This explains the transport of particles from northern Africa to the Iberian Peninsula and, specifically, to the Region of Murcia.At 18 h the previous day, with back trajectories at 350, 500 and 650m amsl, air masses originated over the Atlantic Ocean but travelled across Africa before arriving to their destination. All the air masses had approached the ground between 6 h and 18 h the previous day and slowed down when they reached the Region of Murcia. All the airmasses originated over the Atlantic Ocean, but they travelled across Africa, coming into contact with the ground from 6 h to 12 h the previous day and slowing down when they reached the Region of Murcia. Although the back trajectoriesin Fig. 4 correspond to the coordinates of Cartagena, the analysis wascomparable to the back trajectories of Murcia and Lorca. Another aspect that points to the African origin of Cannabis is the detection of African grains can rupture when they impact solid surfaces in light breezes. The release of paucimicronic particles caused by a hypothetical rupture of Cannabis pollen, either from Africa or local/regional sources, could affect those previously sensitised. Cannabis corporations share links with the alcohol and tobacco industries. Tobacco companies Altria , Imperial Brands , and British American Tobacco ,cannabis grow tray have all made significant investments in cannabis, a long- anticipated development . Constellation Brands, maker of Corona beer, has also made investments in Canopy Growth, a Canadian cannabis corporation .
Tobacco and alcohol interests have openly formalized a cannabis-focused political association as members of the Coalition for Cannabis Policy, Education, and Regulation, a lobbying group that lists Altria, Constellation Brands, and Molson Coors Beverage Company as members . Employing tactics used by the tobacco industry for decades , cannabis companies are also vested in major sports through sponsorship of athletes and leagues in the US . Considering the health risks involved with cannabis use and the conflict between public health and the commercial interests of these industries, systematic analyses of cannabis industry influence on policymaking are essential. There has been little study on the topic de- spite several calls for research . Although there have been popular media reports on cannabis industry lobbying expenditures,we identified no systematic analyses that assessed cannabis lobbying over time or identified connections between the cannabis industry and affiliates. Cannabis products are legal in multiple states, while remaining illegal at the federal level. Even though federal law technically supersedes state law, gaps in enforcement have been carved out by the federal government to allow for state legalization of adult-use and medical cannabis . As a result, it remains to be seen whether cannabis industry efforts to influence policy are comparable to other industries for which recreational consumption has historically been legal. In this study we sought to describe cannabis industry lobbying in the Colorado state legislature, which dictates product standards, vertical grow systems for sale licensing requirements, and other policies relevant to cannabis sales.
We hypothesized that the cannabis industry would use strategies similar to those of other similar industries including relying on hired lobbyists , obscuring industry funding, working with related industries, and building national networks to support policies likely to in- crease consumption . We focused on Colorado because it was the first state to legalize recreational cannabis in 2012, making it possible to assess whether cannabis industry lobbying activities have become comparable to other industries in nature and scope over time. Because of the complexity of relationships between the cannabis industry, lobbyists, and government officials, we supplemented the quantitative analyses with a case study illustrating cannabis industry tactics to influence the Colorado legislature. Colorado requires lobbyists to file reports on their activities with the Secretary of State, even if they are a salaried employee of the business they represent.From February to September 2021, we collected data on lobbying expenditures originating from the cannabis industry and its affiliates, from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2021 . The Colorado Department of State dataset details payments to registered lobbyists, with information on funders who hire lobbyists , bill/rule titles and positions associated with payments, and lobbyist identifying information . To identify cannabis industry affiliates, we reviewed all funders in this dataset that lobbied on a list of 453 bills in fiscal years 2010–2021 that included the words “cannabis, ”“marijuana, ”or “hemp ”. Using the CDOS business database, the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division search tool, and internet searches, we coded funders as cannabis affiliates if they a) held a cannabis business license, b) shared board members, owners, or investors with a cannabis company, c) disclosed members that were cannabis businesses, or d) would directly profit from cannabis sector growth .