The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on Marijuana-Related Attitude and Perception Among US Adolescents and Young Adults
Marijuana liberalization policies are gaining momentum in the USA, coupled with limited federal interference and growing dispensary industry. This evolving regulatory landscape underscores the importance of understanding the attitudinal/perceptual pathways from marijuana policy to marijuana use behavior, especially for adolescents and young adults. Our study uses the restricted-access National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) 2004–2012 data and a difference-in-differences design to compare the pre-policy, post-policy changes in marijuana-related attitude/perception between adolescents and young adults from ten states that implemented medical marijuana laws during the study period and those from the remaining states. We examined four attitudinal/perception pathways that may play a role in adolescent and young adult marijuana use behavior, including (1) perceived availability of marijuana, (2) perceived acceptance of marijuana use, (3) perceived wrongfulness of recreational marijuana use, and (4) perceived harmfulness of marijuana use. We found that state implementation of medical marijuana laws between 2004 and 2012 was associated with a 4.72% point increase (95% CI 0.15, 9.28) in the probability that young adults perceived no/low health risk related to marijuana use. Medical marijuana law implementation is also associated with a 0.37% point decrease (95% CI − 0.72, − 0.03) in the probability that adolescents perceived parental acceptance of marijuana use. As more states permit medical marijuana use, marijuana-related attitude/perception need to be closely monitored, especially perceived harmfulness. The physical and psychological effects of marijuana use should be carefully investigated and clearly conveyed to the public.
KeywordsMedical marijuana laws Marijuana use Risk perception
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Hasin, D. S., Wall, M., Keyes, K. M., Cerdá, M., Schulenberg, J., O'Malley, P. M., Galea, S., Pacula, R., & Feng, T. (2015). Medical marijuana laws and adolescent marijuana use in the USA from 1991 to 2014: Results from annual, repeated cross-sectional surveys. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2, 601–608.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Keyes, K. M., Wall, M., Cerdá, M., Schulenberg, J., O'malley, P. M., Galea, S., Feng, T., & Hasin, D. S. (2016). How does state marijuana policy affect US youth? Medical marijuana laws, marijuana use and perceived harmfulness: 1991–2014. Addiction, 111, 2187–2195.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Martins, S. S., Mauro, C. M., Santaella-Tenorio, J., Kim, J. H., Cerda, M., Keyes, K. M., Hasin, D. S., Galea, S., & Wall, M. (2016). State-level medical marijuana laws, marijuana use and perceived availability of marijuana among the general US population. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 169, 26–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Miech, R. A., Johnston, L., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J., & Patrick, M. E. (2015). Trends in use of marijuana and attitudes toward marijuana among youth before and after decriminalization: The case of California 2007–2013. The International Journal of Drug Policy, 26, 336–344.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). (2016). Marijuana Resource Center: State laws related to marijuana. Washington DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). [cited 2016 Jan 7]. Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/state-laws-related-to-marijuana.
- Pacula, R. L., Kilmer, B., Grossman, M., & Chaloupka, F. J. (2010). Risks and prices: The role of user sanctions in marijuana markets. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 10, 1–36.Google Scholar
- Schuermeyer, J., Salomonsen-Sautel, S., Price, R. K., Balan, S., Thurstone, C., Min, S. J., & Sakai, J. T. (2014). Temporal trends in marijuana attitudes, availability and use in Colorado compared to non-medical marijuana states: 2003–11. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 140, 145–155.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Sekhon, V. (2009). Highly uncertain times: an analysis of the executive branch's decision to not investigate or prosecute individuals in compliance with state medical marijuana laws. Hastings Const. LQ, 37, 553.Google Scholar
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2013). Results from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of national findings. NSDUH Series H-46, Publication No. SMA 13–4795. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), SAMHSA. [cited 2015 Oct 10]. Available from: http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2012SummNatFindDetTables/NationalFindings/NSDUHresults2012.htm.
- U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. (2009) Attorney general announces formal medical marijuana guidelines. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). [cited 2017 Nov 28]. Available from: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-formal-medical-marijuana-guidelines http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/us/20cannabis.html.
- Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar