DOCSLIB.ORG

Literature Reviewon the Impacts of Cannabis Cultivation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Literature Reviewon the Impacts of Cannabis Cultivation California Department of Food and Agriculture MEDICAL CANNABIS CULTIVATION PROGRAM Literature Review on the Impacts of Cannabis Cultivation California Department of Food and Agriculture MEDICAL CANNABIS CULTIVATION PROGRAM Literature Review on the Impacts of Cannabis Cultivation Prepared for: California Department of Food and Agriculture 1220 N Street Sacramento, California 95814 Contact: Amber Morris 916-900-5315 Prepared by: Horizon Water and Environment, LLC 180 Grand Ave, Suite 1405 Oakland, CA 94612 Contact: Michael Stevenson 510-986-1852 February 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.4 Organization of this Document ....................................................................................................... 1-2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Description of Cannabis Cultivation ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Overview of Cannabis Cultivation Techniques ........................................................................ 3-4 3.3 Cannabis Cultivation Techniques, Operating Protocols, and Other Requirements ........................................................................................................................................ 3-8 Summary of Existing and Proposed Regulations ..................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Counties and Cities............................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 State Agencies ........................................................................................................................................ 4-3 4.4 Other States ............................................................................................................................................. 4-9 4.5 Other Countries ..................................................................................................................................... 4-9 Impacts of Cannabis Cultivation ................................................................................................. 5.1-1 5.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................... 5.2-1 5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .......................................................................................... 5.3-1 5.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................... 5.4-1 5.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................ 5.5-1 5.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................ 5.6-1 5.6 Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................... 5.7-1 5.7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................... 5.8-1 5.8 Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Human Health ............................................................. 5.9-1 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................... 5.10-1 5.10 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................................. 5.11-1 5.11 Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................................... 5.12-1 5.12 Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 5.13-1 5.13 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................ 5.14-1 5.14 Public Services .............................................................................................................................. 5.15-1 5.15 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................... 5.16-1 5.16 Transportation and Traffic ...................................................................................................... 5.17-1 5.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 5.18-1 5.18 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................. 5.19-1 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Overall Regulatory Approach .......................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Resource-Specific Management Measures ................................................................................. 6-2 Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program i February 2017 Literature Review Project No. 16.015 References Cited .................................................................................................................................. 7-1 Literature Review Preparers .......................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Horizon Water and Environment, LLC ........................................................................................ 8-1 8.2 Ardea Consultants ................................................................................................................................ 8-1 8.3 Blankinship and Associates, Inc. .................................................................................................... 8-1 8.4 Enercon Services, Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 8-1 Appendixes Appendix A Compiled Version of the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act Appendix B Bibliography of Literature Reviewed Appendix C Existing and Proposed Regulations Appendix D List of Allowable Pesticides Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program ii February 2017 Literature Review Project No. 16.015 LIST OF ACRONYMS AB assembly bill BOE Board of Equalization BMCR Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation BMP best management practice CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAL-OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CARB California Air Resources Board CBD cannabidiol CDA Colorado Department of Agriculture CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDPH California Department of Public Health CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base CO2 carbon dioxide CRHR California Register of Historic Resources CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board DCA California Department of Consumer Affairs DEA U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration DPR California Department of Pesticide Regulation EIR Environmental Impact Report EPIC Environmental Protection Information Center oF degree Fahrenheit FIFRA Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act GHG greenhouse gas HPS high-pressure sodium kg kilogram kWh kilowatt hour LED light-emitting diode LRWQCB Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board LSAA Lakebed and Streambed Alteration Agreement MCCP, Program Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program MCRSA, Act Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act MLD most likely descendant MMIC Medical Marijuana Identification Card MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCRWQCB North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board NDIC National Drug Intelligence Center NPS National Park Service PEIR programmatic environmental impact report ppm parts per million PVC polyvinyl chloride RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SB senate bill Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program iii February 2017 Literature Review Project No. 16.015 SBFFP State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TCR tribal cultural resources
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Legalizing Marijuana and Abating Environmental Harm: an Overblown Promise?
    Legalizing Marijuana and Abating Environmental Harm: An Overblown Promise? Michael Vitiello* Written in advance of the passage of Proposition 64 (legalizing recreational use of marijuana in California), this article explores why legalization of marijuana is now quite likely. It also identifies arguments made by proponents in support of legalization, including the need to abate environmental harm caused by illegal production of marijuana in pristine areas and elsewhere where marijuana has become a major cash crop. Specifically, the article examines the report produced by The Blue Ribbon Commission organized by Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom and Proposition 64’s provisions addressing environmental concerns. It questions whether Proposition can deliver on the promise to abate the environmental harm caused by marijuana production. In closing, the article focuses on one source for optimism, an increasing number of young marijuana producers interested in cooperation with state actors to comply with the law, especially with environmental regulations. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 775 I. THE STEADY MARCH TOWARDS LEGALIZATION ......................... 777 II. THE ENVIRONMENTAL COST ..................................................... 791 III. PROMISING A POT OF GOLD? .................................................... 796 A. Reducing the Illegal Trade ................................................. 803 * Copyright © 2016 Michael Vitiello. Distinguished Professor of Law, the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law; University of Pennsylvania, J.D., 1974; Swarthmore College, B.A., 1969. I want to extend special thanks to Rosemary Deck for her capable research assistance. I also want to thank my several colleagues who gave me extensive feedback on an earlier draft of the article, including Associate Dean for Scholarship Raquel Aldana and Professors Karrigan Börk, Frank Gevurtz, Jennifer Harder, John Kirlin, Leslie Jacobs, Brian Landsberg, Emily Parento, and John Sprankling.
    [Show full text]
  • Accepted Manuscript
    Accepted Manuscript Title: Growing medicine: Small-scale cannabis cultivation for medical purposes in six different countries Author: Pekka Hakkarainen Vibeke Asmussen Frank Monica J. Barratt Helle Vibeke Dahl Tom Decorte Karoliina Karjalainen Simon Lenton Gary Potter Bernd Werse PII: S0955-3959(14)00173-X DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.07.005 Reference: DRUPOL 1418 To appear in: International Journal of Drug Policy Received date: 18-4-2014 Revised date: 4-7-2014 Accepted date: 7-7-2014 Please cite this article as: Hakkarainen, P., Frank, V. A., Barratt, M. J., Dahl, H. V., Decorte, T., Karjalainen, K., Lenton, S., Potter, G., and Werse, B.,Growing medicine: Small-scale cannabis cultivation for medical purposes in six different countries, International Journal of Drug Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.07.005 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Growing medicine: Small-scale cannabis cultivation for medical purposes in six different countries Pekka Hakkarainen1, Vibeke Asmussen Frank2, Monica J. Barratt3,6, Helle Vibeke Dahl2, Tom Decorte4, Karoliina Karjalainen5, Simon Lenton6, Gary Potter7 & Bernd Werse8 1 Corresponding author, Department of Alcohol, Drugs and Addiction, National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of California Municipal Marijuana Business Taxation
    Marijuana Business Taxation Adoption In California Review of California Municipal Marijuana Business Taxation: Background, Case Studies, and Strategies for Adoption Jordan Harrison Kevin Miller Adam Patterson Evan Xu San Francisco State University Master in Public Administration PA715 Spring 2017 Dr. Sheldon Gen May 23, 2017 1 Marijuana Business Taxation Adoption In California ABSTRACT Proposition 64 – the Control, Tax and Regulate Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) – took effect on November 9, 2016. The Act included the following main elements: ● Decriminalized recreational (non-medical) use for persons over 21 ● Decriminalized personal cultivation of up to six plants ● Reduced state penalties for marijuana-related crimes ● Established state system for licensing and taxation of marijuana businesses ● Allowed local regulation, prohibition, and taxation of marijuana businesses The Medical Cannabis Safety and Regulation Act (MCSRA) established the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation to license and regulate marijuana businesses under the MCSRA. With Proposition 64, this new bureau was renamed the Bureau of Marijuana Control (Bureau) and will license both medical and recreational marijuana businesses starting January 1, 2018 (Bureau of Marijuana Control [BOMC], 2017b). Both acts defer land use authority to local agencies regarding if and where to allow marijuana businesses. In addition to setting state excises tax rates, the AUMA grants cities the ability to establish local excise taxes on marijuana businesses and exempts medical marijuana from the state and local general sales tax that applies to most goods and services. This paper will provide a brief summary of the regulation of recreational marijuana under the AUMA, medical marijuana under MCSRA, and an explanation of the new state excise taxes on both medical and recreational marijuana created with Proposition 64.
    [Show full text]
  • Gangs Beyond Borders
    Gangs Beyond Borders California and the Fight Against Transnational Organized Crime March 2014 Kamala D. Harris California Attorney General Gangs Beyond Borders California and the Fight Against Transnational Organized Crime March 2014 Kamala D. Harris California Attorney General Message from the Attorney General California is a leader for international commerce. In close proximity to Latin America and Canada, we are a state laced with large ports and a vast interstate system. California is also leading the way in economic development and job creation. And the Golden State is home to the digital and innovation economies reshaping how the world does business. But these same features that benefit California also make the state a coveted place of operation for transnational criminal organizations. As an international hub, more narcotics, weapons and humans are trafficked in and out of California than any other state. The size and strength of California’s economy make our businesses, financial institutions and communities lucrative targets for transnational criminal activity. Finally, transnational criminal organizations are relying increasingly on cybercrime as a source of funds – which means they are frequently targeting, and illicitly using, the digital tools and content developed in our state. The term “transnational organized crime” refers to a range of criminal activity perpetrated by groups whose origins often lie outside of the United States but whose operations cross international borders. Whether it is a drug cartel originating from Mexico or a cybercrime group out of Eastern Europe, the operations of transnational criminal organizations threaten the safety, health and economic wellbeing of all Americans, and particularly Californians.
    [Show full text]
  • Up in Smoke: Removing Marijuana from Schedule I
    UP IN SMOKE (DO NOT DELETE) 4/9/2018 12:38 PM UP IN SMOKE: REMOVING MARIJUANA FROM SCHEDULE I DAVID R. KATNER* I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 167 II. DESCRIPTION OF MARIJUANA AND PUBLIC OPINION .......................... 170 III. HISTORY OF MARIJUANA USES AND LAWS IN THE U.S. AND ABROAD ......................................................................................... 174 IV. CREATION OF SCHEDULES OF DRUGS ................................................ 177 V. EVOLUTION OF MEDICINAL APPLICATIONS OF MARIJUANA ............... 178 VI. ADDICTIVE? ........................................................................................ 181 VII. DISSEMINATED PROPAGANDA ABOUT MARIJUANA, AND LEGAL ARBITRARINESS .............................................................................. 184 VIII. RESCHEDULING MARIJUANA TO SCHEDULE II ................................ 190 IX. REMOVING MARIJUANA ALTOGETHER FROM FEDERAL REGULATION .................................................................................. 195 X. CONCLUSION........................................................................................ 202 I. INTRODUCTION Billions of dollars are spent each year arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating Americans convicted of possession of cannabis or marijuana.1 During the 1970’s, annual marijuana arrests ranged between 420,000 and 500,000 people each year.2 By 1995, there were roughly 600,000 marijuana arrests nationwide, with more Americans being imprisoned
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing the Legal Cannabis Industry's Carbon Footprint
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Projects Master's Theses and Graduate Research Spring 5-2020 Sustainable Cannabis Policy in California: Addressing the Legal Cannabis Industry’s Carbon Footprint Genevieve Yip San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_projects Part of the Energy Policy Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Commons, and the Public Administration Commons Recommended Citation Yip, Genevieve, "Sustainable Cannabis Policy in California: Addressing the Legal Cannabis Industry’s Carbon Footprint" (2020). Master's Projects. 946. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.eagx-enx5 https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_projects/946 This Master's Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sustainable Cannabis Policy in California: Addressing the Legal Cannabis Industry’s Carbon Footprint by Genevieve Yip A Thesis Quality Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Masters Degree in PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Professor Frances L. Edwards, Ph.D. Advisor The Graduate School San Jose State University May 2020 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 1 LIST
    [Show full text]
  • Considering Marijuana Legalization
    Research Report Considering Marijuana Legalization Insights for Vermont and Other Jurisdictions Jonathan P. Caulkins, Beau Kilmer, Mark A. R. Kleiman, Robert J. MacCoun, Gregory Midgette, Pat Oglesby, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Peter H. Reuter C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr864 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2015 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface Marijuana legalization is a controversial and multifaceted issue that is now the subject of seri- ous debate. In May 2014, Governor Peter Shumlin signed Act 155 (S.
    [Show full text]
  • Activists' Cases Riding on Raich and Booker
    —22— O’Shaughnessy’s • Spring 2005 Activists’ Cases Riding on Raich and Booker By Ann Harrison The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Raich will have far-ranging consequences for medical cannabis pa- tients, caregivers, growers and dispen- sary operators fighting federal marijuana charges. Directly at stake are the homes, the businesses and the freedom of at least 30 defendants. Their cases were put on hold following a December 2003 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals entitling Diane Monson and Angel Raich and her caregivers to use and cultivate marijuana under California law. The 9th Circuit injunction —which the Bush Administration challenged in Bryan Epis with daughter Ashley (above) after his release from month sentence before being allowed out on bail. While Epis was the U.S. Supreme Court— applies in the federal penitentiary at Lompoc in August 2004, pending the incarcerated, supporters publicized his plight on billboards in Cali- eight western states that have medical outcome of the Raich case. Epis had served 30 months of a 53- fornia. marijuana laws. The injunction has had an indirect The Blakely and Booker decisions sated for ninety-five percent of his grow, nabis Buyers Club. The three cases have effect, too, according to Attorney Omar could change the lives of 64,000 people and did not receive payment for the re- been bundled together as a single case, Figueroa, who says he is seeing differ- sentenced in federal court each year. maining five percent. All of the medical but they have different implications for ent enforcement practices in federal Ninety-seven percent of federal defen- cannabis that he grew was used inside the dispensaries involved.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is the Peer Reviewed Version of the Following Article
    This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Potter, G. R., Barratt, M. J., Malm, A., Bouchard, M., Blok, T., Christensen, A.-S., Decorte, T., Frank, V. A., Hakkarainen, P., Klein, A., Lenton, S., Perälä, J., Werse, B., & Wouters, M. (2015). Global patterns of domestic cannabis cultivation: Sample characteristics and patterns of growing across eleven countries. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(3), 226–237. which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.12.007 This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Elsevier’s Article Sharing policy and Hosting policy © 2014. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Accepted Manuscript Title: Global patterns of domestic cannabis cultivation: Sample characteristics and patterns of growing across eleven countries Author: Gary R. Potter Monica J. Barratt Aili Malm Martin Bouchard Thomas Blok Anne-Sofie Christensen Tom Decorte Vibeke Asmussen Frank Pekka Hakkarainen Axel Klein Simon Lenton Jussi Peral¨ a¨ Bernd Werse Marije Wouters PII: S0955-3959(14)00363-6 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.12.007 Reference: DRUPOL 1503 To appear in: International Journal of Drug Policy Received date: 22-7-2014 Revised date: 6-12-2014 Accepted date: 8-12-2014 Please cite this article as: Potter, G. R., Barratt, M. J., Malm, A., Bouchard, M., Blok, T., Christensen, A.-S., Decorte, T., Frank, V. A., Hakkarainen, P., Klein, A., Lenton, S., Peral¨ a,¨ J., Werse, B., and Wouters, M.,Global patterns of domestic cannabis cultivation: sample characteristics and patterns of growing across eleven countries, International Journal of Drug Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.12.007 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Marijuana the War on Drugs and the Drug Policy Reform Movement
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ FROM THE FRONTLINES TO THE BOTTOM LINE: MEDICAL MARIJUANA THE WAR ON DRUGS AND THE DRUG POLICY REFORM MOVEMENT A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction Of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in SOCIOLOGY by Thomas R. Heddleston June 2012 The Dissertation of Thomas R. Heddleston is approved: ____________________________________ Professor Craig Reinarman, Chair ____________________________________ Professor Andrew Szasz ____________________________________ Professor Barbara Epstein ___________________________________ Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Thomas R. Heddleston 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Chapter I: The History, Discourse, and Practice of Punitive Drug Prohibition 38 Chapter II: Three Branches Of Reform, The Drug Policy Reform Movement From 1964 To 2012 91 Chapter III: Sites of Social Movement Activity 149 Chapter IV: The Birth of Medical Marijuana In California 208 Chapter V: A Tale of 3 Cities Medical Marijuana 1997-2011 245 Chapter VI: From Movement to Industry 303 Conclusion 330 List of Supplementary Materials 339 References 340 iii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 2.1: Major Organizations in the Drug Policy Reform Movement by Funding Source and Organizational Form 144 Table 3.1: Characteristics of Hemp Rallies Attended 158 Table 3.2: Drug Policy Organizations and the Internet 197 Figure 4.1: Proposition 215 Vote November 1996 241 Table 5.1: Political Opportunity Structures and Activist Tools 251 Table 5.2: Key Aspects of Political Opportunity Structures at 3 Levels of Government 263 Figure 5.1: Medical Cannabis Dispensaries by Region and State 283 iv ABSTRACT Thomas R. Heddleston From The Frontlines to the Bottom Line: Medical Marijuana the War On Drugs and the Drug Policy Reform Movement The medical marijuana movement began in the San Francisco Bay Area in the early 1990s in a climate of official repression.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimated Amount of Tax Revenue Generated by Legalization
    THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS IS THE GRASS GREENER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LAW?: THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF LEGALIZING MARIJUANA MICHELLE EVERT Spring 2010 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for baccalaureate degrees in Economics and Spanish with honors in Economics Reviewed and approved* by the following: David Shapiro Professor of Economics and Co-Director of Undergraduate Studies Thesis Supervisor and Honors Adviser Bee Yan Roberts Professor of Economics and Asian Studies Faculty Reader * Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College. Abstract This thesis will discuss a variety of economic implications that could result from the legalization of marijuana. It will provide background information on marijuana laws and drug policy, including arguments for and against legalization. Next, the thesis will discuss the estimated tax revenue that can be obtained if marijuana were legalized, drawing on reports by Dr. Jeffrey Miron, Dr. Jon Gettman, and Max Chaiken. The following section presents a cost- savings analysis as argued by Dr. Jeffrey Miron. The thesis will then examine other economic issues affected by legalization and determines that there is the possibility for a successful hemp industry in the United States as well as positive economic implications for Mexico. Finally, the thesis concludes with a libertarian perspective on the issue to demonstrate the way a good number of economists view drug policy an alternative view of legalization outside of the mainstream Democratic and Republican perspectives. i. Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 II. Background Information ........................................................................................................ 4 III. Arguments For and Against Marijuana Legalization .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Growing Practices and the Use of Potentially Harmful Chemical Additives Among a Sample of Small-Scale Cannabis Growers in Three Countries
    Growing practices and the use of potentially harmful chemical additives among a sample of small-scale cannabis growers in three countries Simon LENTON1 Vibeke A. FRANK2 Monica J. BARRATT3, 1, 4 Gary R. POTTER5 Tom DECORTE6 1. National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University, Australia 2. Centre for Alcohol and Drug Research, Aarhus University, Denmark 3. Drug Policy Modelling Program, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Australia. 4. Behaviours and Health Risks Program, Burnet Institute, Australia 5. Lancaster University Law School, UK 6. Institute for Social Drug Research (ISD), Ghent University, Belgium Contact details for Corresponding Author: Phone: +61 8 9266 1603 Fax: +61 8 9266 1611 Email: [email protected] Abstract Background: With the growth of legal cannabis markets there has been recognition of the adverse impacts of certain cannabis growing practices, notably, use of harmful chemicals. A major concern has been use of Plant Growth Regulators (PGRs) which limit plant size and stimulate bud production. These chemicals, many of which have been banned from food crops, have been found unlisted in cannabis growing nutrients sold online or in hydroponic stores. This study describes the cannabis growing practices used by small-scale recreational cannabis growers and specifically their self-reported use of chemicals. Methods: Web survey data from 1,722 current and recent cannabis growers in Australia, Denmark and the UK, who were asked about their cannabis growing practices, including the use of fertilizers and supplements. Results: Overall 44% of the sample reported using any chemical fertilizers, supplements or insecticides. Logistic regression indicated that the only unique predictor of the use of chemicals was growing hydroponically.
    [Show full text]