Changes in driver cannabinoid prevalence in 12 U.S. states after implementing medical marijuana laws

Masten, Scott V.; Guenzburger, Gloriam Vanine

doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2014.03.009

Cited by 48 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In sum, while inconsistencies in findings are prevalent, quite a few studies that have examined the passage of CTP legalization have concluded that CTP legalization is unrelated to subsequent changes in cannabis use in the general population (Choo et al, 2014;Harper et al, 2012;Khatapoush & Hallfors, 2004;Lynne-Landsman et al, 2013;Masten & Guenzburger, 2014). This is in contrast to two studies that have found a negative relation (Choo et al, 2014;Harper et al, 2012) and two studies that have found a positive relation Schuermeyer et al, 2014).…”

Section: Ctp and Illegal Cannabis Usementioning

confidence: 81%

“…The authors noted that the results are consistent with the hypothesis that legalizing CTP leads to increased cannabis use, which in turn helps more individuals to cope with stressful life events. However, this is not strongly supported by the literature reviewed in the above section where quite a few studies focusing on state CTP legalization failed to find support for the hypothesis that legalization increases use of cannabis (Choo et al, 2014;Harper et al, 2012;Khatapoush & Hallfors, 2004;LynneLandsman et al, 2013;Masten & Guenzburger, 2014). However, if increased cannabis use after CTP legalization is confined to a small proportion of people with mental health problems, it is possible that previous studies that examine the general population lack sensitivity to capture this effect (see Table 2 for an overview of populations included in studies).…”

Section: Ctp and Other Public Health Issuesmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Of the eight studies that used a pre-post design and have looked at the relation between CTP and illegal cannabis use in the general non-risk population, five studies have found CTP legalization to be unrelated to a subsequent increase in illegal cannabis use (Choo et al, 2014;Harper et al, 2012;Khatapoush & Hallfors, 2004;LynneLandsman, Livingston, & Wagenaar, 2013;Masten & Guenzburger, 2014). One of these studies also found it unrelated to changes in perceived risk of cannabis use (Harper et al, 2012).…”

Section: Ctp and Illegal Cannabis Usementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another major concern, is that CTP legalization may increase illegal cannabis use in the general population (Gorman & Huber, 2007;Joy et al, 1999;NIDA, 2014;The A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t 22 Seattle Times, 2011); yet various studies fail to find evidence to support this (Choo et al, 2014;Harper et al, 2012;Khatapoush & Hallfors, 2004;Lynne-Landsman et al, 2013;Masten & Guenzburger, 2014). Two studies have, however, found an association between CTP legalization and subsequent increases in illegal cannabis use in the general population Schuermeyer et al, 2014).…”

Section: Absence Of Evidence and Lessons Learnt From Other Research Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is, for instance, evident in studies that find an association between CTP legalization and changes in crime rates, alcohol use, and suicide. In these studies it remains unclear how CTP legalization may cause the observed changes, especially in light of previous studies that fail to find evidence that CTP legalization causes changes in cannabis use in the general population (Choo et al, 2014;Harper et al, 2012;Khatapoush & Hallfors, 2004;Lynne-Landsman et al, 2013;Masten & Guenzburger, 2014).…”

Section: Limitations Related To Data and Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Cannabis for Therapeutic Purposes and public health and safety: A systematic and critical review

Sznitman

Zolotov

2015

International Journal of Drug Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Ctp and Illegal Cannabis Usementioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Ctp and Other Public Health Issuesmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Ctp and Illegal Cannabis Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Absence Of Evidence and Lessons Learnt From Other Research Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitations Related To Data and Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Cannabis for Therapeutic Purposes and public health and safety: A systematic and critical review

Sznitman

Zolotov

2015

International Journal of Drug Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Goel,

Tiwari,

Varghese

et al. 2024

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRoad Traffic injuries (RTI) are among the top ten leading causes of death in the world resulting in 1.35 million deaths every year, about 93% of which occur in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Despite several global resolutions to reduce traffic injuries, they have continued to grow in many countries. Many high‐income countries have successfully reduced RTI by using a public health approach and implementing evidence‐based interventions. As many LMICs develop their highway infrastructure, adopting a similar scientific approach towards road safety is crucial. The evidence also needs to be evaluated to assess external validity because measures that have worked in high‐income countries may not translate equally well to other contexts. An evidence gap map for RTI is the first step towards understanding what evidence is available, from where, and the key gaps in knowledge.ObjectivesThe objective of this evidence gap map (EGM) is to identify existing evidence from all effectiveness studies and systematic reviews related to road safety interventions. In addition, the EGM identifies gaps in evidence where new primary studies and systematic reviews could add value. This will help direct future research and discussions based on systematic evidence towards the approaches and interventions which are most effective in the road safety sector. This could enable the generation of evidence for informing policy at global, regional or national levels.Search MethodsThe EGM includes systematic reviews and impact evaluations assessing the effect of interventions for RTI reported in academic databases, organization websites, and grey literature sources. The studies were searched up to December 2019.Selection CriteriaThe interventions were divided into five broad categories: (a) human factors (e.g., enforcement or road user education), (b) road design, infrastructure and traffic control, (c) legal and institutional framework, (d) post‐crash pre‐hospital care, and (e) vehicle factors (except car design for occupant protection) and protective devices. Included studies reported two primary outcomes: fatal crashes and non‐fatal injury crashes; and four intermediate outcomes: change in use of seat belts, change in use of helmets, change in speed, and change in alcohol/drug use. Studies were excluded if they did not report injury or fatality as one of the outcomes.Data Collection and AnalysisThe EGM is presented in the form of a matrix with two primary dimensions: interventions (rows) and outcomes (columns). Additional dimensions are country income groups, region, quality level for systematic reviews, type of study design used (e.g., case‐control), type of road user studied (e.g., pedestrian, cyclists), age groups, and road type. The EGM is available online where the matrix of interventions and outcomes can be filtered by one or more dimensions. The webpage includes a bibliography of the selected studies and titles and abstracts available for preview. Quality appraisal for systematic reviews was conducted using a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews, AMSTAR 2.Main ResultsThe EGM identified 1859 studies of which 322 were systematic reviews, 7 were protocol studies and 1530 were impact evaluations. Some studies included more than one intervention, outcome, study method, or study region. The studies were distributed among intervention categories as: human factors (n = 771), road design, infrastructure and traffic control (n = 661), legal and institutional framework (n = 424), post‐crash pre‐hospital care (n = 118) and vehicle factors and protective devices (n = 111). Fatal crashes as outcomes were reported in 1414 records and non‐fatal injury crashes in 1252 records. Among the four intermediate outcomes, speed was most commonly reported (n = 298) followed by alcohol (n = 206), use of seatbelts (n = 167), and use of helmets (n = 66). Ninety‐six percent of the studies were reported from high‐income countries (HIC), 4.5% from upper‐middle‐income countries, and only 1.4% from lower‐middle and low‐income countries. There were 25 systematic reviews of high quality, 4 of moderate quality, and 293 of low quality.Authors' ConclusionsThe EGM shows that the distribution of available road safety evidence is skewed across the world. A vast majority of the literature is from HICs. In contrast, only a small fraction of the literature reports on the many LMICs that are fast expanding their road infrastructure, experiencing rapid changes in traffic patterns, and witnessing growth in road injuries. This bias in literature explains why many interventions that are of high importance in the context of LMICs remain poorly studied. Besides, many interventions that have been tested only in HICs may not work equally effectively in LMICs. Another important finding was that a large majority of systematic reviews are of low quality. The scarcity of evidence on many important interventions and lack of good quality evidence‐synthesis have significant implications for future road safety research and practice in LMICs. The EGM presented here will help identify priority areas for researchers, while directing practitioners and policy makers towards proven interventions.

show abstract

Changes in driver cannabinoid prevalence in 12 U.S. states after implementing medical marijuana laws

Cited by 48 publications

References 8 publications

Cannabis for Therapeutic Purposes and public health and safety: A systematic and critical review

Cannabis for Therapeutic Purposes and public health and safety: A systematic and critical review

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

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About