The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing the Effects of Medical Marijuana Laws on Marijuana Use: The Devil is in the Details
Open accessAbstract
This paper sheds light on previous inconsistencies identified in the literature regarding the relationship between medical marijuana laws (MMLs) and recreational marijuana use by closely examining the importance of policy dimensions (registration requirements, home cultivation, dispensaries) and the timing of when particular policy dimensions are enacted. Using data from our own legal analysis of state MMLs, we evaluate which features are associated with adult and youth recreational and heavy use by linking these policy variables to data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) and National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97). We employ differences-in-differences techniques, controlling for state and year fixed effects, allowing us to exploit within-state policy changes. We find that while simple dichotomous indicators of MML laws are not positively associated with marijuana use or abuse, such measures hide the positive influence legal dispensaries have on adult and youth use, particularly heavy use. Sensitivity analyses that help address issues of policy endogeneity and actual implementation of dispensaries support our main conclusion that not all MML laws are the same. Dimensions of these policies, in particular legal protection of dispensaries, can lead to greater recreational marijuana use and abuse among adults and those under the legal age of 21 relative to MMLs without this supply source.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?
Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355304772839588 · Cited by 10,641
Cited by
Prevalence of marijuana use disorders in the United States between 2001-2002 and 2012-2013.
Hasin, D. S., Saha, T. D., Kerridge, B. T., Goldstein, R. B., Chou, S. P., Zhang, H., Jung, J., Pickering, R. P., Ruan, W. J., Smith, S. M., et al. (2015) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.1858 · Cited by 1,086
Public health and international drug policy
Csete, J., Kamarulzaman, A., Kazatchkine, M., Altice, F., Balicki, M., Buxton, J., Cepeda, J., Comfort, M., Goosby, E., Goulão, J., et al. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00619-x · Cited by 641
Cerdá, M., Mauro, C., Hamilton, A., Levy, N. S., Santaella-Tenorio, J., Hasin, D., Wall, M. M., Keyes, K. M., & Martins, S. S. (2020) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.3254 · Cited by 598
US epidemiology of cannabis use and associated problems
Hasin, D. S. (2018) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2017.198 · Cited by 578
Hasin, D. S., Sarvet, A. L., Cerdá, M., Keyes, K. M., Stohl, M., Galea, S., & Wall, M. M. (2017) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.0724 · Cited by 406
Metadata
- Authors
- Pacula, R. L., Powell, D., Heaton, P., & Sevigny, E. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-10-20
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7-31
- ISSN
- 0276-8739 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2124478275
- Cited by
- 443
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing the Effects of Medical Marijuana Laws on Marijuana Use: The Devil is in the Details. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pam.21804
- The paper
- Pacula, R. L., Powell, D., Heaton, P., & Sevigny, E. L. (2015). Assessing the Effects of Medical Marijuana Laws on Marijuana Use: The Devil is in the Details. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21804
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.