Adolescents and Marijuana: Post Colorado 1

Adolescents and Marijuana: Post Colorado

Adolescents and Marijuana: Post Colorado 2

Introduction

Marijuana legislation has been a rollercoaster since the 20th century. Prior to the early part

of the 20th century, the use of marijuana was seen by the United States as a therapeutic medicine

used in different cultures (Burnett, M., Reiman, A., 2014). Since 1937, the use of marijuana is

now seen as a criminal act throughout the United States (Burnett, M. et al, 2014). However,

recent state legislations have taken a turn in allowing this substance to be used for medicinal and

recreational use. Since California first unlocked the drug for its medicinal use in 1994, marijuana

has become medicinally legalized in over 25 states and recreationally legalized in nine (Trumble,

S., 2014). With new state legislations happening almost every year, one concern is the potential

for adolescents to gain easier access to the drug. With marijuana policies changing across the

United States, one might think it would become easier for the youth to possess marijuana

compared to the youth of prior decades.

While past research on this topic has only focused on the use of marijuana, these studies

actually show a steady decline among adolescents from 2002 to 2015 (Salas-Wright, C. P., Oh,

S., Goings, T. C., Vaughn, M. G., 2017, pg. 771). During the timeline of the studies, recreational

cannabis, beginning in 2012, was legalized in Colorado, Washington, Washington D.C., Oregon,

and Alaska (Trumble, S., 2014). National epidemiologic studies, such as Monitoring the Future

(MTF), the National Survey on Drug Use & Health (NSDUH), as well as the Youth Risk

Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) all show a steady decline of marijuana during this time

period (Salas-Wright et al., 2017, pg. 771). With these surveys in mind, Salas-Wright and his

colleagues aim to answer if there has also been a decline in perceived access to marijuana among

adolescents since 2002.

Adolescents and Marijuana: Post Colorado 3

Review

To answer this question, researchers Cristopher Salas-Wright, Sehun Oh, Trenette

Goings, and Michael Vaughn published the article Trends in Perceived Access to Marijuana

Among Adolescents in the United States: 2002–2015. In this article, these researchers studied the

same data that was used in the NSDUH surveys. These are annual surveys on drug use among

adolescents for organizations and researchers alike to study. (Salas-Wright et al., 2017, pg. 772).

These surveys represent adolescents between the ages of 12-17 in all 50 states, with 220,693

total individuals participating over the course of the thirteen years (Salas-Wright et al., 2017, pg.

772). In these surveys, the researchers analyzed each individual’s answers to different questions

about their environment and how these answers correlate with perceived very easy access to

marijuana. These questions consisted of marijuana access itself, intrapersonal factors, parental

factors, school-related factors, substance use, delinquency, and socio-demographic factors

(Salas-Wright et al., 2017, pg. 773).

To measure perceived marijuana access they used one question from the survey: “How

difficult or easy would it be for you to get some marijuana, if you wanted some?” (Salas-Wright

et al., 2017, pg. 773). The response options ranged from 1-5, with 1 being probably impossible, 3

being fairly difficult, and 5 being very easy (Salas-Wright et al., 2017, pg. 3). In the timeframe of

2002-2015, probably impossible responses rose 6%, while very easy responses decreased 8%.

Response options 2, 3, and 4 had changes all below 2% (Salas-Wright et al., 2017, pg. 774).

Intrapersonal factors included risk propensity, religiosity, marijuana-specific attitudes,

and marijuana risk perception. All were ordinally based on a scale of 1 – 4 with 1 being a high

level and 4 being a low level (Salas-Wright et al., 2017, pg. 773). Perceived very easy access was
Adolescents and Marijuana: Post Colorado 4

associated with individuals with higher levels of risk propensity, lower levels of religiosity,

higher levels of marijuana approval, and lower levels of marijuana risk perception (Salas-Wright

et al., 2017, pg. 775-776).

Parental factors included parental affirmation and parental conflict. These were also

ordinally based on a scale of 1-4 with 1 being low parental affirmation and little conflict, and 4

being high parental affirmation and high conflict. (Salas-Wright et al., 2017, pg. 773). Perceived

very easy access in this case was associated with individuals who had a lower level of parental

affirmation and a higher level of parental conflict (Salas-Wright et al., 2017, pg. 776).

School-related factors included academic engagement, academic difficulty, and

perceived school-peer marijuana use. Academic engagement used a scale of 1 – 5, with 1 being

low and 5 being high. Academic difficulty used their average grades of the last semester, and the

response options were 1(A average) 2 (B average) 3 (C average) 4 (D or F-average). Perceived

school-peer marijuana used response options that ranged from 1 (none of them) to 3 (most/all of

them) (Salas-Wright et al., 2017, pg. 773). Those who perceived very easy access had lower

levels of academic engagement, were more likely to present poor grades, and were also more

likely to perceive school-peer marijuana use (Salas-Wright et al., 2017, pg. 776).

Substance use and Delinquency. To measure substance use, they examined past-12-month

use on a scale of 0-1, with 0 equaling no use and 1 equaling one or more instances of use of

tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana (Salas-Wright et al., 2017, pg. 773). Delinquency measurements

used self-reports of past-year involvement in school fights, as well as reports of having been

arrested for a crime in the past year (Salas-Wright et al., 2017, pg. 773). Those who perceived

very easy access to marijuana were much more likely to use the listed substances, as well as be

involved in school fights/crime (Salas-Wright et al., 2017, pg. 776).

Adolescents and Marijuana: Post Colorado 5

Sociodemographic factors included age, gender, race/ethnicity, and annual household

income (Salas-Wright et al., 2017, pg. 773). In all sociodemographic factors, there was a

significant drop in the percentage of individuals who perceived very easy access to marijuana,

from 30% to 20%. Also, no one sociodemographic factor was directly or indirectly related to

perceived very easy access to marijuana.

To conclude the article’s results, the study shows that perceived access to marijuana has

dropped considerably among adolescents. The proportion of youth reporting of perceived very

easy access to marijuana decreased from 30.1% in 2002 to 22.1% in 2015. The proportion of

adolescents reporting that it would be probably impossible to obtain marijuana increased from

17.6% in 2002 to 24.1% in 2015. The two proportions of adolescents that did not report a

decrease in perceived very easy access to marijuana were those who reported past involvement in

the criminal justice system as well as those who reported use of tobacco. No differences were

found among the proportion of youth reporting that it would be fairly easy, fairly difficult, or

very difficult to obtain marijuana.

Discussion

Salas-Wright and his colleagues research matched what was found in the previous

surveys. They found that perceived access to marijuana has become less easy and more difficult,

which matches these surveys’ claims of decreased marijuana use. Another article with similar

results is Prevalence of marijuana and other substance use before and after Washington State's

change from legal medical marijuana to legal medical and nonmedical marijuana: Cohort

comparisons in a sample of adolescents written by W. Alex Mason, Charles B Fleming, Jay L.

Ringle, Koren Hanson, Thomas J. Gross, and Kevin P. Haggerty. In their study, they focused

specifically on Washington State’s new legislation of marijuana and its effects on adolescent’s
Adolescents and Marijuana: Post Colorado 6

use of the drug (2016, pg. 330-331). They claim that there has not been an increase nor decrease

in marijuana use among Washington’s youth before and after the state’s new legislation. (2016,

pg. 334). However, unlike Salas-Wright et al.’s claims, W. Alex Mason and his colleagues

believe that these results are inconclusive due to the pre-maturity of the subject. Since 2015,

recreational cannabis is now legal in 5 more states, and medical marijuana in 5 more states

(Trumble, S., 2014). Marijuana is expanding rapidly, and Mason et al. believe current studies are

too young to capture the conclusive effect it has had on adolescents (Mason, W. A., Fleming, C.

B., Ringle, J. L., Hanson, K., Gross, T. J., & Haggerty, K. P., 2016, pg. 334).

Another study, a meta-analysis consisting of 11 different studies of marijuana use among

adolescents, found that marijuana use has not increased since the new legislation (Sarvet, A.,

Wall, M., Fink, D., Greene, E., Le, A., Boustead, A., Hasin, D., 2017, pg. 1010-1012). Their

research consisted of data from the 1990’s all the way to 2014. Like Mason et al. though, Aaron

L. Sarvet and his team suggest that more research should be done among adolescent behavior.

They believe that the impact of the rapidly changing legislation on marijuana will lead to

increased use among adolescents due to the rapid commercialization of the drug (2017, pg.

1013).

One study that has shown effects of the new marijuana legislation is the article Impact of

Marijuana Legalization in Colorado on Adolescent Emergency and Urgent Care Visits. Here,

George Sam Wang and his colleagues study adolescents’ misperceptions of the danger of

marijuana. Between 2005 and 2015, Wang, G.S. et al. claim that marijuana-related emergency

room visits have increased from 1.8 per 1,000 visits to 4.9 per 1,000 visits in Colorado (2018, pg.

239). This seems to be an occurring trend, as the Drug Abuse Warning Network also reported a

significant increase of 61% of marijuana-related emergency room visits (Wang, G. S., Davies, S.
Adolescents and Marijuana: Post Colorado 7

D., Halmo, L. S., Sass, A., & Mistry, R. D., 2018, pg. 239). A differing opinion than Sarvet et al.

and Mason et al.’s, George Sam Weng and his colleagues believe that with the new marijuana

legislation, there should be an emphasis on educating the public about the potential dangers of

misusing the drug (Wang G.S. et al, 2018, pg. 240-241). Although no one has ever overdosed

fatally on marijuana, it is common for people to miscalculate the correct dosage thus leading to

potential accidents and injuries (Wang G.S. et al, 2018, pg. 240-241).

Conclusion

In conclusion, these results are inconclusive. Studies show that these new marijuana

policies have had a positive effect, no effect, and a negative effect on adolescent’s behavior

related to the drug. In Wang, G. S.’ study, data was inconsistent with the other studies. They

used factual based data, instead of the survey-based data that was used for almost all other

studies. This study was also the only one of the bunch that showed negative consequences

associated with the legalization of marijuana. This may be perhaps, because instead of self-

reporting from individuals, they used actual data retrieved from medical facilities. Perhaps future

studies should configure their own local population and extract that data, instead of using data

from previous studies or nationwide surveys.

Like many of the articles here stated, studies in the current decade are proving to be too

premature for this subject. With new marijuana legislation occurring almost every election year,

a 2015 study on this subject will prove to be irrelevant in the long run. As more and more states

progress towards changing marijuana policies, more and more data can be configured. Just as

Mason et al. and Sarvet et al. proposed, I believe future studies will be where the conclusion lies.
Adolescents and Marijuana: Post Colorado 8

References

M Burnett, A Reiman. (2014, October 8). How Did Marijuana Become Illegal in the First Place.

Retrieved from http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/how-did-marijuana-become-illegal-first-

place

Mason, W. A., Fleming, C. B., Ringle, J. L., Hanson, K., Gross, T. J., & Haggerty, K. P. (2016).

Prevalence of marijuana and other substance use before and after Washington State’s

change from legal medical marijuana to legal medical and nonmedical marijuana: Cohort

comparisons in a sample of adolescents. Substance Abuse, 37(2), 330–335. https://doi-

org.mutex.gmu.edu/10.1080/08897077.2015.1071723

Salas-Wright, C. P., Oh, S., Goings, T. C., & Vaughn, M. G. (2017). Trends in Perceived Access

to Marijuana Among Adolescents in the United States: 2002–2015. Journal of Studies on

Alcohol and Drugs, 78(5), 771–780. http://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2017.78.771

Sarvet, A., Wall, M., Fink, D., Greene, E., Le, A., Boustead, A., Hasin, D. (2017). Medical

marijuana laws and adolescent marijuana use in the United States: a systematic review

and meta‐analysis. Addiction. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14136

S Trumble. (2017, April 19). Timeline of State Marijuana Legalization Laws. Retrieved from

https://www.thirdway.org/infographic/timeline-of-state-marijuana-legalization-laws
Adolescents and Marijuana: Post Colorado 9

Turner, C. F., Ku, L., Rogers, S. M., Lindberg, L. D., Pleck, J. H., & Sonen- stein, F. L. (1998).

Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer

survey technology. Science, 280, 867–873. doi:10.1126/science.280.5365.867

Wang, G. S., Davies, S. D., Halmo, L. S., Sass, A., & Mistry, R. D. (2018). Impact of Marijuana

Legalization in Colorado on Adolescent Emergency and Urgent Care Visits. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 63(2), 239–241. https://doi-

org.mutex.gmu.edu/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.12.010