Medical marijuana laws (MMLs) and dispensary provisions not associated with higher odds of adolescent marijuana or heavy marijuana use: A 46 State Analysis, 1991–2015

Abstract

Background: States are rapidly moving to reverse marijuana prohibition, most frequently through legalization of medical marijuana laws (MMLs), and there is concern that marijuana legalization may affect adolescent marijuana use. Methods: This natural-experimental study used state Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) data collected from participants in grades 9–12 from 1991 to 2015 in 46 states (N = 1,091,723). Taking advantage of heterogeneity across states in MML status and MML dispensary design, difference-in-difference estimates compared states with enacted MMLs/dispensaries to non-MML/dispensaries states. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to adjust for state and year effects, and student demographics. The main outcome assessed was past 30-day adolescent marijuana use [“any” and “heavy” (≥20)]. Results: In the overall sample, the adjusted odds of adolescents reporting any past 30-day marijuana use was lower in states that enacted MMLs at any time during the study period (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.99; p < .05), and in states with operational dispensaries in 2015 (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; p < .05). Among grade cohorts, only 9th graders showed a significant effect, with lower odds of use with MML enactment. We found no effects on heavy marijuana use. Conclusions: This study found no evidence between 1991 and 2015 of increases in adolescents reporting past 30-day marijuana use or heavy marijuana use associated with state MML enactment or operational MML dispensaries. In a constantly evolving marijuana policy landscape, continued monitoring of adolescent marijuana use is important for assessing policy effects.

Keywords:

• Marijuana
• medical marijuana
• marijuana laws
• adolescents
• substance use
• heavy marijuana use

Acknowledgments

This article is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not reflect the view of the funding organization, NIDA, who had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional information

Funding

This research was primarily supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Grants: 5F31DA036923-02 (Julie K. Johnson), 4T32DA007292-24 (Julie K. Johnson, Abenaa A. Jones, PI: Renee M. Johnson), and R01DA040488-04S1 (Abenaa A. Jones).