Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:13 am
Time: 3:13 am
Results for medical marijuana (california)
2 results foundAuthor: Williams, Nancy J. Title: Crime and Medical Marijuana Dispensaries: Exploring the Ecological Association between Crime and Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Summary: Routine activities theory purports that crime occurs in places with a suitable target, motivated offender, and lack of guardianship. Medical marijuana dispensaries (MMDs) may be places that satisfy these conditions, but this has not yet been studied. The current study examined whether or not the density of MMDs are associated with crime. Design: An ecological, cross-sectional design was used to explore the spatial relationship between density of MMDs, sociodemographics and two types of crime rates (violent crime and property crime) in 95 Census tracts in Sacramento, California during 2009. Spatial error regression methods were used to determine associations between crime rates and density of MMDs, controlling for neighborhood characteristics. Findings: Violent and property crime rates were positively associated with percent commercially zoned, percent one person households, and unemployment rate. Higher violent crime rates were associated with concentrated disadvantage. Property crime rates were positively associated with percent of population 15 to 24 years, percent owner occupied households, and presence of highway ramps. Density of MMDs was not associated with violent or property crime rates. Conclusions: Consistent with previous work, variables measuring routine activities at the ecological level were related to crime. There were no observed associations between the density of MMDs and either violent or property crime rates in this study. These results suggest that the density of MMDs may not be associated with increased crime rates or that measures dispensaries take to reduce crime (i.e., doormen, video cameras) may increase guardianship, such that it deters possible motivated offenders. Details: Los Angeles: California Center for Population Research, University of California - Los Angeles, 2011. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: On-Line Working Paper Series PWP-CCPR-2011-010: Accessed October 26, 2011 at: http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-CCPR-2011-010/PWP-CCPR-2011-010.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-CCPR-2011-010/PWP-CCPR-2011-010.pdf Shelf Number: 123151 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug PoliceMedical Marijuana (California)Routine ActivitiesSpatial Analysis |
Author: California Police Chiefs Association. Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries Title: White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries Summary: Proposition 215, an initiative authorizing the limited possession, cultivation, and use of marijuana by patients and their care providers for certain medicinal purposes recommended by a physician without subjecting such persons to criminal punishment, was passed by California voters in 1996. This was supplemented by the California State Legislature’s enactment in 2003 of the Medical Marijuana Program Act (SB 420) that became effective in 2004. The language of Proposition 215 was codified in California as the Compassionate Use Act, which added section 11362.5 to the California Health & Safety Code. Much later, the language of Senate Bill 420 became the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), and was added to the California Health & Safety Code as section 11362.7 et seq. Among other requirements, it purports to direct all California counties to set up and administer a voluntary identification card system for medical marijuana users and their caregivers. Some counties have already complied with the mandatory provisions of the MMPA, and others have challenged provisions of the Act or are awaiting outcomes of other counties’ legal challenges to it before taking affirmative steps to follow all of its dictates. And, with respect to marijuana dispensaries, the reaction of counties and municipalities to these nascent businesses has been decidedly mixed. Some have issued permits for such enterprises. Others have refused to do so within their jurisdictions. Still others have conditioned permitting such operations on the condition that they not violate any state or federal law, or have reversed course after initially allowing such activities within their geographical borders by either limiting or refusing to allow any further dispensaries to open in their community. This White Paper explores these matters, the apparent conflicts between federal and California law, and the scope of both direct and indirect adverse impacts of marijuana dispensaries in local communities. It also recounts several examples that could be emulated of what some governmental officials and law enforcement agencies have already instituted in their jurisdictions to limit the proliferation of marijuana dispensaries and to mitigate their negative consequences. Details: Sacramento: California Police Chiefs Association, 2009. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2012 at: http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/CAPCAWhitePaperonMarijuanaDispensaries.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/CAPCAWhitePaperonMarijuanaDispensaries.pdf Shelf Number: 125120 Keywords: Drug PolicyMedical Marijuana (California) |