Susan A Chapman1, Joanne Spetz2, Jessica Lin3, Krista Chan2, Laura A Schmidt2. 1. a Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences , University of California , San Francisco , California , USA. 2. b Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies , University of California , San Francisco , California , USA. 3. c School of Public Health , University of Michigan , Ann Arbor , Michigan , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is considerable movement in the U.S. to legalize use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. Twenty-three U.S. states and the District of Columbia have laws that decriminalize use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Most prior studies of state medical marijuana laws and their association with overall marijuana use, adolescent use, crime rates, and alcohol traffic fatalities have used a binary coding of whether the state had a medical marijuana law or not. Mixed results from these studies raise the question of whether this method for measuring policy characteristics is adequate. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to develop a validated taxonomy of medical marijuana laws that will allow researchers to measure variation in aspects of medical marijuana statutes as well as their overall restrictiveness. METHODS/ RESULTS: We used a modified Delphi technique using detailed and validated data about each state's medical marijuana law. Three senior researchers coded elements of the state laws in initiation of use, quantity allowed, regulations around distribution, and overall restrictiveness. We used 2013 data from the U.S. National Survey on Drug Use and Health to assess validity of the taxonomy. Results indicate substantial state-level variation in medical marijuana policies. Validation analysis supported the taxonomy's validity for all four dimensions with the largest effect sizes for the quantity allowed in the state's medical marijuana policy. CONCLUSIONS/IMPORTANCE: This analysis demonstrates the potential importance of nondichotomous measurement of medical marijuana laws in studies of their impact. These findings may also be useful to states that are considering medical marijuana laws, to understand the potential impact of characteristics of those laws.
BACKGROUND: There is considerable movement in the U.S. to legalize use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. Twenty-three U.S. states and the District of Columbia have laws that decriminalize use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Most prior studies of state medical marijuana laws and their association with overall marijuana use, adolescent use, crime rates, and alcohol traffic fatalities have used a binary coding of whether the state had a medical marijuana law or not. Mixed results from these studies raise the question of whether this method for measuring policy characteristics is adequate. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to develop a validated taxonomy of medical marijuana laws that will allow researchers to measure variation in aspects of medical marijuana statutes as well as their overall restrictiveness. METHODS/ RESULTS: We used a modified Delphi technique using detailed and validated data about each state's medical marijuana law. Three senior researchers coded elements of the state laws in initiation of use, quantity allowed, regulations around distribution, and overall restrictiveness. We used 2013 data from the U.S. National Survey on Drug Use and Health to assess validity of the taxonomy. Results indicate substantial state-level variation in medical marijuana policies. Validation analysis supported the taxonomy's validity for all four dimensions with the largest effect sizes for the quantity allowed in the state's medical marijuana policy. CONCLUSIONS/IMPORTANCE: This analysis demonstrates the potential importance of nondichotomous measurement of medical marijuana laws in studies of their impact. These findings may also be useful to states that are considering medical marijuana laws, to understand the potential impact of characteristics of those laws.
Entities:
Keywords:
Medical marijuana; drug policy; marijuana; marijuana laws; qualitative methods
Authors: Henry J Michtalik; Peter J Pronovost; Jill A Marsteller; Joanne Spetz; Daniel J Brotman Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-06-10 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Eric R Pedersen; Jeremy N V Miles; Brett A Ewing; Regina A Shih; Joan S Tucker; Elizabeth J D'Amico Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Francois R Lamy; Raminta Daniulaityte; Mussah Zatreh; Ramzi W Nahhas; Amit Sheth; Silvia S Martins; Edward W Boyer; Robert G Carlson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Raminta Daniulaityte; Francois R Lamy; Monica Barratt; Ramzi W Nahhas; Silvia S Martins; Edward W Boyer; Amit Sheth; Robert G Carlson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Raminta Daniulaityte; Francois R Lamy; G Alan Smith; Ramzi W Nahhas; Robert G Carlson; Krishnaprasad Thirunarayan; Silvia S Martins; Edward W Boyer; Amit Sheth Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Raminta Daniulaityte; Mussa Y Zatreh; Francois R Lamy; Ramzi W Nahhas; Silvia S Martins; Amit Sheth; Robert G Carlson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-04-11 Impact factor: 4.492