OBJECTIVES: Medical marijuana laws (MMLs) have been suggested as a possible cause of increases in marijuana use among adolescents in the United States. We evaluated the effects of MMLs on adolescent marijuana use from 2003 through 2011. METHODS: We used data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey and a difference-in-differences design to evaluate the effects of passage of state MMLs on adolescent marijuana use. The states examined (Montana, Rhode Island, Michigan, and Delaware) had passed MMLs at different times over a period of 8 years, ensuring that contemporaneous history was not a design confound. RESULTS: In 40 planned comparisons of adolescents exposed and not exposed to MMLs across states and over time, only 2 significant effects were found, an outcome expected according to chance alone. Further examination of the (nonsignificant) estimates revealed no discernible pattern suggesting an effect on either self-reported prevalence or frequency of marijuana use. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, in the states assessed here, MMLs have not measurably affected adolescent marijuana use in the first few years after their enactment. Longer-term results, after MMLs are more fully implemented, might be different.
OBJECTIVES: Medical marijuana laws (MMLs) have been suggested as a possible cause of increases in marijuana use among adolescents in the United States. We evaluated the effects of MMLs on adolescent marijuana use from 2003 through 2011. METHODS: We used data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey and a difference-in-differences design to evaluate the effects of passage of state MMLs on adolescent marijuana use. The states examined (Montana, Rhode Island, Michigan, and Delaware) had passed MMLs at different times over a period of 8 years, ensuring that contemporaneous history was not a design confound. RESULTS: In 40 planned comparisons of adolescents exposed and not exposed to MMLs across states and over time, only 2 significant effects were found, an outcome expected according to chance alone. Further examination of the (nonsignificant) estimates revealed no discernible pattern suggesting an effect on either self-reported prevalence or frequency of marijuana use. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, in the states assessed here, MMLs have not measurably affected adolescent marijuana use in the first few years after their enactment. Longer-term results, after MMLs are more fully implemented, might be different.
Authors: Rosalie Liccardo Pacula; Jamie F Chriqui; Deborah A Reichmann; Yvonne M Terry-McElrath Journal: J Public Health Policy Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.222
Authors: Stacy Salomonsen-Sautel; Joseph T Sakai; Christian Thurstone; Robin Corley; Christian Hopfer Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2012-05-26 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Melanie M Wall; Ernest Poh; Magdalena Cerdá; Katherine M Keyes; Sandro Galea; Deborah S Hasin Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Helene R White; Jason R Kilmer; Nicole Fossos-Wong; Kerri Hayes; Alexander W Sokolovsky; Kristina M Jackson Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Pamela J Trangenstein; Jennifer M Whitehill; Marina C Jenkins; David H Jernigan; Megan A Moreno Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Silvia S Martins; Christine M Mauro; Julian Santaella-Tenorio; June H Kim; Magdalena Cerda; Katherine M Keyes; Deborah S Hasin; Sandro Galea; Melanie Wall Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Rick Kosterman; Jennifer A Bailey; Katarina Guttmannova; Tiffany M Jones; Nicole Eisenberg; Karl G Hill; J David Hawkins Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 5.012