Julie K Johnson1,2, Renee M Johnson1, Dominic Hodgkin3, Abenaa A Jones1, Ann Marie Matteucci4, Sion K Harris3,5,6. 1. a Department of Mental Health , Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore Maryland , USA. 2. b The Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse Research (CeASAR), Boston Children's Hospital , Boston , Massachusetts , USA. 3. c Institute for Behavioral Health, Heller School of Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University Brandeis University , Waltham , Massachusetts , USA. 4. d Department of Health Management and Policy , University of New Hampshire , Durham , New Hampshire , USA. 5. e Department of Pediatrics , Harvard Medical School , Boston , Massachusetts , USA. 6. f Division of Developmental Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital , Boston , Massachusetts , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess associations between enactment of state medical marijuana laws (MMLs), MML restrictiveness, and past-30-day youth alcohol use overall, and in relation to marijuana use. METHOD: This quasi-experimental difference-in-difference designed study used state-level Youth Risk Behavior Survey data of 9th-12th grade students in 45 states from 1991-2011 (N D 715,014). We conducted bivariate (unadjusted) and multivariable (adjusted for state, year, individual characteristics) logistic regression analyses to examine the effect of MML enactment (yes/no) and less restrictive vs. more restrictive MMLs on five varying measures of past 30-day alcohol use (i.e., any use or binge) and alcohol and marijuana use behaviors. RESULTS: In the final adjusted analyses, MML enactment was associated with lower odds of adolescent past 30-day (1) alcohol use (OR D 0.92, [0.87, 0.97], p < .01) and (2) use of both alcohol and marijuana (OR D 0.93, [0.87, 0.99], p < .05). States with less restrictive MMLs had lower odds of past 30-day (1) alcohol use (OR D 0.94, [0.92, 0.97], p < .001), (2) binge drinking (OR D 0.96, [0.93, 0.97], p < .05), (3) alcohol use without any marijuana use (OR D 0.96, [0.93, 0.99], p < .01), and (4) use of both alcohol and marijuana (OR D 0.96, [0.92, 0.99], p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that enactment of any MML, and of less restrictive MMLs, was associated with lower odds of past 30-day adolescent alcohol use among adolescents. With continued change in state marijuana laws, it is important to monitor the effect of their enactment and implementation, as well as their specific provisions (e.g. dispensaries, home cultivation), which may differentially affect adolescent behaviors.
OBJECTIVE: To assess associations between enactment of state medical marijuana laws (MMLs), MML restrictiveness, and past-30-day youth alcohol use overall, and in relation to marijuana use. METHOD: This quasi-experimental difference-in-difference designed study used state-level Youth Risk Behavior Survey data of 9th-12th grade students in 45 states from 1991-2011 (N D 715,014). We conducted bivariate (unadjusted) and multivariable (adjusted for state, year, individual characteristics) logistic regression analyses to examine the effect of MML enactment (yes/no) and less restrictive vs. more restrictive MMLs on five varying measures of past 30-day alcohol use (i.e., any use or binge) and alcohol and marijuana use behaviors. RESULTS: In the final adjusted analyses, MML enactment was associated with lower odds of adolescent past 30-day (1) alcohol use (OR D 0.92, [0.87, 0.97], p < .01) and (2) use of both alcohol and marijuana (OR D 0.93, [0.87, 0.99], p < .05). States with less restrictive MMLs had lower odds of past 30-day (1) alcohol use (OR D 0.94, [0.92, 0.97], p < .001), (2) binge drinking (OR D 0.96, [0.93, 0.97], p < .05), (3) alcohol use without any marijuana use (OR D 0.96, [0.93, 0.99], p < .01), and (4) use of both alcohol and marijuana (OR D 0.96, [0.92, 0.99], p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that enactment of any MML, and of less restrictive MMLs, was associated with lower odds of past 30-day adolescent alcohol use among adolescents. With continued change in state marijuana laws, it is important to monitor the effect of their enactment and implementation, as well as their specific provisions (e.g. dispensaries, home cultivation), which may differentially affect adolescent behaviors.
Authors: Esther K Choo; Madeline Benz; Nikolas Zaller; Otis Warren; Kristin L Rising; K John McConnell Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Melanie M Wall; Christine Mauro; Deborah S Hasin; Katherine M Keyes; Magdalena Cerda; Silvia S Martins; Tianshu Feng Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2016-02-01
Authors: Laura Kann; Steve Kinchen; Shari L Shanklin; Katherine H Flint; Joseph Kawkins; William A Harris; Richard Lowry; Emily O'Malley Olsen; Tim McManus; David Chyen; Lisa Whittle; Eboni Taylor; Zewditu Demissie; Nancy Brener; Jemekia Thornton; John Moore; Stephanie Zaza Journal: MMWR Suppl Date: 2014-06-13
Authors: Shadiya L Moss; Julian Santaella-Tenorio; Pia M Mauro; Katherine M Keyes; Silvia S Martins Journal: Addiction Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Ashley Brooks-Russell; Ming Ma; Arnold H Levinson; Leo Kattari; Tom Kirchner; Erin M Anderson Goodell; Renee M Johnson Journal: Prev Sci Date: 2019-02
Authors: Julie K Johnson; Renee M Johnson; Dominic Hodgkin; Abenaa A Jones; Alexandra Kritikos; Samantha M Doonan; Sion K Harris Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: C R Kasten; K L Carzoli; N M Sharfman; T Henderson; E B Holmgren; M R Lerner; M C Miller; T A Wills Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 7.853