Cannabis use and proximity to coffee shops in the Netherlands

Wouters, M.; Benschop, Annemieke; Laar, Margriet van; Korf, D.J.

doi:10.1177/1477370812448033

Cited by 17 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study by Wouters et al , differs from our study in various dimensions. Wouters et al , have a highly selective sample of cannabis users who visit nightclubs and mostly live within 5 km of a cannabis shop. We use a representative sample of the Dutch population with much more variation in the distance to a cannabis shop.…”

contrasting

confidence: 86%

“…Wouters & Korf for example find that in municipalities without a cannabis shop, less cannabis is purchased through cannabis shops. Wouters et al , analyze a sample of people between 15 and 35years old who visit nightlife venues, finding that there is no relationship between the proximity to a cannabis shop and the prevalence or intensity of cannabis use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We use a representative sample of the Dutch population with much more variation in the distance to a cannabis shop. Furthermore, Wouters et al , focus on cannabis use, whereas we investigate the onset of cannabis use.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Distance to Cannabis Shops and Age of Onset of Cannabis Use

Palali

Ours

2014

Health Econ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Netherlands cannabis use is quasi-legalized. Small quantities of cannabis can be bought in cannabis-shops. We investigate how the distance to the nearest cannabisshop affects the age of onset of cannabis use. We use a Mixed Proportional Hazard rate framework to take account of observable as well as unobservable characteristics that influence the uptake of cannabis. We find that distance matters. Individuals who grow up within 20 kilometers of a cannabis-shop have a lower age of onset.

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distance to Cannabis Shops and Age of Onset of Cannabis Use

Palali

Ours

2014

Health Econ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the presence of coffeeshops might increase soft drug usage, potentially causing negative externalities on society. Investigating the effect of nearby coffeeshops on soft drug usage, Wouters et al (2012) find no evidence of more cannabis users in coffeeshop proximity. However, users buying in coffeeshops consume cannabis more frequently and in higher amounts.…”

Section: Effects On the Communitymentioning

confidence: 91%

“…In 1976, the Netherlands was the first country in Europe that made cannabis usage, possession and sale effectively legal. 10 The intention of the policy was to "reduce the risk of cannabis users being exposed to hard drugs", such as cocaine and heroin (Wouters et al, 2012). In addition, the government wanted to reduce punishment of soft drug users.…”

Section: Government Policy On Coffeeshopsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Housing market detections

Langen¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

About the Cover Artist: Born in Aachen (Germany), KEF! has started with graffiti when he was 14 years old. At the age of 19 he began to expand his work on other surfaces as canvas and paper. Nowadays, he works with galleries on projects all over the world. His work is based on making researches about the feelings of freedom, independence and harmony and how they can get manifested through his paintings in interior and exterior surroundings. For more information see: www.kefart.com

show abstract

Health, safety, and socioeconomic impacts of cannabis liberalization laws: An evidence and gap map

Sevigny,

Greathouse,

Medhin

2023

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGlobally, cannabis laws and regulations are rapidly changing. Countries are increasingly permitting access to cannabis under various decriminalization, medicalization, and legalization laws. With strong economic, public health, and social justice incentives driving these domestic cannabis policy reforms, liberalization trends are bound to continue. However, despite a large and growing body of interdisciplinary research addressing the policy‐relevant health, safety, and socioeconomic consequences of cannabis liberalization, there is a lack of robust primary and systematic research that comprehensively investigates the consequences of these reforms.ObjectivesThis evidence and gap map (EGM) summarizes the empirical evidence on cannabis liberalization policies. Primary objectives were to develop a conceptual framework linking cannabis liberalization policies to relevant outcomes, descriptively summarize the empirical evidence, and identify areas of evidence concentration and gaps.Search MethodsWe comprehensively searched for eligible English‐language empirical studies published across 23 academic databases and 11 gray literature sources through August 2020. Additions to the pool of potentially eligible studies from supplemental sources were made through November 2020.Selection CriteriaThe conceptual framework for this EGM draws upon a legal epidemiological perspective highlighting the causal effects of law and policy on population‐level outcomes. Eligible interventions include policies that create or expand access to a legal or decriminalized supply of cannabis: comprehensive medical cannabis laws (MCLs), limited medical cannabidiol laws (CBDLs), recreational cannabis laws (RCLs), industrial hemp laws (IHLs), and decriminalization of cultivations laws (DCLs). Eligible outcomes include intermediate responses (i.e., attitudes/behaviors and markets/environments) and longer‐term consequences (health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes) of these laws.Data Collection and AnalysisBoth dual screening and dual data extraction were performed with third person deconfliction. Primary studies were appraised using the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale and systematic reviews were assessed using AMSTAR 2.Main ResultsThe EGM includes 447 studies, comprising 438 primary studies and nine systematic reviews. Most research derives from the United States, with little research from other countries. By far, most cannabis liberalization research focuses on the effects of MCLs and RCLs. Studies targeting other laws—including CBDLs, IHLs, and DCLs—are relatively rare. Of the 113 distinct outcomes we documented, cannabis use was the single most frequently investigated. More than half these outcomes were addressed by three or fewer studies, highlighting substantial evidence gaps in the literature. The systematic evidence base is relatively small, comprising just seven completed reviews on cannabis use (3), opioid‐related harms (3), and alcohol‐related outcomes (1). Moreover, we have limited confidence in the reviews, as five were appraised as minimal quality and two as low quality.Authors’ ConclusionsMore primary and systematic research is needed to better understand the effects of cannabis liberalization laws on longer‐term—and arguably more salient—health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes. Since most research concerns MCLs and RCLs, there is a critical need for research on the societal impacts of industrial hemp production, medical CBD products, and decriminalized cannabis cultivation. Future research should also prioritize understanding the heterogeneous effects of these laws given differences in specific provisions and implementation across jurisdictions.

show abstract

Cannabis use and proximity to coffee shops in the Netherlands

Cited by 17 publications

References 36 publications

Distance to Cannabis Shops and Age of Onset of Cannabis Use

Distance to Cannabis Shops and Age of Onset of Cannabis Use

Housing market detections

Health, safety, and socioeconomic impacts of cannabis liberalization laws: An evidence and gap map

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About