CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 63Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesCriminal Law and PolicyCannabis and Cannabinoid Research

Impact evaluations of drug decriminalisation and legal regulation on drug use, health and social harms: a systematic review

Open access
Scheim, Ayden I, Maghsoudi, Nazlee, Marshall, Zack, Churchill, Siobhan, Ziegler, Carolyn, Werb, Dan·2020·BMJ Open
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035148PMC PMC7507857
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objectives: To review the metrics and findings of studies evaluating effects of drug decriminalisation or legal regulation on drug availability, use or related health and social harms globally. Design: Systematic review with narrative synthesis. Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science and six additional databases for publications from 1 January 1970 through 4 October 2018. Inclusion criteria: Peer-reviewed articles or published abstracts in any language with quantitative data on drug availability, use or related health and social harms collected before and after implementation of de jure drug decriminalisation or legal regulation. Data extraction and synthesis: Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts and articles for inclusion. Extraction and quality appraisal (modified Downs and Black checklist) were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second, with discrepancies resolved by a third. We coded study-level outcome measures into metric groupings and categorised the estimated direction of association between the legal change and outcomes of interest. Results: We screened 4860 titles and 221 full-texts and included 114 articles. Most (n=104, 91.2%) were from the USA, evaluated cannabis reform (n=109, 95.6%) and focussed on legal regulation (n=96, 84.2%). 224 study outcome measures were categorised into 32 metrics, most commonly prevalence (39.5% of studies), frequency (14.0%) or perceived harmfulness (10.5%) of use of the decriminalised or regulated drug; or use of tobacco, alcohol or other drugs (12.3%). Across all substance use metrics, legal reform was most often not associated with changes in use. Conclusions: Studies evaluating drug decriminalisation and legal regulation are concentrated in the USA and on cannabis legalisation. Despite the range of outcomes potentially impacted by drug law reform, extant research is narrowly focussed, with a particular emphasis on the prevalence of use. Metrics in drug law reform evaluations require improved alignment with relevant health and social outcomes.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035148

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

  • The scope of the review was limited to recreational legalization and did not consider other forms of policy changes such as medicinal legalization or decriminalization.

    “Additionally, the scope of the review was limited to recreational legalization and did not consider other forms of policy changes such as medicinal legalization or decriminalization, as these have been summarized more comprehensively in prior reviews.112-114”

    From The Impact of Recreational Cannabis Legalization on Cannabis Use and Associated Outcomes: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [113]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 89

  1. [3]Werb D, Kerr T, Nosyk B, et al The temporal relationship between drug supply indicators: an audit of international government surveillance systems. BMJ Open 2013; 3: e003077. 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003077 PMC3787412 24080093 · DOI
  2. [4]Mathers BM, Degenhardt L, Phillips B, et al Global epidemiology of injecting drug use and HIV among people who inject drugs: a systematic review. Lancet 2008; 372: 1733– 45. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61311-2 18817968 · DOI
  3. [5]DeBeck K, Cheng T, Montaner JS, et al HIV and the criminalisation of drug use among people who inject drugs: a systematic review. Lancet HIV 2017; 4: e357– 74. 10.1016/S2352-3018(17)30073-5 28515014 PMC6005363 · DOI
  4. [6]Unick GJ, Rosenblum D, Mars S, et al Intertwined epidemics: national demographic trends in hospitalizations for heroin- and opioid-related overdoses, 1993-2009. PLoS One 2013; 8: e54496. 10.1371/journal.pone.0054496 23405084 PMC3566161 · DOI
  5. [7]Jürgens R, Csete J, Amon JJ, et al People who use drugs, HIV, and human rights. Lancet 2010; 376: 475– 85. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60830-6 20650514 · DOI
  6. [8]Amon J, Pearshouse R, Cohen J, et al Compulsory drug detention centers in China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos: health and human rights abuses. Health Hum Rights 2013; 15: 124– 37. 24421160
  7. [9]Werb D, Rowell G, Guyatt G, et al Effect of drug law enforcement on drug market violence: a systematic review. Int J Drug Policy 2011; 22: 87– 94. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.02.002 21392957 · DOI
  8. [10]Csete J, Kamarulzaman A, Kazatchkine M, et al Public health and international drug policy. Lancet 2016; 387: 1427– 80. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00619-X 27021149 PMC5042332 · DOI
  9. [12]Wood E, Werb D, Kazatchkine M, et al Vienna declaration: a call for evidence-based drug policies. Lancet 2010; 376: 310– 2. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60958-0 20650517 · DOI
  10. [18]Nutt DJ, King LA, Phillips LD, et al Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis. Lancet 2010; 376: 1558– 65. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61462-6 21036393 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [19]Rogeberg O, Bergsvik D, Phillips LD, et al A new approach to Formulating and appraising drug policy: a multi-criterion decision analysis applied to alcohol and cannabis regulation. Int J Drug Policy 2018; 56: 144– 52. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.01.019 29459211 · DOI
  12. [20]Dirisu O, Shickle D, Elsey H Influence of legal status on the uptake of cannabis in young people. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2016; 29: 231– 5. 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000253 27096170 · DOI
  13. [21]Sarvet AL, Wall MM, Fink DS, et al Medical marijuana laws and adolescent marijuana use in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction 2018; 113: 1003– 16. 10.1111/add.14136 29468763 PMC5942879 · DOI
  14. [22]Melchior M, Nakamura A, Bolze C, et al Does liberalisation of cannabis policy influence levels of use in adolescents and young adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e025880. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025880 PMC6624043 31296507 · DOI
  15. [24]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000097 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 19621072 PMC2707599 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [25]Downs SH, Black N The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998; 52: 377– 84. 10.1136/jech.52.6.377 9764259 PMC1756728 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [26]Kerr WC, Lui C, Ye Y Trends and age, period and cohort effects for marijuana use prevalence in the 1984-2015 us national alcohol surveys. Addiction 2018; 113: 473– 81. 10.1111/add.14031 28895239 PMC5807111 · DOI
  18. [27]Allshouse AA, Metz TD 854: Trends in self-reported and urine toxicology (UTOX)-detected maternal marijuana use before and after legalization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214: S444– 5. 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.904 · DOI
  19. [28]Straub H, Drennan KJ, Pflugeisen B 985: maternal marijuana use: a natural experiment from prohibition to access. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216: S554– 5. 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.11.894 · DOI
  20. [29]Cassidy TA, Green T, Garg P, et al Up in smoke? marijuana initiation and prevalence trends in Colorado: 2008 to 2014. Drug Alcohol Depend 2015; 156: e39 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.07.1023 · DOI
  21. [30]Jones JT, Baldwin A, Shu I A comparison of meconium screening outcomes as an indicator of the impact of state-level relaxation of marijuana policy. Drug Alcohol Depend 2015; 156: e104– 5. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.07.290 · DOI
  22. [31]Donnelly N, Hall W, Christie P The effects of the cannabis Expiation notice system on the prevalence of cannabis use in South Australia: evidence from the National drug strategy household surveys 1985-95. Drug Alcohol Rev 2000; 19: 265– 9. 10.1080/713659382 · DOI
  23. [32]Wall MM, Mauro C, Hasin DS, et al Prevalence of marijuana use does not differentially increase among youth after states pass medical marijuana laws: commentary on Stolzenberg et al. (2015) and reanalysis of US national survey on drug use in households data 2002–2011. International Journal of Drug Policy 2016; 29: 9– 13. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.01.015 26895950 PMC4819395 · DOI
  24. [33]Choo EK, Benz M, Zaller N, et al The impact of state medical marijuana legislation on adolescent marijuana use. J Adolesc Health 2014; 55: 160– 6. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.02.018 24742758 · DOI · Paper page
  25. [35]Hasin DS, Wall M, Keyes KM, et al Medical marijuana laws and adolescent marijuana use in the USA from 1991 to 2014: results from annual, repeated cross-sectional surveys. Lancet Psychiatry 2015; 2: 601– 8. 10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00217-5 26303557 PMC4630811 · DOI
  26. [36]Wagner J, Leonard J, Jensen J, et al The impact of marijuana Legalization on reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. Neurology 2016; 86: 115.
  27. [37]Merker AM, Riaz M, Friedman S, et al Legalization of medicinal marijuana has minimal impact on use patterns in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018; 24: 2309– 14. 10.1093/ibd/izy141 29788102 · DOI
  28. [38]Parnes JE, Smith JK, Conner BT Reefer madness or much ado about nothing? cannabis Legalization outcomes among young adults in the United States. Int J Drug Policy 2018; 56: 116– 20. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.03.011 29626630 · DOI
  29. [39]Keyes KM, Wall M, Cerdá M, et al How does state marijuana policy affect us youth? medical marijuana laws, marijuana use and perceived harmfulness: 1991-2014. Addiction 2016; 111: 2187– 95. 10.1111/add.13523 27393902 PMC5222836 · DOI
  30. [40]Harper S, Strumpf EC, Kaufman JS Do medical marijuana laws increase marijuana use? replication study and extension. Ann Epidemiol 2012; 22: 207– 12. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2011.12.002 22285867 · DOI
  31. [41]Wall MM, Poh E, Cerdá M, et al Adolescent marijuana use from 2002 to 2008: higher in states with medical marijuana laws, cause still unclear. Ann Epidemiol 2011; 21: 714– 6. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2011.06.001 21820632 PMC3358137 · DOI
  32. [42]Martins SS, Mauro CM, Santaella-Tenorio J, et al State-level medical marijuana laws, marijuana use and perceived availability of marijuana among the general U.S. population. Drug Alcohol Depend 2016; 169: 26– 32. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.10.004 27755989 PMC5140747 · DOI
  33. [43]Cerdá M, Wall M, Feng T, et al Association of state recreational marijuana laws with adolescent marijuana use. JAMA Pediatr 2017; 171: 142– 9. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.3624 28027345 PMC5365078 · DOI
  34. [44]Mauro C, Santaella J, Kim JH, et al Does perceived availability of marijuana explain changes in marijuana use after medical marijuana law implementation among US adults? Drug Alcohol Depend 2017; 171: e134.
  35. [45]Kosterman R, Bailey JA, Guttmannova K, et al Marijuana Legalization and parents' attitudes, use, and parenting in Washington state. J Adolesc Health 2016; 59: 450– 6. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.07.004 27523977 PMC5035605 · DOI
  36. [46]Hasin D, Sarvet A, Cerda M, et al Driving under the influence of alcohol or cannabis in the U.S., 1991-1992 to 2012-2013: relationship to state medical marijuana laws. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2017; 41: 250A.
  37. [48]Adam C, Raschzok A Cannabis policy and the uptake of treatment for cannabis-related problems. Drug Alcohol Rev 2017; 36: 171– 7. 10.1111/dar.12401 27004985 · DOI
  38. [49]Červený J, Chomynová P, Mravčík V, et al Cannabis decriminalization and the age of onset of cannabis use. Int J Drug Policy 2017; 43: 122– 9. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.02.014 28395168 · DOI
  39. [50]Reith I Two plants are better than one? Contemp Drug Probl 2015; 42: 259– 73. 10.1177/0091450915603259 · DOI
  40. [51]Félix S, Portugal P Drug decriminalization and the price of illicit drugs. Int J Drug Policy 2017; 39: 121– 9. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.10.014 27940068 · DOI
  41. [52]Gonçalves R, Lourenço A, Silva SNda, da Silva SN A social cost perspective in the wake of the Portuguese strategy for the fight against drugs. Int J Drug Policy 2015; 26: 199– 209. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.08.017 25265899 · DOI
  42. [53]Arredondo J, Gaines T, Manian S, et al The law on the streets: evaluating the impact of Mexico's drug decriminalization reform on drug possession arrests in Tijuana, Mexico. Int J Drug Policy 2018; 54: 1– 8. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.12.006 29306177 PMC5924731 · DOI
  43. [54]Feige C, Miron JA The opium wars, opium Legalization and opium consumption in China. Appl Econ Lett 2008; 15: 911– 3. 10.1080/13504850600972295 · DOI
  44. [55]Larimer ME, Lee CM, Kilmer JR, et al Risk perception, access, and use of marijuana among young adults following Legalization in Washington state. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2015; 39: 261A.
  45. [56]Miech RA, Johnston L, O'Malley PM, O’Malley P, et al Trends in use of marijuana and attitudes toward marijuana among youth before and after decriminalization: the case of California 2007-2013. Int J Drug Policy 2015; 26: e151– 2. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.07.413 PMC4469374 25662893 · DOI
  46. [58]Wang GS, Davies SD, Halmo LS, et al Impact of marijuana Legalization in Colorado on adolescent emergency and urgent care visits. J Adolesc Health 2018; 63: 239– 41. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.12.010 29609916 · DOI · Paper page
  47. [59]Wang GS, Hall K, Vigil D, et al Marijuana and acute health care contacts in Colorado. Prev Med 2017; 104: 24– 30. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.03.022 28365373 PMC5623152 · DOI · Paper page
  48. [60]Model KE The effect of marijuana decriminalization on hospital emergency room drug episodes 1975-1978. J Am Stat Assoc 1993; 88: 737– 47.
  49. [61]Kim HS, Hall KE, Genco EK, et al Marijuana tourism and emergency department visits in Colorado. N Engl J Med 2016; 374: 797– 8. 10.1056/NEJMc1515009 26933869 PMC4878119 · DOI
  50. [62]Kim HS, Anderson JD, Saghafi O, et al Cyclic vomiting presentations following marijuana liberalization in Colorado. Acad Emerg Med 2015; 22: 694– 9. 10.1111/acem.12655 25903855 PMC4469074 · DOI
  51. [63]Calcaterra SL, Keniston A, Hull ML The impact of the Legalization of recreational marijuana on a safety-net health system. J Gen Intern Med 2018; 33: S361.
  52. [64]Shi Y Medical marijuana policies and hospitalizations related to marijuana and opioid pain reliever. Drug Alcohol Depend 2017; 173: 144– 50. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.01.006 28259087 PMC5385927 · DOI
  53. [65]Wen H, Hockenberry JM Association of medical and adult-use marijuana laws with opioid prescribing for Medicaid enrollees. JAMA Intern Med 2018; 178: 673– 9. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.1007 29610827 PMC6145792 · DOI
  54. [66]Bradford AC, Bradford WD, Abraham A, et al Association between us state medical cannabis laws and opioid prescribing in the Medicare Part D population. JAMA Intern Med 2018; 178: 667– 72. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0266 29610897 PMC6145794 · DOI
  55. [67]Kim JH, Santaella J, Cerda M, et al Medical marijuana laws and annual opioid analgesic sales in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend 2015; 156: e111 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.07.307 · DOI
  56. [68]Liang D, Bao Y, Wallace M, et al Medical cannabis Legalization and opioid prescriptions: evidence on us Medicaid enrollees during 1993-2014. Addiction 2018; 113: 2060– 70. 10.1111/add.14382 29989239 PMC6190827 · DOI
  57. [69]Shah AB, Hayes CJ, Lakkad M, et al Impact of medical marijuana Legalization on opioid use, chronic opioid use and high-risk opioid use. Value Health 2018; 21: S247 10.1016/j.jval.2018.04.1674 PMC6667507 30684198 · DOI
  58. [70]Bradford AC, Bradford WD Medical marijuana laws reduce prescription medication use in Medicare Part D. Health Aff 2016; 35: 1230– 6. 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1661 27385238 · DOI · Paper page
  59. [72]Harpin SB, Brooks-Russell A, Ma M, et al Adolescent marijuana use and perceived ease of access before and after recreational marijuana implementation in Colorado. Subst Use Misuse 2018; 53: 451– 6. 10.1080/10826084.2017.1334069 28816599 · DOI
  60. [73]Nappe T, Banerji S, Hoyte C Drug exposure trends since decriminalization of marijuana in Colorado. Clin Toxicol 2016; 54: 712– 3.
  61. [74]Onders B, Casavant MJ, Spiller HA, et al Marijuana exposure among children younger than six years in the United States. Clin Pediatr 2016; 55: 428– 36. 10.1177/0009922815589912 26054783 · DOI
  62. [75]Wang GS, Le Lait M-C, Deakyne SJ, et al Unintentional pediatric exposures to marijuana in Colorado, 2009-2015. JAMA Pediatr 2016; 170: e160971. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0971 27454910 · DOI
  63. [76]Banerji S, Hoyte C Marijuana and synthetic cannabinoid patterns in a US state with legalized marijuana: a 5-year NPDS review. Clin Toxicol 2017; 55: 418– 9.
  64. [77]Bjordal M, Garrard A The impact of marijuana Legalization on poison center calls in the evergreen state. Clin Toxicol 2015; 53: 694.
  65. [78]Livingston MD, Barnett TE, Delcher C, et al Recreational cannabis Legalization and opioid-related deaths in Colorado, 2000-2015. Am J Public Health 2017; 107: 1827– 9. 10.2105/AJPH.2017.304059 29019782 PMC5637677 · DOI · Paper page
  66. [79]Bachhuber MA, Saloner B, Cunningham CO, et al Medical cannabis laws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality in the United States, 1999-2010. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 1668– 73. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4005 25154332 PMC4392651 · DOI
  67. [81]Phillips E, Gazmararian J Implications of prescription drug monitoring and medical cannabis legislation on opioid overdose mortality. J Opioid Manag 2017; 13: 229– 39. 10.5055/jom.2017.0391 28953315 · DOI
  68. [82]Powell D, Pacula RL, Jacobson M Do medical marijuana laws reduce addictions and deaths related to pain killers? J Health Econ 2018; 58: 29– 42. 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.12.007 29408153 PMC7867411 · DOI
  69. [83]Steinemann S, Galanis D, Nguyen T, et al Motor vehicle crash fatalaties and undercompensated care associated with Legalization of marijuana. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2018; 85: 566– 71. 10.1097/TA.0000000000001983 29787529 · DOI
  70. [84]Urfer S, Morton J, Beall V, et al Analysis of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol driving under the influence of drugs cases in Colorado from January 2011 to February 2014. J Anal Toxicol 2014; 38: 575– 81. 10.1093/jat/bku089 25217549 · DOI
  71. [85]Pollini RA, Romano E, Johnson MB, et al The impact of marijuana decriminalization on California drivers. Drug Alcohol Depend 2015; 150: 135– 40. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.02.024 25765482 · DOI
  72. [86]Ramirez A Marijuana, other drugs, and alcohol use by drivers in Washington state. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2017; 41: 314A.
  73. [87]Couper FJ, Peterson BL The prevalence of marijuana in suspected impaired driving cases in Washington state. J Anal Toxicol 2014; 38: 569– 74. 10.1093/jat/bku090 25217548 · DOI
  74. [88]Prue B Prevalence of reported peyote use 1985-2010 effects of the American Indian religious freedom act of 1994. Am J Addict 2014; 23: 156– 61. 10.1111/j.1521-0391.2013.12083.x 25187051 · DOI
  75. [89]Grucza RA, Vuolo M, Krauss MJ, et al Cannabis decriminalization: a study of recent policy change in five U.S. states. Int J Drug Policy 2018; 59: 67– 75. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.06.016 30029073 PMC6380362 · DOI
  76. [90]Suggs DL A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the impact of Nebraska's decriminalization of marijuana. Law Hum Behav 1981; 5: 45– 71. 10.1007/BF01048572 · DOI
  77. [91]Laqueur H, Rivera-Aguirre A, Shev A, et al The impact of cannabis Legalization in Uruguay on adolescent cannabis use. Int J Drug Policy 2020; 80: 102748. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102748 32388170 PMC10686048 · DOI
  78. [92]Leung J, Chiu CYV, Stjepanović D, et al Has the legalisation of medical and recreational cannabis use in the USA affected the prevalence of cannabis use and cannabis use disorders? Curr Addict Rep 2018; 5: 403– 17. 10.1007/s40429-018-0224-9 · DOI
  79. [93]Cerdá M, Mauro C, Hamilton A, et al Association between recreational marijuana Legalization in the United States and changes in marijuana use and cannabis use disorder from 2008 to 2016. JAMA Psychiatry 2020; 77: 165– 71. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.3254 31722000 PMC6865220 · DOI · Paper page
  80. [94]Kerr T, Small W, Wood E The public health and social impacts of drug market enforcement: a review of the evidence. Int J Drug Policy 2005; 16: 210– 20. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2005.04.005 · DOI
  81. [95]McGinty EE, Samples H, Bandara SN, et al The emerging public discourse on state Legalization of marijuana for recreational use in the US: analysis of news media coverage, 2010-2014. Prev Med 2016; 90: 114– 20. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.06.040 27373208 PMC6983281 · DOI · Paper page
  82. [96]Firth CL, Maher JE, Dilley JA, et al Did marijuana Legalization in Washington state reduce racial disparities in adult marijuana arrests? Subst Use Misuse 2019; 54: 1582– 7. 10.1080/10826084.2019.1593007 31096823 PMC6948106 · DOI · Paper page
  83. [97]Plunk AD, Peglow SL, Harrell PT, et al Youth and adult arrests for cannabis possession after decriminalization and Legalization of cannabis. JAMA Pediatr 2019; 173: 763– 9. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1539 PMC6580444 31206147 · DOI
  84. [98]Firth CL, Hajat A, Dilley JA, et al Implications of cannabis Legalization on juvenile justice outcomes and racial disparities. Am J Prev Med 2020; 58: 562– 9. 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.11.019 32033855 PMC7266456 · DOI · Paper page
  85. [100]Laqueur H Uses and abuses of drug decriminalization in Portugal. Law soc. inq. 2015; 40: 746– 81. 10.1111/lsi.12104 · DOI
  86. [101]Pacula RL, Powell D, Heaton P, et al Assessing the effects of medical marijuana laws on marijuana use: the devil is in the details. J Policy Anal Manage 2015; 34: 7– 31. 10.1002/pam.21804 25558490 PMC4315233 · DOI
  87. [102]MacCoun R, Pacula RL, Chriqui J, et al Do citizens know whether their state has decriminalized marijuana? assessing the perceptual component of deterrence theory. Rev Law Econ 2009; 5: 347– 71. 10.2202/1555-5879.1227 · DOI
  88. [103]Shover CL, Davis CS, Gordon SC, et al Association between medical cannabis laws and opioid overdose mortality has reversed over time. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2019; 116: 12624– 6. 10.1073/pnas.1903434116 31182592 PMC6600903 · DOI
  89. [104]Hall W, Stjepanović D, Caulkins J, et al Public health implications of legalising the production and sale of cannabis for medicinal and recreational use. Lancet 2019; 394: 1580– 90. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31789-1 31657733 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scheim, A. I., Maghsoudi, N., Marshall, Z., Churchill, S., Ziegler, C., & Werb, D.
Affiliations
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Western University (CA)
  • Unity Health Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Werb, Dan
ORCID
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-09
Volume
10
Issue
9
Pages
e035148
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035148
PMC
PMC7507857
OpenAlex
W3087726603
Cited by
63
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Open Society Foundations
  • Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science
  • National Institutes of Health (1dp2da040256-01)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (#SMN-139 150)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DP2-DA040256)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Law and Policy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Keywords
drug decriminalization, drug policy reform, cannabis legalization, drug use prevalence, substance use outcomes, health damage, social harm, drug availability, evaluation metrics, alcohol and tobacco use
MeSH terms
Cannabis, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Humans, Legislation, Drug, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Substance-Related Disorders

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