Trends in use of Marijuana and Attitudes …before and after decriminalization

ABSTRACT

Background:

This analysis examines decriminalization as a risk factor for future increases in youth marijuana acceptance and use. Specifically, we examine marijuana-related behaviors and attitudes of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders in California as compared to other U.S. states during the years before and after California passed legislation in 2010 to decriminalize marijuana.

Methods:

Data come from Monitoring the Future, an annual, nationally representative survey of 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students. Results: In 2012 and afterwards California 12th graders as compared to their peers in other states became (a) 25% more likely to have used marijuana in the past 30 days, (b) 20% less likely to perceive regular marijuana use as a great health risk, (c) 20% less likely to strongly disapprove of regular marijuana use, and (d) about 60% more likely to expect to be using marijuana five years in the future. Analysis of 10th graders raises the possibility that the findings among 12th graders may reflect a cohort effect that was set into place two years earlier. Conclusion: These results provide empirical evidence to support concerns that decriminalization may be a risk factor for future increases in youth marijuana use and acceptance.

Conclusion

The results of this study support decriminalization as a risk factor for increases in both marijuana acceptance and use among 12thgraders. Following decriminalization both marijuana acceptance and use significantly increased among California 12th graders as compared to their peers in other states. Policymakers and voters should consider the possibility that decriminalization sends a signal that encourages youth marijuana use. The study results both justify and motivate future work to determine whether decriminalization continues to exert an influence on future cohorts of California 12th graders, as well as an examination of intervening mechanisms that are amenable to policy and interventions.

Source:  International Journal of Drug Policy 26 (2015) 336–344 International Journal of Drug Policy 26 (2015) 336–

Back to top of page

Powered by WordPress