For more than a decade, medical marijuana has been at the forefront of the marijuana policy debate in the United States. Fourteen states allow physicians to recommend marijuana or provide a legal defense for patients and physicians if prosecuted in state courts; however, little is known about those individuals using marijuana for medicinal purposes and the symptoms they use it for. This study provides descriptive information from 1,655 patients seeking a physician’s recommendation for medical marijuana, the conditions for which they seek treatment, and the diagnoses made by the physicians. It conducts a systematic analysis of physician records and patient questionnaires obtained from consecutive patients being seen during a three month period at nine medical marijuana evaluation clinics belonging to a select medical group operating throughout the State of California. While this study is not representative of all medical marijuana users in California, it provides novel insights about an important population being affected by this policy.

Background-Marijuana contains multiple cannabinoids. Most attention is given to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which produces euphoria and in some cases anxiety and panic reactions. Research suggests that another cannabinoid, cannabidiol (CBD), may offset some of these effects. Thus, there is growing interest in the health consequences of the THC to CBD ratio for marijuana.Methods-Using data from over 5,000 marijuana samples in California from 1996-2008, we examine changes in the median THC-level, median CBD-level, and median THC:CBD-ratio.Results-The median THC-level and median THC:CBD-ratio has dramatically increased for seizures in California, particularly north of the Mexican border.Conclusion-Research on the consequences of the THC:CBD ratio should continue, especially as more attention is devoted to thinking about how to regulate marijuana for medical and recreational use. Researchers should also consider the lack of uniformity in the chemical composition of marijuana when evaluating its health effects.

This study shows evidence that one study's results on "dependent" coverage are in fact driven by changes in rates of spousal coverage. Results from a second study, though not robust to use of a more conventional DD model, would seem to apply most strongly to individuals at ages at which one would typically have lost parental coverage before reform, consistent with a "passive" effect rather than an "active" effect that enrolls previously uninsured youths.

ABSTRACT. Objective: This article estimates the societal costs of Project CHOICE, a voluntary after-school alcohol and other drug prevention program for adolescents. To our knowledge, this is the fi rst cost analysis of an after-school program specifi cally focused on reducing alcohol and other drug use. Method: The article uses microcosting methods based on the societal perspective and includes a number of sensitivity analyses to assess how the results change with alternative assumptions. Cost data were obtained from surveys of participants, facilitators, and school administrators; insights from program staff members; program expenditures; school budgets; the Bureau of Labor Statistics; and the National Center for Education Statistics. Results: From the societal perspective, the cost of implementing Project CHOICE in eight California schools ranged from $121 to $305 per participant (Mdn = $238). The major cost drivers included labor costs associated with facilitating Project CHOICE, opportunity costs of displaced class time (because of in-class promotions for Project CHOICE and consent obtainment), and other efforts to increase participation. Substituting nationally representative cost information for wages and space reduced the range to $100-$206 (Mdn = $182), which is lower than the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's estimate of $262 per pupil for the "average effective school-based program in 2002." Denominating national Project CHOICE costs by enrolled students instead of participants generates a median per-pupil cost of $21 (range: $14-$28). Conclusions: Estimating the societal costs of school-based prevention programs is crucial for effi ciently allocating resources to reduce alcohol and other drug use. The large variation in Project CHOICE costs across schools highlights the importance of collecting program cost information from multiple sites. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 72, 823-832, 2011)