The Impact of the Urban Neighborhood Environment on Marijuana Trajectories During Emerging Adulthood

Abstract

Although there is little difference in rates of marijuana use between White and Black youth, Blacks have significantly higher rates of marijuana use and disorder in young adulthood. Theory suggests that factors tied to social disadvantage may explain this disparity, and neighborhood setting may be a key exposure. This study sought to identify trajectories of marijuana use in an urban sample during emerging adulthood, neighborhood contexts that predict these trajectories and social role transitions or "turning points" that may redirect them. Data are from a longitudinal cohort study of 378 primarily Black emerging adults who were first sampled in childhood based on their residence in low-income neighborhoods in Baltimore City and followed up annually. Group-based trajectory modeling identified three groups: No Use (68.8%), Declining Use (19.6%), and Chronic Use (11.7%). Living in close proximity to an alcohol outlet, and living in a neighborhood with more female-headed households and higher rates of violent crime increased the odds of membership in the Chronic Use group relative to No Use. Living in a neighborhood with more positive social activity increased the odds of membership in the Declining Use group relative to No Use. Not receiving a high school diploma or GED, pregnancy, and parenting also increased the odds of membership in the Declining Use group relative to No Use. These findings provide support that minority youth living in socially toxic and disordered neighborhoods are at increased risk of continuing on a trajectory of marijuana use during emerging adulthood while positive social activity in neighborhoods has the potential to redirect these negative trajectories. Besides taking on the responsibilities of parenting, emerging adults in the marijuana user groups had similar educational and family outcomes, suggesting that early marijuana use may have long-term implications.

Marijuana Use among Adolescents and Emerging Adults in the Midst of Policy Change: Introduction to the Special Issue

“…They found that the associations were often reciprocal and more salient in some developmental periods but not in others. Reboussin et al (2019) used data from a Baltimore-based cohort study and showed that residence in neighborhoods characterized by social disorder (e.g., violence, incivilities) was associated with problematic use of marijuana in emerging adulthood, and also that living further away from alcohol outlets was protective. These studies underscore the importance of developing intervention strategies that focus on risk comprehensively, i.e., across the ecological domains in which the lives of youth are embedded, with close attention to timing of risk and developmental transitions.…”

“…There are few state-or nationally-representative datasets that allow for longitudinal assessments of marijuana use among adolescents, which limits opportunities to examine developmental changes in the midst of a dynamic legal and normative environment for marijuana use. The longitudinal studies in this special issue are geographically-limited; for example, Reboussin et al (2019) used data from a cohort of 18-21-year-olds based in one city. Add Health is a national longitudinal study that has been used extensively to study etiology of heath and health risk behaviors among US youth (see Nguyen et al 2019), but it is not well suited for research aiming to examine recent marijuana policy changes.…”

“…With this special issue, we seek to advance prevention science research on marijuana use among adolescents and emerging adults. The 10 original articles in this issue describe patterns of use among young people and provide new information about associated risk and protective factors at multiple ecological levels (Brooks-Russell et al 2019;Cavazos-Rehg et al 2019;Fairman et al 2019;Guttmannova et al 2019a;Johnson et al 2019;Mauro et al 2019;Nguyen et al 2019;Reboussin et al 2019;Thompson et al 2019;Wen et al 2019). An additional commentary describes the importance of using existing data to characterize the epidemiology of marijuana use in response to state laws (Guttmannova et al 2019b).…”

Trajectories of cannabis use and risk for opioid misuse in a young adult urban cohort

“…These factors are particularly salient in impoverished urban neighborhoods where residents may be unable to monitor activities in their neighborhoods and, as a result, drug use (both licit and illicit) may flourish promoting ease of availability as well as reinforcement of positive drug-using norms (Sampson et al, 1997). These neighborhoods also often lack the social capital to provide positive experiences for youth which can result in the formation of deviant peer groups where values conducive to drug use can arise and spread (Dishion et al, 1999;Patterson et al, 1992). In addition, early use of alcohol and tobacco may provide a surrogate both for availability of drugs and exposure to positive drug -taking norms, as well as a possible 'common liability' to use other drugs and may, thus, be important to consider in relation to cannabis use trajectories, as well as opioid misuse (Degenhardt et al, 2009;Palmer et al, 2009).…”

Polygenic and environmental influences on the course of African Americans’ alcohol use from early adolescence through young adulthood

“…Community disadvantage as assessed via census data has been extensively used in the literature, with higher levels of disadvantage significantly associated with increased marijuana use offers and heavy marijuana use (Reboussin et al, 2015). In addition, higher levels of community disadvantage have been associated with a greater concentration of alcohol outlets (e.g., Furr Holden et al, 2018;Milam et al, 2014), which have been linked to higher levels of violent crime, decreased life expectancy, and increased substance use (Furr-Holden et al, 2018;Jennings et al, 2013;Reboussin et al, 2018). Using ArcMap, a spatial join (appends data from two map layers using geographic location) was conducted to determine the census tract for each participant.…”