Pamela J Trangenstein1, Jennifer M Whitehill2, Marina C Jenkins3, David H Jernigan4, Megan A Moreno5. 1. Alcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, 6001 Shellmound St., Suite 450 Emeryville, CA, 94608, USA; Boston University School of Public Health, Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, 715 Albany St., Boston, MA, 02118, USA. Electronic address: ptrang@email.unc.edu. 2. Department of Health Promotion and Policy, University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Public Health and Health Sciences, 338 Arnold House, 715 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA. Electronic address: jmw@umass.edu. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin - Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI, 53792, USA. Electronic address: mcjenkins@wisc.edu. 4. Boston University School of Public Health, Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, 715 Albany St., Boston, MA, 02118, USA. Electronic address: dhjern@bu.edu. 5. Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin - Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI, 53792, USA. Electronic address: moreno@wisc.edu.
Abstract
METHODS: Data are from an online survey of 482 adolescents (aged 15-19 years) living in states with legalized retail cannabis. Youth were asked about their engagement with cannabis promotions, including whether they liked/followed cannabis businesses on social media (Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram), had a favorite cannabis brand, or could see themselves owning/wearing a cannabis-branded product. Youth also self-reported cannabis use in the past year. We used logistic regression with a Bonferroni correction to compare the odds of cannabis use among youth with different levels of engagement with cannabis promotions and brands after controlling for demographics. RESULTS: After adjusting for several possible confounders, youth who liked or followed a cannabis business on at least one social media platform had 5 times higher odds of past-year cannabis use (aOR = 5.00, 95% CI: 2.47, 10.09, p < 0.001). Youth who thought it was likely that they would own or wear cannabis-branded merchandise (aOR = 6.93, 95% CI: 4.45, 10.78, p < 0.001) or who had a favorite cannabis brand (aOR = 7.98, 95% CI: 4.90, 13.00, p < 0.001) had nearly 8 times greater odds of past-year cannabis use. CONCLUSION: Youth who engage with cannabis promotions and brands had higher odds of past-year cannabis use. Jurisdictions with retail cannabis may want to consider restrictions to limit youth engagement with cannabis promotions.
METHODS: Data are from an online survey of 482 adolescents (aged 15-19 years) living in states with legalized retail cannabis. Youth were asked about their engagement with cannabis promotions, including whether they liked/followed cannabis businesses on social media (Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram), had a favorite cannabis brand, or could see themselves owning/wearing a cannabis-branded product. Youth also self-reported cannabis use in the past year. We used logistic regression with a Bonferroni correction to compare the odds of cannabis use among youth with different levels of engagement with cannabis promotions and brands after controlling for demographics. RESULTS: After adjusting for several possible confounders, youth who liked or followed a cannabis business on at least one social media platform had 5 times higher odds of past-year cannabis use (aOR = 5.00, 95% CI: 2.47, 10.09, p < 0.001). Youth who thought it was likely that they would own or wear cannabis-branded merchandise (aOR = 6.93, 95% CI: 4.45, 10.78, p < 0.001) or who had a favorite cannabis brand (aOR = 7.98, 95% CI: 4.90, 13.00, p < 0.001) had nearly 8 times greater odds of past-year cannabis use. CONCLUSION: Youth who engage with cannabis promotions and brands had higher odds of past-year cannabis use. Jurisdictions with retail cannabis may want to consider restrictions to limit youth engagement with cannabis promotions.
Authors: Maria Alice Fontes; Karen I Bolla; Paulo Jannuzzi Cunha; Priscila Previato Almeida; Flávia Jungerman; Ronaldo Ramos Laranjeira; Rodrigo A Bressan; Acioly L T Lacerda Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Theresa H M Moore; Stanley Zammit; Anne Lingford-Hughes; Thomas R E Barnes; Peter B Jones; Margaret Burke; Glyn Lewis Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-07-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Pamela J Trangenstein; Jennifer M Whitehill; Marina C Jenkins; David H Jernigan; Megan A Moreno Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 2.582