Do Medical Marijuana Laws Increase Hard-Drug Use?

Chu, Yu-Wei Luke

doi:10.1086/684043

Cited by 84 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Chu uses administrative data and shows that MML passage leads to a 10% to 20% increase in arrests for marijuana-related possession and substance abuse treatment admissions (Chu, 2014(Chu, , 2015. Pacula et al (2015) show that passage of an MML leads to a 14% reduction in marijuana-related substance abuse treatment admissions using the same dataset as Chu (2014) and no change in self-reported marijuana use among a sample of young adults in the National Survey of Youth 1997.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Marijuana legalization and disability claiming

MacLean

Ghimire

Nicholas

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study the effect of state medical marijuana laws (MMLs) on Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Workers' Compensation (WC) claiming among working age adults. We use data on benet claiming drawn from the 1990 to 2013 Current Population Survey coupled with a differences-in-differences design to study this question. We nd that passage of an MML increases SSDI claiming. Post-MML the propensity to claim SSDI increases by 0.31 percentage points, which translates to 11.3% relative to SSDI claiming propensity in our sample (2.7%). Point estimates for WC are imprecise.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Marijuana legalization and disability claiming

MacLean

Ghimire

Nicholas

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Turning rst to demand, Pacula et al (forthcoming) nd that MML lead to an increase in self-reported use of marijuana. Chu (2012) shows there is a positive relationship between MML and marijuana-related arrests, indicating that when MML are in place, illegal demand for marijuana increases. Although we are not aware of a similar study in the US, Walsh et al (2013) shows that MML in Canada also substantially increase the demand for (legal) medical marijuana.…”

Section: Legal Impact Of MMLmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Anderson et al, 2013;Chu, 2012Chu, , 2013Pacula et al, forthcoming;Morris et al, 2014;Alford, 2014). Most related to our study are Morris et al (2014), and Alford (2014) which investigate the relationship between MML and crime.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…DeSimone, 1998;Ramful and Zhao, 2009), while others nd no eect (e.g. Van Ours, 2003;Morral et al, 2002;Chu, 2013), and some even indicating that marijuana is a substitute to the consumption of other drugs(e.g. Model, 1993).…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Model, 1993). Chu (2013) uses MML to test the gateway drug hypothesis and nds no signicant eect of MML on the arrests for possession of other drugs. Moreover, using substance treatment admission data, he rather nds that MML may decrease heroin treatment admissions.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations? The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on US Crime

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the eect of medical marijuana laws (MML) on crime treating the introduction of MML as a quasi-experiment and using three dierent data sources. First, using data from the Uniform Crime Reports, we nd that violent crimes such as homicides and robberies decrease in states that border Mexico after MML are introduced. Second, using Supplementary Homicide Reports' data we show that for homicides the decrease is the result of a drop in drug-law and juvenile-gang related homicides. Lastly, using STRIDE data, we show that the introduction of MML in Mexican border states decreases the amount of cocaine seized, while it increases the price of cocaine. Our results are consistent with the theory that decriminalization of small-scale production and distribution of marijuana harms Mexican drug tracking organizations, whose revenues are highly reliant on marijuana sales. The drop in drug-related crimes suggests that the introduction of MML in Mexican border states lead to a decrease in their activity in those states. Our results survive a large variety of robustness checks. Extrapolating from our results, this indicates that decriminalization of the production and distribution of drugs may lead to a drop in violence in markets where organized crime is pushed out by licit competition. * Michael Braun, the former chief of operations for the D.E.A., told me a story about the construction of a high-tech fence along a stretch of border in Arizona. "They erect this fence," he said, "only to go out there a few days later and discover that these guys have a catapult, and they're inging hundred-pound bales of marijuana over to the other side." He paused and looked at me for a second. "A catapult," he repeated. "We've got the best fence money can buy, and they counter us with a 2,500-year-old technology." New York Times, Keefe (2012)

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

Do Medical Marijuana Laws Increase Hard-Drug Use?

Cited by 84 publications

References 68 publications

Marijuana legalization and disability claiming

Marijuana legalization and disability claiming

Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations? The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on US Crime

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About