Federalism, Partial Prohibition, and Cross-Border Sales: Evidence from Recreational Marijuana

Hansen, Benjamin; Miller, Keaton; Weber, Caroline

doi:10.3386/w23762

Cited by 19 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Though these data are only publicly available at the state (and not county) level, it provides some evidence that increases in marijuana use and marijuana possession likely drove at least part of the increase in arrests. Consistent with our state‐level marijuana use results, Hansen, Miller, and Weber () conclude that a substantial amount of marijuana sold in Washington was trafficked out of the state before Oregon legalized recreational marijuana.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 81%

The Cross‐border Spillover Effects of Recreational Marijuana Legalization

Hao

Cowan

2019

Economic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the spillover effects of recreational marijuana legalization (RML) in Colorado and Washington on neighboring states. We find that RML causes a sharp increase in marijuana possession arrests in border counties of neighboring states relative to nonborder counties in these states. RML has no impact on juvenile marijuana possession arrests but is rather fully concentrated among adults. We find mixed results regarding the source(s) of this change. Using separate data on self‐reported marijuana use, we show that RML is accompanied by an increase in use in neighboring states relative to non‐neighboring states. However, the increase in arrests following RML is highly concentrated in a few states, which we argue is more consistent with a change in police enforcement near some state borders driving the arrest results. (JEL I12, I18, K14)

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 81%

The Cross‐border Spillover Effects of Recreational Marijuana Legalization

Hao

Cowan

2019

Economic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our primary specifications allow all states other than Washington and Colorado to enter the synthetic control . However, legalization in one state may lead to substantial spillover effects in bordering states due to the opportunity for trafficking (Hansen, Miller, and Weber ). In the second panel of Tables we replicate the analyses of Tables while excluding any states that share a border with any state that legalized recreational marijuana prior to the end of the post period.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…And, while Oregon might seem like a natural counterfactual for Washington, Oregon legalized shortly after Washington. Furthermore, recent evidence from Hansen, Miller, and Weber () suggests inter‐state spillovers would prevent nearby states from serving as reasonable control groups.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contemporaneous trends in the state‐level price of, and demand for, intoxicating substances make it difficult to find a clean event study. Achieving identification with a differences‐in‐differences approach is hampered by state‐level variation in reporting practices, regional‐level variation in preferences for substance consumption, and spillover effects of legalization efforts (Hansen, Miller, and Weber )—all of which make choosing an appropriate control group a priori difficult (Romano et al ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another key priority was “preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states.” Hansen, Miller, and Weber () study this issue by examining the change in sales along the Washington‐Oregon border when Oregon's market opened, and conclude that roughly 7% of marijuana grown in Washington was sold to out‐of‐state purchasers before Oregon's retailers opened. For this reason, we omit Oregon from the list of states eligible for inclusion in our synthetic control groups.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Early Evidence on Recreational Marijuana Legalization and Traffic Fatalities

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last few years, marijuana has become legally available for recreational use to roughly a quarter of Americans. Policy makers have long expressed concerns about the substantial external costs of alcohol, and similar costs could come with the liberalization of marijuana policy. Indeed, the fraction of fatal accidents in which at least one driver tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol has increased nationwide by an average of 10% from 2013 to 2016. For Colorado and Washington, both of which legalized marijuana in 2014, these increases were 92% and 28%, respectively. However, identifying a causal effect is difficult due to the presence of significant confounding factors. We test for a causal effect of marijuana legalization on traffic fatalities in Colorado and Washington with a synthetic control approach using records on fatal traffic accidents from 2000 to 2016. We find the synthetic control groups saw similar changes in marijuana‐related, alcohol‐related, and overall traffic fatality rates despite not legalizing recreational marijuana. (JEL K42, I12, I18)

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

Federalism, Partial Prohibition, and Cross-Border Sales: Evidence from Recreational Marijuana

Cited by 19 publications

References 10 publications

The Cross‐border Spillover Effects of Recreational Marijuana Legalization

The Cross‐border Spillover Effects of Recreational Marijuana Legalization

Early Evidence on Recreational Marijuana Legalization and Traffic Fatalities

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About