Medical Marijuana Laws and Adolescent Marijuana Use in the United States

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Published in: Addiction [Epub February 2018]. doi: 10.1111/add.14136

Posted on RAND.org on March 22, 2018

by Aaron Sarvet, Melanie Wall, David S. Fink, Emily Greene, Aline Le, Anne E. Boustead, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Katherine M. Keyes, Magdalena Cerdá, Sandro Galea, et al.

Read More

Access further information on this document at John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Aims

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in order to estimate the effect of US medical marijuana laws (MMLs) on past-month marijuana use prevalence among adolescents.

Methods

A total of 2999 papers from 17 literature sources were screened systematically. Eleven studies, developed from four ongoing large national surveys, were meta-analyzed. Estimates of MML effects on any past-month marijuana use prevalence from included studies were obtained from comparisons of pre-post MML changes in MML states to changes in non-MML states over comparable time-periods. These estimates were standardized and entered into a meta-analysis model with fixed-effects for each study. Heterogeneity among the study estimates by national data survey was tested with an omnibus F-test. Estimates of effects on additional marijuana outcomes, of MML provisions (e.g. dispensaries) and among demographic subgroups were abstracted and summarized. Key methodological and modeling characteristics were also described. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.

Results

None of the 11 studies found significant estimates of pre-post MML changes compared with contemporaneous changes in non-MML states for marijuana use prevalence among adolescents. The meta-analysis yielded a non-significant pooled estimate (standardized mean difference) of -0.003 (95% confidence interval = -0.012, +0.007). Four studies compared MML with non-MML states on pre-MML differences and all found higher rates of past-month marijuana use in MML states pre-MML passage. Additional tests of specific MML provisions, of MML effects on additional marijuana outcomes and among subgroups generally yielded non-significant results, although limited heterogeneity may warrant further study.

Conclusions

Synthesis of the current evidence does not support the hypothesis that US medical marijuana laws (MMLs) until 2014 have led to increases in adolescent marijuana use prevalence. Limited heterogeneity exists among estimates of effects of MMLs on other patterns of marijuana use, of effects within particular population subgroups and of effects of specific MML provisions.

Research conducted by

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.