Did marijuana legalization in Washington State reduce racial disparities in adult marijuana arrests?
Open accessAbstract
Background: One justification for marijuana legalization has been to reduce existing disparities in marijuana-related arrests for African Americans. Objective: Describe changes in adult marijuana arrest rates and disparities in rates for African Americans in Washington State (WA) after legalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana for 21+ year olds in December 2012, and after marijuana retail market opening in July 2014. Methods: We used 2012–2015 National Incident Based Reporting System data to identify marijuana-related arrests. Negative binomial regression models were fit to examine monthly marijuana arrest rates over time, and to test for differences between African Americans and Whites, adjusting for age and sex. Results: Among those 21+ years old overall, marijuana arrest rates were dramatically lower after legalization of possession, and did not change significantly after the retail market opened. The marijuana arrest rates for African Americans did drop markedly and the absolute disparities decreased, but the relative disparities grew: from a rate 2.5 times higher than Whites to 5 times higher after the retail market opened. Among 18–20 year olds overall, marijuana arrest rates dropped, but not as dramatically as among older adults; the absolute disparities decreased, but the relative disparities did not change significantly. Conclusions: Marijuana arrest rates among both African American and White adults decreased significantly with legalization of possession, and stayed at a dramatically lower rate after the marijuana retail market opened. However, relative disparities in marijuana arrest rates for African Americans increased for those of legal age, and remained unchanged for younger adults.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
While one study suggested minimal decreases for substance-use related arrests in adults, the findings were not consistent across the two studies examining arrest-rates in youth.
“While one study did suggest minimal decreases for substance-use related arrests in adults, the findings were not consistent across the two studies examining arrest-rates in youth.100-102”
From The Impact of Recreational Cannabis Legalization on Cannabis Use and Associated Outcomes: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [100]
The Results report an 87% drop in marijuana arrest rates among adults aged 21+ after legalization, not a minimal decrease. This paper studies adults aged 18 and older; it does not establish whether findings from the two youth studies were consistent. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThere was very little evidence of decreases in disparities for cannabis-related arrests following RCL.
“Regarding racial disparities and RCL, there was very little evidence of decreases in disparities for cannabis-related arrests following RCL.100,101”
From The Impact of Recreational Cannabis Legalization on Cannabis Use and Associated Outcomes: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [100]
The Results and Discussion report that relative racial disparities in marijuana arrest rates grew among adults aged 21 and older and did not change significantly among those aged 18–20. But both sections also report that absolute disparities decreased after legalization, so the unqualified claim overlooks a documented decrease. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Beckett K, Nyrop K, & Pfingst L (2006). Race, drugs, and policing: Understanding disparities in drug delivery arrests. Criminology, 44(1), 105– 137. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00044.x · DOI
- Berson SB (2013). Beyond the sentence: Understanding collateral consequences. National Institute of Justice Journal, 272, 25– 28.
- Chin GJ (2002). Race, the war on drugs, and the collateral consequences of criminal conviction. Journal of Gender, Race, & Justice, 6, 253– 275.
- Dilley JA, Hitchcock L, McGroder N, Greto L, & Richardson SM (2017). Community-level policy responses to state marijuana legalization in Washington State. International Journal of Drug Policy, 42, 102– 108. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.02.010 28365192 PMC5473373 · DOI
- Fendrich M, & Johnson TP (2005). Race/ethnicity differences in validity of self-reported drug use: Results from a household survey. Journal of Urban Health, 82(Suppl 3), ii67– ii81. PMC3455900 15933333
- Ferrer B, & Connolly JM (2018). Racial inequities in drug arrests: Treatment in lieu of and after incarceration. American Journal of Public Health, 108(8), 968– 969. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304575 29995492 PMC6050822 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fischer, B., Robinson, T., Bullen, C., Curran, V., Jutras-Aswad, D., Medina-Mora, M. E., Pacula, R. L., Rehm, J., Room, R., Brink, W. V. D., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103381 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
Farrelly, K. N., Wardell, J. D., Marsden, E., Scarfe, M. L., Najdzionek, P., Turna, J., & MacKillop, J. (2023) · Substance Abuse Research and Treatment · doi:10.1177/11782218231172054 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
- Authors
- Firth, C. L., Maher, J. E., Dilley, J. A., Darnell, A., & Lovrich, N. P.
- Affiliations
- Multnomah County Health Department (US)
- Washington State Institute for Public Policy (US)
- Washington State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Firth, Caislin L.
- Venue
- Substance Use & Misuse
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-05-16
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1582-1587
- ISSN
- 1082-6084 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2491
- PMC
- PMC6948106
- OpenAlex
- W2945339348
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 26.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Substance Use & Misuse (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) of the National Institutes of Health (93)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Law and Policy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
- Keywords
- cannabis legalization, racial disparities, African Americans, arrest rates, Washington State
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Black or African American, Female, Humans, Legislation, Drug, Male, Marijuana Smoking, Middle Aged, Washington, Law Enforcement, Young Adult, Racism
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
