the stringency of alcohol and cannabis policies were positively associated. This suggests local governments with experience regulating both substances may be applying alcohol policies to cannabis . For example, of 90 localities with alcohol-related social host provisions , 17 expanded these provisions to cover cannabis. In contrast to alcohol, for which policies have been established for decades, many governments do not yet have the expertise to appropriately regulate cannabis and may choose to ban all cannabis retail to avoid more nuanced decision-making. Public health considerations or NIMBY influences could also be at play in these localities. For the local governments that opened the door to cannabis but lack capacity or expertise, learning from alcohol may offer a way forward. Modeling cannabis control policies after alcohol may also promote health equity in some contexts. We found that localities that were strict on alcohol but lenient on cannabis had the highest levels of poverty and unemployment and the most Black and Hispanic residents. If lenient cannabis policies lead to cannabis-related health problems, then this demographic patterning in policies implies that health inequities may be exacerbated. For further discussion of these concerns, see Matthay et al. . Approximately half of the localities we studied combined strict cannabis policies with lenient alcohol policies. Linkage to demographic, socioeconomic, political, and retail market characteristics indicated that these communities were distinguished by high social and economic advantages. There is evidence that affluent constituencies are biased toward the status quo, and that policymakers are more like to be responsive to their preferences than those of lower-income constituencies . In addition, conflicting federal and state laws in the US, and the preponderance of cannabis legalization via ballot initiatives may interfere with policy coordination,rolling bench particularly in contexts like the US where governments are more responsive to communities that are already economically advantaged . The political processes that have led to uncoordinated alcohol and cannabis policies in California have the same potential in other places to compromise public health equity by responding only to the wealthiest and most vocal constituents. To promote public health equity, national and sub-national governments legalizing recreational cannabis should take proactive measures to counteract these processes. Our study specifically evaluated California cities and counties which, although specific to the US context, involve the same kinds policies under consideration or enacted in other countries, including bans or limits on retail sales, limits on outlet density, and taxation. Cannabis policies have changed rapidly in the 21st century, with multiple countries legalizing possession and use. Our finding that California cities and counties rarely took similar approaches to alcohol and cannabis control raises concerns that reliance on sub-national governments may compromise the coordination of alcohol and cannabis policies in countries with federalist systems. Consistent with this, a systematic review of policymaker responsiveness found that sub-national representatives in both federalist and unitary countries were more likely to respond to constituent pressures that could undermine coordinated policies . These issues are relevant to both Brazil and Germany, which in 2022 began reconsidering their existing restrictions on cannabis . In these countries, monitoring the development of recreational cannabis policies and promoting their coordination with policies regulating other substances is warranted.

Our analysis investigated similarities and differences between alcohol and cannabis control policies, but could not definitively identify intentional coordination or barriers to coordination. The limitations of adapting alcohol controls to regulate cannabis should be further explored—for example, needed differences in restrictions on product types or potency due to differences in formulations, modes of administration, and psychoactive properties of each substance. This analysis does not identify the factors that shaped different policy decisions. Further research is needed on why local governments pursued certain policy approaches and how local policy making could achieve greater coordination. In particular, for the 12% of localities that were more restrictive on alcohol and less restrictive on cannabis, policy making may be motivated by the idea that cannabis is harm-reducing substitute for alcohol or opioids. Future research should also monitor the influence of the rapidly consolidating cannabis industry as a reason that local governments may pursue different policy approaches to alcohol and cannabis control. The financial incentives to advocate for lenient restrictions on cannabis are substantial, and industry interference in legal cannabis policy making is evident at the national level in the US, New Zealand, and the UK . Studies should also consider best practices of governments that have successfully coordinated alcohol and cannabis control policies, research that has the potential to better inform and direct policy making worldwide.Cannabis sativa L. is an annual herbaceous multi-purpose plant with a long history of human selective breeding. The genus Cannabis contains different types of chemicals with a diverse phytocannabinoid profile and range of effects. The differences in phytocannabinoids composition and quantities of cannabis chemotypes should be searched in the genetic background of their biosynthesis pathways and the environmental conditions where they have been evolved. Precursor synthesis of cannabinoids occurs from two distinct biosynthesis pathways: the polyketide and the methylerythritol phosphate pathways, which produce olivetolic acid and geranyl diphosphate , respectively. Geranylpyrophosphate:olivetolate geranyltransferase catalyse the alkylation of OLA with GPP, leading to formation of CBGA , the main precursor of various cannabinoids,responsible for producing acidic precursors of THC and CBD . Naturally these phytocannabinoids exist as both monocarboxylic acids and as decarboxylated forms ; however, heating promotes decarboxylation. Different types and concentrations of the cannabinoids, in particular, THC with psychotropic effects and CBD, a non-intoxicating metabolite, alongside applied morphological attributes may underpin the recreational, medicinal, and industrial uses of cannabis. The range of 0.3–1% THC that determines the border of drug-type and non-drug type cannabis of course seems to be only a widely accepted agreement to determine the restrictions of cultivation in different countries. Nowadays, there is intense competition for finding unique chemotypes or varieties with low THC and high CBD contents that can be industrially used or cultivated. Despite high potential as a multipurpose plant to produce drugs, fiber-based products, nutritional supplements and seed oil, and cosmetics, there remain critical gaps in knowledge.

Estimating pass through of the LCFS tax at the wholesale level will suggest that it isn’t passed through, when in fact it is being passed through downstream at the rack level. This finding also informs the analysis on LCFS subsidy pass through, as it suggests that blenders hold both credits and deficits, creating a net subsidy rather than a gross subsidy. Not accounting for the tax will overstate the amount of the actual subsidy realized by the blender. Pass through of the RIN tax is found to be complete in all major spot markets on average, except for San Francisco. Pass through of the RIN subsidy is complete in the Midwest, incomplete in the East Coast, West Coast, and Gulf Coast. The findings of incomplete RIN subsidy pass through in my sample, which includes data from the last six years, suggest that lack of salience may not be the explanation. Additionally, incomplete pass through of the RIN subsidy in the Gulf Coast differs from findings in the blended gasoline sector . In California, RIN taxes and LCFS taxes are fully passed through to wholesale prices and rack prices, respectively, with the exception of the tax in San Francisco. Pass through of both the RIN subsidy and LCFS subsidy is incomplete. I find that 68 percent of the combined subsidy is passed through to rack prices in California in the long-run on average. Pass through of LCFS subsidies is lower for higher bio-diesel blends, which is consistent with blenders having market power in higher blends. However, there are significantly more blending facilities in Los Angeles than San Francisco, yet pass through estimates of the RIN, LCFS, and combined subsidy for B100 in the two cities are nearly identical, which is surprising.I can rule out lack of salience as the cause of incomplete pass through of both subsidies in California because that would require that all costs be passed through at the same rate ,cannabis grow setup which is inconsistent with results from the unrestricted models discussed in Figure A-3.

CFP tax pass through is not studied here due to lack of data. Spot prices for diesel are especially volatile in the Pacific Northwest, which creates noisy margins in Oregon. At the same time, CFP bio-diesel subsidies lack variation, therefore estimates of pass through are very imprecise in Oregon. With that caveat, CFP pass through is incomplete on average and resembles similarities to the LCFS.Together, the results presented in this paper point to some inefficiencies in the RFS, LCFS, and CFP. The primary contribution of this paper was providing the first set of estimates of pass through of LCFS implicit taxes and subsidies. Explanations for their ability to capture rents from LCFS credits are unclear and requires further research and better data. However, some explanations are ruled out, such as salience. Accurate cost estimates of bio-diesel in California and Oregon would greatly assist researchers study pass through of the policies’ costs and incentives. Additionally, feedstock-specific costs would allow for more accurate calculations of implicit subsidies and for the study of pass-through using feedstocks with much larger market shares. Lastly, better cost data on renewable diesel would lead to a more valuable study of LCFS subsidy pass through as it has become much more widely used than bio-diesel in the state.State and local policy makers in the U.S. and beyond are looking to Low Carbon Fuel Standards as a policy instrument for reducing GHG emissions in the transportation sector. California implemented its LCFS in 2011, setting a target of a ten percent reduction in carbon intensity values for transport fuels used in the state by 2030 from 2011 levels, as part of its climate policy. The target has since been updated to a 20 percent reduction below 2011 levels by 2030. Oregon fully implemented its LCFS, the Clean Fuels Program , in 2016, seeking to reduce CI values of Oregon transportation fuels by ten percent from 2015 to 2025.24 25 Washington State failed in several legislative attempts to pass a LCFS that proposed a ten percent reduction over a ten-year period, most recently in 2019.

Also in Washington State, Puget Sound Air Quality Agency is considering a regional clean fuel standard to contribute to its 2030 GHG emissions goals.Other jurisdictions with, developing, or considering an LCFSlike program include British Columbia , Canada and Brazil , and Colorado .While the LCFS regulation is now moving forward, its history is not without controversy. There have been legal challenges linked to the way it differentiates fuels originating in different locations. There have also been extensive debates about the life cycle calculations used to establish the carbon intensities of different fuels used for compliance, particularly aspects linked to the indirect land use effects caused by biofuels. More recently, opponents have pointed to increasing costs of compliance and raised concerns about both the efficiency of the regulation and its potential impact on fuel prices. Such concerns contributed to the rejection of the LCFS mechanism in some states. Partly in response to concerns over compliance costs, and partly in an effort to spur more innovation, new dimensions have continued to be added to the LCFS. In California, regulators have allowed the expansion of “book-and-claim,” an accounting mechanism that allows certain specialized fuels, particularly bio-methane sourced from dairy digesters to be physically consumed in one state but still allowed to generate LCFS credits in another. In another departure from the original design, the LCFS will also now award credits for investment in infrastructure related to EV charging facilities and hydrogen fueling station. This decoupling of credit generation from fuel consumed within the state could affect both the long run credit price and its transmission through to various types of fuels. However, such effects will arise only if sufficient infrastructure credits are generated to alter the long-run marginal options for compliance. In this paper, we assess if and how California is likely to achieve the proposed 20 percent reduction in CI values by 2030, and the likely impact of infrastructure credits on this compliance outlook. We follow a general methodology similar to that used in Borenstein et al. 2019 for the California cap-and-trade program.

We apply time-series econometric methods to account for uncertainty in demand under business-as-usual as indicated by historical data on a range of key variables. We begin by projecting a distribution of demand for fuel and vehicle miles under BAU economic and policy uncertainty, which we define as continuation of the trends and correlations since 1987. We then transform those projections into a distribution of LCFS net deficits for the entire period from 2019 through 2030, assuming a steady draw down of the currently accumulated credit “bank.” The distribution of net deficits illustrates a range of possibilities of demand for LCFS credits based on historical trends. Next, we generate LCFS credit supply scenarios that consider a variety of assumptions about inputs, technology, and the efficacy of complementary policies. By interacting projections of demand and various supply scenarios for LCFS credits, we can characterize the equilibrium number of credits generated under varying policy conditions and, furthermore,vertical grow system illustrate the changes in the fuel mix that would be necessary to achieve compliance. For sources of credits generation not yet prevalent in the policy, we use ARB figures based on the modeling it used in its scoping plan. These sources include the potential role of a new category for credit generation, ZEV infrastructure capacity credits.Credit supply scenarios also cover certain state goals, showing sensitivity of results to, for example, meeting the Governor’s goals for battery electric vehicles in the light duty sector by 2030. State policies impacting the demand side such as vehicle efficiency standards and target reductions in vehicle miles traveled, are not explicitly modeled, although the modeled uncertainty in BAU takes account of past trends in these variables and allows for considerable variability. Targeted scenario modeling of demand side policies and additional supply side policies is a possible area for future research. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2.1 describes the background of the California LCFS, discussing the history of the policy, recent trends, and the economic mechanisms through which CI standards influence markets. In Section 2.2, we describe our data and econometric model used to forecast BAU demand for LCFS credits and discuss the projected outcomes. In Section 2.3, we characterize a variety of scenarios regarding LCFS credit supply and assess annual compliance in each. Finally, in Section 2.4, we conclude by discussing the implications of our analysis and highlight opportunities for future research.The California Low Carbon Fuel Standard was initially implemented in 2011, amended in 2013, re-adopted in 2015, and extended in 2019 to set targets through 2030. The LCFS sets a carbon intensity standard percentage reduction from the petroleum-based reference fuel that decreases each year. Implementation involves classifying all fuel volumes into a fuel pool defined by the reference fuel used or displaced and setting a nominal CI standard for each fuel pool. The reference fuels are diesel, E10 gasoline, and, from 2019 forward, jet fuel.

The LCFS falls within a general regulatory framework known as intensity standards. It regulates the carbon intensity of transportation fuels, rather than the total amount of CO2 released through fuels. As with all intensity standard mechanisms, the LCFS implicitly subsidizes the sales of fuels that are cleaner – that is, lower in carbon intensity – than the standard, and pays for the subsidy through charges imposed on fuel that is ‘dirtier’ than the standard . Sales of individual fuels rated at a CI below the standard generate credits, and fuels rated at a CI above the standard generate deficits, in amounts proportionate to volumes. The LCFS requires annual compliance by regulated entities; all incurred deficits must be met by credits generated by production of low-carbon fuels or purchased from a credit market. The units of LCFS credits are dollars per metric ton of CO2e. LCFS credits can be banked without limit, allowing over compliance under less stringent standards to help cover increased obligations as the standard grows more stringent, and they are fungible – meaning credits generated in any fuel pool are treated equivalently. One of the attractions of policies like the LCFS to the policy community is that these subsidies and charges work to partially offset each other and dilute the pass-through of the implied carbon cost to retail fuel prices. This ‘feature’ of the LCFS has also been criticized by environmental economists, who note that the dilution of the carbon cost works to encourage more fuel consumption than would arise under alternative instruments such as a carbon tax.30 In an extreme case, the subsidy of ‘cleaner’ fuel could spur consumption growth to the point where the quantity of fuel that is consumed overwhelms the reduction in the carbon intensity of the fuel and carbon emissions can increase. This extreme case is unlikely as it would require extremely price-elastic fuel demand. However, the overall point that, relative to other regulations, the LCFS can encourage consumption of fuels has continued to raise concerns in some circles.CARB set annual standards for the CI of fuels in both the diesel and gasoline pools. These annual mandates are shown in the appendix in Table A-6. LCFS credits are awarded to fuels with a reported CI rating below the standard and deficits to those above the standard. The number of credits per unit of fuel depends on the CI rating of that fuel. The LCFS is energy based and thus the number of credits per unit of fuel also depends on factors regarding the energy output of the fuel.31Early policy development and academic research on the LCFS focused on its characteristic as an intensity standard targeting the marginal costs of fuels. As described above, per unit costs of cleaner fuels would be reduced through the subsidy effect and the costs of dirtier fuels would reflect the cost of acquiring credits. Recent revisions to the LCFS program have increased the role of alternative forms of compliance, in particular, the ability of firms to generate credits through the installation of infrastructure, rather than the production of fuel. Fueling infrastructure credits are limited to zero tailpipe emission vehicles , hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and battery electric vehicles. LCFS infrastructure credits can be generated based on potential fuel flow from unused operational capacity for publicly accessible hydrogen fueling stations and DC fast chargers.

Complete pass through of the taxes is necessary but not sufficient to conclude that the policies operate effectively and efficiently. Section 1.4 presented an empirical framework for estimating pass through of taxes implicitly levied on ULSD through RIN and LCFS deficit obligations and found they are fully passed through to diesel prices. This raises the price of the petroleum product so that blenders and, if passed through to retail prices, consumers demand less of it. This suggests effectiveness of one prong of the two-pronged approach of these policies. The implicit taxes have made petroleum more expensive, but have the implicit subsidies made the alternatives cheaper? In this section, I shift focus to the second prong; pass through of bio-diesel subsidies from the RFS, LCFS, and CFP is estimated. Racks provide an ideal setting to study pass through because the marginal cost of producing the blended fuel is observed daily. The marginal revenue for the blender is the rack price and the marginal cost is the wet cost of the component fuels. Spot prices are a good measure of the true marginal cost because they reflect the cost of replacing a gallon of fuel on a given day. I use the previous day’s spot price when calculating the wet cost because that is the information available to rack participants on the day of the transaction. Let ? denote the city of the rack market, ? denote days, and ? denote the diesel blend. One important confounding factor is the Blender’s Tax Credit , which acts as an additional implicit subsidy for bio-diesel realized by the rack seller. The nature and timeline of the BTC is described in Section 1.1.4. As mentioned,cannabis grow equipment within the sample used in this paper, the BTC was in place some years and retroactively reinstated in others.

In years that it wasn’t in place, the market formed expectations around the likelihood it would be retroactively reinstated which led to risk-sharing contracts between rack sellers and buyers. These year-to-year changes directly affect the observed margin in and may be correlated with RIN prices. To see this, consider a scenario where the BTC is taken away and the market forms expectations around its reinstatement, and the bio-diesel producer and the blender form a 50/50 sharing contract. This means that implied subsidy pass through is identified from within-year and within-blend variation in rack margins. The identification strategy outlined above requires additional assumptions about how the BTC affects margins and RIN prices. The first assumption I make is that blenders and bio-diesel producers expect the tax credit to be reinstated with probability one throughout each year that it’s not in place. The other assumption is that sharing contracts are 50/50 split throughout the year. If either are violated, the resulting impacts on margins will be attributed to the RIN subsidy. These assumptions seem reasonable since the tax credit had already been retroactively reinstated three times prior to the beginning of my sample, in 2010, 2012, and 2014. Similarly, I assume that pass-through of the BTC to bio-diesel spot prices is complete in years when the BTC expired. Irwin , looking at a sample of bio-diesel prices from Iowa plants in the months before and after the BTC expired , suggests that it hadn’t been passed through in previous years. In the example above, if none of the BTC was passed through to bio-diesel spot prices, we would see no change to the bio-diesel cost and the observed margin, and an increase in the D4 RIN subsidy. In my sample, however, bio-diesel spot prices and rack margins do appear to respond to the BTC expiration in 2017, and the RIN subsidy remains constant . Similarly, in 2020 when the BTC was reinstated, observed rack margins fell, consistent with the retroactive BTC being completely passed through.

The RIN subsidy fell at the same time, but likely reflects the decline in ULSD prices rather than the BTC. In addition to the confounding effects of the BTC outlined above, anticipation of changes to the BTC may create similar issues. The spot price of B100 rose starkly at the end of 2016, which may have resulted from blenders purchasing and blending excess bio-diesel before the tax credit expired. A similar but more modest pattern emerged at the end of 2019 prior to the 2020 reinstatement. Therefore, I also include blend-specific dummy variables for these two anticipation periods for robustness. Results are not sensitive to the inclusion of these variables. Outside of the anticipation periods, I assume nothing about the BTC is changing within years. Like jet fuel, blended bio-diesel is nearly a perfectly substitute to petroleum diesel. Therefore, since the RIN tax is fully passed through to ULSD prices, B100 and ULSD prices should only differ by their net RIN obligation, which is 1.5 D4 RINs, if the subsidy is fully passed through at the wholesale level . Figure 11 plots the B100-ULSD spread in Chicago, Gulf Coast, and New York Harbor Barge and the D4 RIN price multiplied by 1.5. The two series are nearly identical outside of the years with the BTC in place, which is to be expected. Figure 11 also highlights the fact that SME bio-diesel is the marginal fuel for compliance in the D4 category, meaning that D4 RIN prices should reflect the marginal cost of D4 compliance.Table 4 presents estimates of short- and long-run RIN subsidy pass through for California, Oregon, and the rest of the U.S. – which consists of Dallas, Trenton, St. Louis, and Wood River. The first three columns utilize the full sample, while the last three drop observations in the RIN Shock Period outlined in Section 1.3.1. The long-run coefficients suggest regional heterogeneity of RIN subsidy pass through; using the full sample, only around 60 cents/gal are passed through on the West Coast compared to 95 cents/gal in ROUS. When dropping the RIN Shock Period, ROUS RIN subsidy pass-through falls to 77 cents/gallon. Sensitivity of results to inclusion of the RIN Shock Period are discussed later in this section.

Short-run estimates in California and Oregon are imprecise and not statistically different from zero. Columns 3 and 6 show that it takes more than one week for the cumulative pass through of the RIN subsidy to reach its long-run average in ROUS. Only 34 cents/gal are passed through one day after a shock to the RIN price, 21 cents/gal when dropping the RIN Price Shock Period.Table 4 highlights some of the regional heterogeneity in pass through of bio-diesel RIN subsidies, however, heterogeneity is present within the ROUS as well. Figure 12 presents point estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals of long-run pass through of the RIN subsidy for each region in the sample. Regions are presented in ascending order of long-run pass through rates using the full sample. Rates in California and Oregon are the lowest nationwide at about 60 cents/gal on average. In the ROUS, average pass-through rates are 0.8, 0.95, and 1.07 in the East Coast, Gulf Coast, and Midwest, respectively; however, the 95 percent confidence intervals include 1 for all three regions. The estimates in Figure 12 are robust to controlling for both 5 lags and 30 lags, except for California. In California, confidence intervals for the long-run RIN subsidy pass through fall to [0.22, 0.61] and [0.25, 0.67] for the full sample and dropping the RIN Price Shock period, respectively, when increasing the number of lags to 30 days. In both cases, the point estimates fall below 0.5, suggesting less than half of the RIN subsidy has been passed through in California. Despite the quantitative differences in results between the two specifications, the qualitative conclusions remain: the RIN subsidy pass through has only been partially passed through in the state.Long-run RIN subsidy pass through results are qualitatively different when ignoring the RIN Price Shock Period and the ordering of regions changes. Pass through in Oregon becomes very imprecise since CFP prices begin in 2017,vertical grow rack leaving a small sample once dropping the period from the analysis. The lowest levels of RIN subsidy pass through levels now occur in the East Coast, where only half is passed through on average and the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence interval lies below three quarters of complete pass through. Using the restricted sample, pass through in the Gulf Coast is 67 cents/gal on average and the confidence interval no longer includes complete pass through. Incomplete pass through in the Gulf Coast is economically significant, as previous studies have consistently found complete pass through of implicit gasoline taxes and ethanol subsidies from the RFS . One concern regarding the results from the Gulf and East Coast is the effect of the Colonial pipeline shutdown in May of 2021 in response to ransomware attack. 21 The Colonial pipeline runs from Texas to New Jersey supplies a substantial amount of fuel to both Dallas and Trenton. The pipeline shutdown on May 7th, 2021, and continued operation on May 13th, 2021. Estimates for the two cities served by the pipeline aren’t sensitive to the inclusion of a blend specific dummy for the month of March in 2021, therefore I don’t control for the event moving forward and differences between the results from the full sample and dropping the RIN Price Shock period shouldn’t be attributed to the shutdown. Another concern about the results presented in Table 4 and Figure 12 is that blend offerings vary across regions , which raises the question of whether or not I am attributing differences in pass through among blends to regional differences. The portfolio of bio-diesel blends exhibits similar characteristics to ethanol, in that there are lower-percentage blends that are commonly used by retail consumers around the U.S. and higher blends that are only used in certain types of engines and have limited availability nationwide. Previous literature is mixed in its findings regarding high- vs low-blend RIN pass through.

A body of work has demonstrated lower pass-through rates of RIN subsidies for E85, gasoline with 85 percent ethanol, than the more common blend with less ethanol content, E10 . This work generally finds E85 pass through is incomplete. However, more recent work has found that it had been completely passed through . To test for heterogeneity in the pass through of RIN subsidies across blends, I estimate separately for each blend in each region.22 The long-run coefficients from those regressions are depicted in Figure 13, showing that long-run RIN subsidy pass through is generally consistent across blends within each region. When point estimates differ in a meaningful way, one of them tends to be much more imprecise than the other. Generally, lower blends are estimated less precisely because variation in the subsidy is smaller in magnitude than for higher blends. Most notably, B5 estimates are much less precise than other blends in most regions.In the East Coast, however, the results for B5 are qualitatively different. This could result from the fact that markets for B5 are fundamentally different in some cases . It could also be that some B5 is blended above the rack. The PNW, for example, has a spot market for B5, so the subsidy there would be passed through to the spot price rather than the rack price and this action could arise in other regions. In California, the pattern is similar, however only blends above B20 have 95 percent confidence intervals that exclude complete pass through. Additionally, although imprecise, pass-through point estimates tend to be lower for higher blends. This is discussed further in conjunction with LCFS subsidies in Section 1.5.2.The RIN subsidy pass through results exhibit some consistencies with previous findings in the literature studying pass through of RIN subsidies to blended gasoline and some important differences. The finding of complete pass through in the Midwest and incomplete pass through on the East Coast is generally consistent with Pouliot et al. . However, the cities used in my sample differ from theirs for each region, and their finding are sensitive to looking at branded and unbranded products, and only unbranded fuels are available here.

While their grow operations are usually restricted to between 5 and 10 acres, according to the National Park service, “for every acre of forest planted with marijuana, 10 acres are damaged.” In other words, the adverse effects of remote Cannabis cultivation reach far beyond the borders of the plots in which the plants are grown. An isolated water source is essential for the success of the marijuana plant to produce market grade buds. Mendocino County Sheriff, Tom Allman, claims that “one marijuana plant requires approximately one gallon of water per large plant per day,” meaning that a typical remote grow site can consume approximately 7,000 gallons of water each day over a period of three to four months. This makes water diversion no simple task. Finding a reliable water source that is available year round is especially crucial because the growing season occurs during the summer months. Ideal water sources include springs, creeks, and small bodies of water that do not dry up even during the hot California summers. Cultivators enact a variety of methods to exploit water sources high in the watershed, some of which include makeshift dams, cisterns, storage tanks, on-site reservoirs, and gravity based PVC pipe flow systems. These systems are built to utilize gravity-based pressure to extract water from natural or man-made pools. The water is then transported through PVC pipes to cultivation sites. These water diversion systems connect water sources to marijuana plants up to four miles away. The resources that cultivators possess to build these extensive systems include shovels, pumps, sheets of plastic, tarps, string and large quantities of PVC piping. Other necessities are extracted from the nearby environment and include logs, rocks, clay, brush, and moss.

One site in Carmel contained a makeshift cistern that was dug out, lined with black plastic, and held in place with rocks. Water flowed from the cistern through the 1.5 miles of piping and dropped 700 feet in elevation en route to the site. Once water reached the grow site,vertical growing weed the large PVC fed into progressively smaller tubing that connected drip irrigation lines to each plant. This system utilized control valves to prevent over watering and to regulate watering schedules. In the case of small operations, the water is sometimes stored at the site in large plastic lined reservoirs or large storage tanks. The water is then pumped from the reservoir on regular schedules through drip irrigation lines in quantities that optimize growth. Water diversion practices create adverse effects for humans and the environment alike. When the natural flow of water from springs or ephemeral creeks is modified, the preexisting flora and fauna that rely on it are deprived. As surface level water disappears, riparian vegetation and animals have limited access to the water that they depend on. More seriously, keystone fish species die from degradation and loss of habitat. The death or removal of keystone species from ecosystems creates a void that affects the entire food chain. As one species cannot sustain its diet, it dies off, leading to the death of other species that predate upon it. Water diversion practices significantly impact human society as well. The state of California has abundant water resources that are necessary to sustain its vast population, economy, and natural environments. Though the overall fresh water supply from precipitation is immense, the public demand for fresh water far exceeds the natural supply. The consequence is that California is effectively experiencing a water crisis resulting in agricultural drought, economic and natural devastation, and limiting water availability for California residents. Water diversion practices for marijuana cultivation serves only to further exacerbate the issue during the most critical drought months.

Water flow assessments estimate that an average of 650,000 gallons of water goes unaccounted for in California every day throughout the year.Estimates of unaccounted water during the summer months can reach numbers as high as 3.6 million gallons per day.This over consumption depletes groundwater resources causing lowlands to subside below sea level, rivers to dry up, and salt water from the ocean to intrude and contaminate California’s primary fresh water source the Sacramento San-Joaquin River Delta. Changes in water quantity cause the temperatures, pH, and salinity of lakes, rivers, and canals to increase. These decreases in water flow and reductions in water quality reduce the amount of viable breeding habitat for the sustenance and restoration of aquatic species. The direct correlation between water consumption and marijuana bud production creates a large incentive for marijuana cultivators to heavily irrigate their crops. Remote cultivators extract water in mass quantities, blatantly “degrading the public water trust because they are divorced from the foundation of [American] laws.”Due to the illegal status of marijuana cultivation, growers experience limited liability for their diversion practices within the state of California, because they are outside of the realm of institutional oversight. Their access to water is difficult to obstruct because they extract water from the top of watersheds. Thus, they act in disregard for human communities, flora, and fauna that depend on reliable sources of fresh water. When Cannabis cultivators exploit over-extended water supplies, California is forced to extract increasing amounts of water from the Colorado River and other sources, for which the citizens of California and other areas foot the bill. As in industrial agriculture, chemicals are applied in order to create plants that are fast growing, develop specific desired traits, and have an optimized yield.

For the Cannabis plant, this means maximizing bud production, increasing THC levels and preventing any damages from deer, rodents, mites or mold. An average cultivation site of about 5 acres and 7,000 plants can contain 20 pounds of rat poison, 30 bags of fertilizer, plant growth hormones, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and a variety of other chemical inputs.60 The key difference between industrial agriculture and marijuana cultivation is that Cannabis cultivators are not subject to government or industry regulations. DTO’s import banned chemicals from Mexico which they apply in unrestricted amounts, causing extensive harm to the laborers and to the ecosystems exposed. It is estimated that 1.5 pounds of fertilizer is used for every 10 plants. Excess nutrients not taken up by plants are washed into lakes, rivers, streams and the ocean during periods of precipitation. These fertilizers cause nutrient imbalances with varying effects. Residual toxic compounds “enter and contaminate groundwater, pollute watersheds, kill fish and other wildlife, and eventually enter residential water supplies.”61 The marijuana mono-cultures that Mexican DTOs create are especially susceptible to damage and infestation, causing cultivators to take preemptive measures to protect their plants. Four of the foremost threats to Cannabis plants are mold, mites, rats and Deer. Cultivators spray sulfur dioxide and pesticides directly onto Cannabis plants in order to combat mold and mite problems. Excess sulfur gas and sulfate particles diffuse into the atmosphere, high exposure to which can cause respiratory effects in humans and animals ranging from shortness of breath to respiratory diseases and premature death. In the environment, sulfur dioxide is the leading source of haze in national parks. More importantly, sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere leads to acid rain that “damages forests and crops, changes the makeup of soil, and turns lakes and streams acidic which causes unsuitable” conditions for aquatic life. Acidic precipitation occurs in the form of rain, fog, snow, and particulates that can travel in winds for hundreds of miles, causing damage to plants, buildings, and monuments along the way. One of the most notable chemicals that is used to combat mite infestations is Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane . DDT was banned in the United States in 1973 after scientific research led to public outcry over its adverse effects on human health and the environment. DDT can persist in the environment for up to fifteen years because it binds to soil and bio-accumulates in plant materials and the fatty tissues of animals such as fish and birds.DDT is a carcinogen that damages the nervous system ,pipp shelving reduces reproductive success, and causes cancer to the liver. Despite the known health hazards posed by DDT, people throughout the world have been subjected to acute exposures through food consumption and inhalation. Another commonly used pesticide is Malathion, which is a synthesized organophosphate insecticide. When Malathion enters the environment it has little harmful effects because it is broken down rapidly by bacteria in soil and water, and by UV radiation when it enters the atmosphere. However, direct “exposure to high amounts of Malathion can cause difficulty breathing, tightness in the chest, vomiting, cramps, diarrhea, blurred vision, sweating, headaches, dizziness, loss of consciousness, and possibly death,” all symptoms which are most likely to be experienced by on-site laborers who do not wear proper respiratory protection. The methods that cultivators use to apply chemicals are especially hazardous. At best, cultivators wear long sleeves, pants, and thin polypropylene masks as protection, all of which are inadequate for preventing significant exposure to chemical toxins. Laborers use hand held spray systems to administer chemicals in liquid or gaseous form. They are subjected to concentrated chemicals for prolonged periods, causing high rates of exposure through inhalation and contact with clothing and exposed body parts. However, cultivators are not the only group risking exposure through direct contact. Chemical residues can persist on marijuana buds, resulting in exposure when buds are consumed. Another threat to marijuana plantations is that “marijuana stalks are very appetizing to deer and rodents that chew the stalks of the plants.”To combat this problem, growers use rat poison pellets to kill rodents, and rifles to kill large mammals.

Chemical repellents and poisons are applied at or near the base of the Cannabis plants and around the perimeter of plantations to kill rats, deer, and other animals that could cause crop damage. “The poison kills the animals close by, and when the bodies decompose,” these poisons enter into the water table and contaminate soil and wildlife that come into contact with the polluted water.Contaminants accumulate in small biotic creatures, which are then eaten by larger animals causing progressively concentrated levels of toxins within the tissue of large predators. Ultimately, this can lead to the death of large animals and the consumption of toxins by humans. Sustained inhabitance at remote locations is one of the crucial distinctions between outdoor marijuana cultivation sites operated by Mexican DTOs and those operated by other groups. Mexican nationals inhabit sites over a period of three to five months in order to prepare the landscapes, maintain plants, and aggressively protect their plantations. On average, two to five people live on the site throughout the season while a total of ten to fifteen actively aid in supplying materials and preparing grow systems. These men ensure that the site is properly equipped, concealed by camouflage, and guarded against detection and seizure. They plant marijuana in areas where the sunlight reaches through the holes in the trees, but the tree cover is sufficient to obstruct the view of plants from an aerial perspective. Cultivators cut down trees strategically in order to let in more sunlight while maintaining obstruction to aerial detection. They then spray green spray paint and other colorings on stumps to mask the reflectivity of freshly cut wood. In more exposed areas, marijuana is sometimes interspersed with legitimate commercial agriculture to prevent visual detection. In addition, inhabitants paint camouflage patterns and netting to hide camp equipment and tents that do not blend in with the natural environment. Cultivator concern for concealing their activity is limited to arboreal camouflage. Inhabitants contaminate sites by littering the ground with garbage including cook ware, stoves, empty propane tanks, extendable pruning saws, excess plastic irrigation hose, tarps, beer cans, plastic wrappers and many other forms of refuse. Dug out latrines contain months worth of excrement and excess chemicals. In Sequoia National Park in 2007, the California Army National Guard and the California Air National Guard cleaned up resident-camp infrastructure from 11 grow sites and 9 camps that were occupied by growers. In this effort they removed 5,600 pounds of garbage, including 75 propane canisters and 5.8 miles of irrigation hose.68 In addition to leaving trash, some cultivators construct and leave fences around cultivation plots. They build deer fences that are 6-10 feet tall around planted areas with standard chicken wire, cattle fence, plastic netting, or livestock wire. These fences act as barriers to faunal migratory pathways and tangle animals in the netting or micro-filaments.

States where medical marijuana was illegal had higher proportions of non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks/ African-Americans and a slightly higher proportion of college graduates. In this analysis, 8.7% of the sample reported current marijuana use and 23.3% reported current cigarette use. As expected, there was a higher prevalence of current marijuana use in states that have legalized medical marijuana compared to those where medical marijuana was illegal , and this association was stable and significant across age categories, even after adjusting for covariates and applying a Bonferroni’s correction to account for multiple comparisons . Findings indicate an association between statewide legalization of medical marijuana and cigarette and marijuana co-use despite lower cigarette prevalence in states where medical marijuana was legal. Co-use was particularly robust among 18–34 year olds. Overall, cousers were more likely to be nicotine dependent compared to those who did not use marijuana, and 12–17 year old adolescent and 50–64 year old adult co-users were 3-times more likely to have nicotine dependence . These data suggest that medical marijuana legalization could inadvertently affect prevalence of co-use, which is linked to greater nicotine dependence, and the potential to create more barriers to smoking cessation . As more states pass marijuana laws, and the legal marijuana industry is poised to cultivate a landscape of greater access and exposure to marijuana , it is recommended that stakeholders in tobacco control prepare for any unintended effects on tobacco use including the possibility of tobacco initiation/ reinitiation among former smokers and greater nicotine dependence in current smokers . Longitudinal research is needed to evaluate the effect of state marijuana policy on tobacco use and marijuana and tobacco co-use.

Co-use was higher and cigarette prevalence was lower in states where medical marijuana was legal. Given the nationwide increase in co-use ,pipp racks there may be uptake of marijuana use among cigarette users as states, change their marijuana policies and cigarettes smokers gain greater exposure and access to legal marijuana. It is possible that medical marijuana may be providing cigarette smokers with an alternative to tobacco especially as the stigma associated with tobacco continues to rise and the perceived harmfulness of marijuana decreases with legalization . Further, it might be perceived that the effects of marijuana can curb nicotine cravings and withdrawal symptoms to aid in smoking cessation . Finally, alternative tobacco products such as electronic nicotine delivery systems, which are commonly promoted as cessation aids and “safe” alternatives to smoking cigarettes , might also promote use of marijuana and THC oil with vaporizers . Co-use should therefore be monitored over time and examined in response to changes in marijuana policies that will further propel industry promotion of co-use and vaping. As expected, the prevalence of cigarette and marijuana co-use differed according to age. The positive association between medical marijuana legalization and co-use was greatest among 18–34 year olds. Previous studies with adolescents have reported greater prevalence but no increase in marijuana use or changes in permissive attitudes in states where medical marijuana was legal , suggesting that greater marijuana use, and therefore greater co-use, preceded medical marijuana legalization. However, most published studies have focused only on adolescents under the age of 18 years and do not reflect the adult population to which medical marijuana policies apply . Therefore, long-term longitudinal studies are needed to monitor the effects of marijuana legalization, marijuana initiation/ re-initiation, cigarette initiation/ reinitiation, and patterns of co-use across all age categories.

Additionally, it is recommended that such studies take into account statewide variables including number of years since the policy went into effect to adequately capture any measurable changes. These data are needed to explore the growing evidence and public health concerns about the potential “gateway” effect of marijuana on cigarette initiation and nicotine dependence in adolescents and young adults in addition to the potential for re-initiation of cigarettes among former tobacco users. As more states pass marijuana policies, potential increases in co-use could have important treatment implications. Cigarette smokers who also reported current marijuana use were more likely to have nicotine dependence, which is a known predictor of smoking and quitting behavior . The positive link between co-use and nicotine dependence was observed across age categories but these associations differed across measures of dependence . We analyzed both NDSS and TTFC. NDSS scores might have been a better measure of nicotine dependence in our comparison across age groups since the scale addresses five aspects of dependence . In comparison, the TTFC single-item scores might not have captured dependency, particularly in adolescent and young adult populations, who have yet to become regular and established smokers. Other studies have shown problems in using TTFC as a measure of dependence in young adults . Since our analysis included both adolescents and adults, we report both NDSS and TTFC measures of nicotine dependence. In addition, in the present study, cigarette smokers who reported ever but not current marijuana use were at greater risk of having nicotine dependence compared to never marijuana users. This finding supports that the effect of THC exposure on nicotine receptors may be irreversible . Studies are needed to further examine both short term and possibly even the long-term effects of THC and nicotine exposure on nicotine dependence and tobacco cessation. In this analysis, 12–17 year old adolescent and 50–64 year old cigarette and marijuana cousers had the highest odds of having nicotine dependence.

These findings support previous studies linking co-use and nicotine dependence in adolescents and young adults and add to preliminary data that this association was also stable in adults and, surprisingly, particularly robust in 50–64 year old adults. These findings reflect evidence of a U-shaped effect between age and nicotine dependence which peaks at age 50 years due to changes in nicotinic receptors and nicotine-associated metabolism with age , and suggest that this relationship was stable among co-users. Studies are needed to determine the extent to which THC exposure and/or current marijuana use add to this effect . Additionally, 50–64 year olds may represent a unique birth cohort who spent their formative years during the 1960’s and 1970’s with minimal tobacco regulations coupled with a counterculture that promoted marijuana use among a large population . More studies on the Baby Boomer generation, specifically, their perceptions about marijuana, current marijuana use including purpose of use , modality, cigarette co-use, and health outcomes could provide a glimpse into the future as continued legalization will likely influence social norms across the general population . As more states adopt liberal marijuana policies, more studies are needed to understand co-use including the relationship between THC and nicotine in addition to other individual-level factors such as genetics and personality traits that might influence dependence and cessation . We found higher percentages of non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks/ African-Americans in states where medical marijuana was illegal. In this study, these results may be attenuated since our analysis comparing nicotine dependence depended on exclusion of blunt use. The American Civil Liberties Union report data from the NSDUH and Uniform Crime Reporting Data showing that Black males were no more likely to report marijuana use, but 4-times more likely to be incarcerated for marijuana possession compared to their non-Hispanic White male counterparts . Epidemiologic data have shown a linear increase in cigarette and marijuana co-use in Whites, Blacks/ African-Americans, and Hispanics with the fastest rate of increase among Blacks/ African-Americans . Among Blacks/ African-Americans,pipp rack it is possible that statewide legalization of medical marijuana could help to reduce marijuana-related incarcerations, and at the same time, influence the rate of couse. We are cognizant of the many layers that add to the complexities around the issue of marijuana legalization that are well beyond the scope of our study. We recommend future research will assess potential and actual benefits/ costs of marijuana legalization to society at large, and in states where marijuana is legal, identify issues that can be addressed with specific regulatory measures . Study limitations include the cross sectional nature of these analyses which limits our ability to infer causality. Interpretation of our findings is limited to cigarette smokers which is distinct from those who reported other tobacco products . We were unable to examine statewide legalization of medical marijuana by the number of years the policy went into effect using the NSDUH to account for time lags from adoption to full implementation. The NSDUH public dataset only provides a binary categorization of states that were legal vs. illegal that lumps states that just passed the law with long-term legalization states limits our ability to detect long-term effects and may have attenuated our findings. Further study is needed to examine the effect of combusted vs. non-combusted marijuana use on nicotine given increasing prevalence of edible and aerosolized delivery of marijuana with vaporizers . At present, the NSDUH does not ask respondents to indicate whether use was combusted and/ or non-combusted and we recommend that future surveys collect information on marijuana modality to elucidate the relationship between various forms of marijuana intake and nicotine and/ or THC dependence. Data on combusted vs. non-combusted THC intake can also help to identify if there might be differences in health effects across marijuana use modality. In addition, the present study did not examine population density which might be a potential covariate for marijuana use.

Strengths of the study were use of a large national dataset representative of the U.S. population and internal validity of nicotine dependence comparisons across age categories using the same dataset, which eliminates methodological variations from one study to another. Medical marijuana legalization was positively associated with cigarette and marijuana couse and co-users were at greater risk for nicotine dependence. Long-term longitudinal data across age groups are needed to elucidate these results. In the meantime, it is recommended that stakeholders in tobacco control participate in policy discussions involving marijuana legalization including regulatory measures to prevent further co-use and develop novel cessation treatments to help co-users who may have a harder time with quitting.Cannabis is an adaptive and highly successful annual with the ability to grow in most climates across the globe. Cannabis belongs to the Cannabaceae family, “has a life cycle of only three to five months and germinates within six days.”Cannabis can occur in a wild, reproducing state throughout the California floristic provinces, and is cultivated even outside of areas where it may naturally reproduce. Cannabis planting, growing, and harvesting seasons are similar throughout California and typically take place April through October. “Exposed river banks, meadows, and agricultural lands are ideal habitats for Cannabis” since these ecosystems provide “an open sunny environment, light well-drained composted soil, and ample irrigation.” The Cannabis plant has been utilized to produce a diverse set of products with various applications. Today, Cannabis is most commonly produced for its psychoactive properties, though historically it has been used for agricultural production, nutritional value, and industrial purposes. The two species of Cannabis cultivated for psychoactive and physiological effects are Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica. Marijuana is the most common name referring to varieties of Cannabis produced for mind altering affects. Marijuana contains high levels of chemical cannabinoid compounds including delta-9 tetrahydracannabinol, or THC, the primary psychoactive component of Cannabis. Cannabis has a long history of use in the United States. During the 17th century, the government encouraged hemp production, a fibrous form of Cannabis, for use as rope, clothing, and sails. In the early 20th century after the Mexican Revolution, the recreational use of marijuana was introduced by Mexican immigrants. In 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act was enacted to effectively criminalize marijuana consumption as a result of an anti-marijuana propaganda campaign led by the commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Harry J. Anslinger. During World War II the U.S. Department of Agriculture provided incentives, including draft deferment, for farmers to grow hemp to meet wartime fiber needs. In the 1950s, a series of federal laws were enacted to create mandatory sentencing for people convicted of using drugs classified as illegal, including marijuana. Despite stricter regulation, marijuana was embraced by popular counter-culture movements in the 1960s. This act classified marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, the most restrictive schedule of illegal drugs “found by the government to have a high abuse potential, a lack of accepted safety under medical supervision, and no currently accepted medical use.” In fact, the whole Cannabis plant was classified as Schedule I, which means that possession of any portion of the Cannabis plant became illegal under federal law.

Our study area was situated within the Oregon portion of the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion and consisted of farms spread across three sub-watersheds in Josephine County, southwestern Oregon . We set cameras at 1,240 m to 1,910 m above sea level. The study area included a mix of vegetation types, including open pasture, serpentine meadows, oak woodland, and mixed conifer forest. Rainfall in this region varies seasonally and by elevation, with an average of 82.7 cm annually . Mean temperatures ranged between 3.9-20.6°C in 2018–2019 . The Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion is one of the most biodiverse temperate forest regions on Earth, in an area that straddles the Oregon-California border and contains several regions identified as critical climate change refugia . Several species of concern are present in the county, including native salmonids, threatened Humboldt martens , Pacific fishers , and spotted owls , all of which are hypothesized to be directly or indirectly affected by cannabis agriculture . Southern Oregon, and Josephine County in particular, have a long history of illicit and medical cannabis cultivation, as well as an active presence in the growing legal industry in Oregon . Southern Oregon has become known as a prime destination for outdoor cannabis production, and Josephine County has the highest number of licensed producers relative to population size in the state . Production in the county accelerated after recreational legalization in 2014 , and takes a similar form to cultivation occurring across the border in northern California, with clusters of small farms surrounded by undeveloped or less developed rural land .Cannabis farms for this study included one licensed recreational production site, one medically licensed production site, and six unlicensed sites. All farms were producing cannabis for sale, though in different markets depending on their access to licensed markets. We selected these eight farms because they were representative of the size and style of cultivation predominant in Josephine County in the years immediately following recreational legalization in 2015 , were all established after recreational legalization except for the medical farm, did not replace other plant-based agriculture, and granted us permission to set up cameras on site.

Our sampled farms were small ,indoor grow rack 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. We placed un-baited motion sensitive cameras on and surrounding cannabis farm clusters as well as in random locations up to 1.5 km from the farms. 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 , stratified by vegetation openness and distance to cannabis farm. We rotated 15-20 cameras through the sampled grid cells, ensuring each camera was deployed for a minimum of two weeks. As a result of sampling across two years, we likely violated the model’s assumption of geographic and demographic closure , but given our interest was in space use associations and not estimates of occupancy, we believe this is a minimal issue. For this analysis, we restricted our data to a subset of cameras on cannabis farms and cameras in 500 m proximity to farms active during the same camera rotation . Because of rotations and field constraints, all cannabis sites were not monitored at the same time or for the same length of time . Each cannabis site had at least one, and up to three comparison cameras within 500 m during each of its active rounds. Because of farm clustering, some comparison cameras were within 500 m of more than one farm. Half the cameras on farms were monitored for more than one round, but the comparison camera were not always the same for all rounds due to rotations. We summarized species observations at cannabis farms and created detection histories using the package CamtrapR in program R . We used a 24-hr time interval because our focus was on estimating space use associations instead of occupancy, and a short interval reduced the likelihood of the same individual animal being detected on both the farm and comparison camera . We used the detection matrix to summarize detection rates per 100 operation nights for species found on cannabis sites and comparison sites.

We then modeled the occupancy probabilities of the three most commonly detected wild species, which included black-tailed deer, lagomorphs , and common gray foxes , using the UNMARKED package in Program R . We used single-species occupancy models to assess factors influencing the likelihood that a species used the area around each camera station and the probability that the species would be detected given they were present . In this case, detection can also be influenced by fine scale activity and/or habitat use patterns We hypothesized that cannabis cultivation, elevation, water access, and vegetation type would influence species’ spatial relationships, and therefore included them as predictors of occupancy in the model. We predicted that cannabis cultivation would have a negative influence on a species’ probability of using an area. We included a binary, categorical variable in the models to characterize whether detection occurred on a cannabis site or a nearby comparison site . This variable reflected and distilled the on-site practices that are common across farms, including increased human activity and fencing. We expected regional elevation to influence species’ vegetation use, and therefore used the average elevation within a 1 km buffer of each camera location, from the 30 m National Elevation Dataset . Water access is frequently an important predictor for wildlife occupancy , especially during dry periods such as during our study years, so we included distance to streams as a predictor of occupancy . To represent vegetation, we used the percent evergreen forest, as determined via the National Land Cover Database within a 1 km buffer of each camera site as a vegetation predictor variable. Finally, to distinguish general biogeographic variation between regions, we used watershed as a categorical predictor for occupancy . For modeling detection, we hypothesized that cannabis production sites would negatively influence the probability that a species was photographed given they were available in the general area, due to both physical barriers to wildlife accessing these sites, and to behavioral shifts, such as animals moving less or moving more cautiously around areas of higher human activity .

We used distance to road as a proxy for human activity separate from cannabis production that might also negatively influence detection probability. Although cannabis cultivation can be associated with the creation of new roads , the roads used in these analyses were not those created or used exclusively by cultivators. Finally, we included year as a categorical variable to account for potential inter-annual variation in detection ability. We standardized covariates to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. We used Akaike’s Information Criterion  to compare model fits. We modeled all of the detection covariates first, and then kept our top ranked model for detection constant before modeling our occupancy covariates. We used our top ranked model to assess covariate relationships and determine which variables influenced species use and probabilities of being photographed.We analyzed over 5,000 animal detections over 957 operation nights . We found that the communities of wildlife present on cannabis farms were qualitatively different from the surrounding, uncultivated areas. Wildlife on cannabis farms were often smaller-bodied species, and co-occurred with higher human and domestic dog activity. There were 18 different species recorded on cannabis farms, and 24 on comparison cameras. Wild predators were predominantly detected on comparison cameras rather than cannabis farms. For example, gray foxes had 18.5 detections per 100 operation nights on cannabis sites compared to a detection rate of 31.6 on comparison sites,ebb and flow system while black bears had a detection rate of 2.5 on cannabis sites compared to 4.9 on comparison sites, and coyotes had a rate of 1.9 on cannabis sites and 6.1 on comparison sites. By contrast, domestic predators such as cats and dogs, had a detection rate twice as high on cannabis production sites than comparison sites . It is also worth noting detections of two rarer carnivores: we detected mountain lions seven times on a cannabis farm and once on a comparison site, and bobcats two times on each.For the single species occupancy models, detection variables varied by species. The top models for deer and gray foxes included a negative association with cannabis production for detection, while the top model for lagomorphs did not have similar associations . Distance to roads was retained in all models for detection, and was positively associated with detection for all species, such that detection increased with increasing distance from roads. For occupancy, here defined as use, cannabis production had a weak negative association with gray fox occupancy, and was not a top occupancy variable for any of the other species .

Because watershed and forest cover were correlated , we only used the variable with the highest univariate effect size for each species. For instance, watershed had a higher univariate effect size than forest cover for deer and gray fox occupancy, so we used watershed for candidate selection in those models, and forest cover for lagomorphs. No single variable was consistently selected as a predictor of occupancy across all species.This study represents a first step to quantify patterns of wildlife avoidance and coexistence on and surrounding active small-scale cannabis farms on private land. Our observational monitoring data suggest that wildlife species may be affected by these locations and may be altering their use of these environments. Specifically, our results suggest that 1) wildlife are consistently present on and around cannabis farms, 2) private land cannabis production may influence the local space use of some species more than others, and 3) cannabis farms may deter larger-bodied wildlife species in particular. Although limited by a small dataset, these results offer valuable insights into the ecological outcomes of the emerging cannabis industry. The assessment of wildlife detection rates suggest that many wildlife species are consistently present at cannabis production sites . Whereas some species detected on cannabis farms are ones that have been recorded in the western United States as more tolerant to agriculture or disturbance , others are species that tend to avoid human activity . While we did detect some relatively rare species , we did not detect others such as fishers or ring tails , and cannot assess whether this is due to true absence or simply short study duration. We infer detection of wildlife on cannabis farms implies a potential for these species to move through these areas. In addition, some photos revealed foraging or resting behavior , which may indicate that cannabis agriculture could maintain biodiversity as other small scale agricultural crops have in other systems . However, understanding long term impacts of cannabis production would require information on farm-level land use practices. For example, if animals on private land cannabis farms suffer fitness consequences similar to the toxicant exposure occurring on public land production, then coexistence on these sites may be detrimental in the long term . Modeled use and detection probability results indicate that despite a general wildlife presence at cannabis farms, some animals may be more affected by these areas than others. For detection, both deer and gray fox were influenced by cannabis farms . Distance to roads was positively associated with all species detection, suggesting that animals are consistently avoiding roads, but no other variable was consistent across all species for either detection or use. For occupancy , cannabis farms were not selected for deer or lagomorph models , but we suspect this could have been due to our close proximity of cannabis and comparison locations. It is possible that these species would move >500m within a 24-hour period, making it difficult to distinguish space use. Additionally, because we pooled lagomorph species, it is possible that either brush rabbits or black tailed jackrabbits individually might have responded differently to cannabis production. Nonetheless, cannabis farms influencing detection probabilities for deer and gray foxes may imply an influence on repeated visits over our time period, and potentially a behavioral adjustment near cannabis farms.