Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 269

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Medical marijuana laws and adolescent marijuana use in the USA from 1991 to 2014: results from annual, repeated cross-sectional surveys

Open access
Hasin, Deborah S, Wall, Melanie, Keyes, Katherine M, Cerdá, Magdalena, Schulenberg, John, O'Malley, Patrick M, Galea, Sandro, Pacula, Rosalie, Feng, Tianshu·2015·The Lancet Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Adolescent marijuana use is associated with adverse later-life consequences, so identifying factors underlying adolescent use is of substantial public health importance. The relationship of U.S. state medical marijuana laws (MML) to adolescent marijuana use has been controversial. Such laws could convey a message about marijuana acceptability that increases marijuana use soon after passage, even if implementation is delayed or the law narrowly limits use. We used 24 years of U.S. national data to examine the relationship between state MML and adolescent marijuana use. Methods Data came from 1,098,270 U.S. adolescents in 8th, 10th, and 12th grade in the national Monitoring the Future annual surveys conducted between 1991–2014. The main outcome was any marijuana use in the prior 30 days. Using multilevel regression modeling, we examined marijuana use in adolescents nested within states, including whether marijuana use was higher overall in states that ever passed a MML up to 2014, and whether the risk of use changed after state MML were passed. Individual-, school- and state-level covariates were controlled. Findings Overall, marijuana use was more prevalent in states that enacted MML up to 2014 than in other states (AOR=1.27, 95%CI=1.07–1.51). Pre- and post-MML risk did not differ in the full sample (AOR=0.92, 95%CI=0.82–1.04). A significant interaction (p<0.001) indicated differential post-MML risk by grade. In 8th graders, post-MML use decreased (AOR=0.73, 95%CI=0.63–0.84), while no significant change occurred in 10th or 12th graders. Results were generally robust across sensitivity analyses. Interpretation Previous evidence and this study show that MML passage does not result in increased adolescent marijuana use. However, overall, adolescent use is higher in states that ever enacted MML than in other states. State-level risk factors other than MML may contribute to both marijuana use and MML, warranting investigation. An observed 8th-grade post-MML decrease also merits further study. Funding U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York State Psychiatric Institute.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2215-0366(15)00217-5

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 269

Metadata

Authors
Hasin, D. S., Wall, M., Keyes, K. M., Cerdá, M., Schulenberg, J., O'Malley, P. M., Galea, S., Pacula, R., & Feng, T.
Venue
The Lancet Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-07
Volume
2
Issue
7
Pages
601-608
ISSN
2215-0366 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1502575968
Cited by
269
References
3
FWCI
31.30
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

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.