4.5 Article

Do Medical Marijuana Laws Increase Marijuana Use? Replication Study and Extension

期刊

ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 207-212

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2011.12.002

关键词

Adolescents; Medical Marijuana Law; Medical Marijuana; National Survey on Drug Use and Health; Quasi-Experiments

资金

  1. Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec
  2. Research Scholars career award
  3. Quebec Research Fund in Health
  4. Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services
  5. Canada Research Chair in Health Disparities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To replicate a prior study that found greater adolescent marijuana use in states that have passed medical marijuana laws (MMLs), and extend this analysis by accounting for confounding by unmeasured state characteristics and measurement error. METHODS: We obtained state-level estimates of marijuana use from the 2002 through 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. We used 2-sample t-tests and random-effects regression to replicate previous results. We used difference-in-differences regression models to estimate the causal effect of MMLs on marijuana use, and simulations to account for measurement error. RESULTS: We replicated previously published results showing higher marijuana use in states with MMLs. Difference-in-differences estimates suggested that passing MMLs decreased past-month use among adolescents by 0.53 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-1.02) and had no discernible effect on the perceived riskiness of monthly use. Models incorporating measurement error in the state estimates of marijuana use yielded little evidence that passing MMLs affects marijuana use. CONCLUSIONS: Accounting for confounding by unmeasured state characteristics and measurement error had an important effect on estimates of the impact of MMLs on marijuana use. We find limited evidence of causal effects of MMLs on measures of reported marijuana use. Ann Epidemiol 2012;22:207-212. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据