Is there something going on in the City of Angels we don’t know about? Three separate new studies out this month investigate the association between the prevalence of medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles County and marijuana use among teens and young adults. Their findings, however, are mixed.
As more states legalize marijuana use, local lawmakers have to decide whether they will allow dispensaries to open in their jurisdictions. A common argument from opponents is that the proximity to cannabis will negatively impact the communities in which these establishments reside. For example, many believe rates of crime and violence will rise, while supporters point out that cannabis businesses can fill otherwise-empty storefronts and usually have security guards and surveillance cameras on site that can deter crime at neighboring properties.
Another big concern for policymakers is whether high schoolers will be more likely to consume marijuana or use it more frequently because a dispensary is nearby or whether moving cannabis commerce into regulated establishments that ask for ID can actually dissuade youth consumption.
That’s what the new studies attempt to shed light on.
The first study, the dissertation of a doctoral student in the University of California Los Angeles School of Public Health, aimed to understand whether city ordinances that place restrictions on dispensaries or ban them altogether play a role in preventing high school students from consuming marijuana. Using a cross-sectional analysis with data from 57 L.A. County cities during the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 school years, study author Catherine Branson found that cities that banned marijuana dispensaries did not have lower rates of marijuana use among students.
“Neither dispensary bans nor the number of dispensaries in a city (normalized by population to a rate of dispensaries per 10,000 city residents) were associated with student marijuana use in cross sectional analyses comparing the prevalence of student marijuana use across 57 cities in LA County,” she found.
Rather, Branson writes, having strict rules in place for licensure for these businesses, as well as where they’re located, offers the “most potent effects on student marijuana use.”
“In this study, students’ marijuana use was more strongly associated with the proximity of the nearest unlicensed dispensary to their school and the density of dispensaries within a several blocks from their school. These localized effects highlight the importance of enforcing city regulations that restrict dispensaries from operating near schools, whether those regulations are minimum distance requirements or policies that ban dispensaries altogether.”
She continued, “Furthermore, that localized effects were noted only for unlicensed outlets and not for licensed dispensaries indicates that enforcing existing ordinances by closing unlicensed outlets near schools could be an excellent first step for cities looking to prevent marijuana use among their students.”
Another study, this one published in the journal Addiction, focused on how the growing number of medical cannabis dispensaries in L.A. County is related to frequency of use for young adults living nearby. Researchers surveyed 1,887 people between the ages of 18-22 and asked them questions about marijuana consumption in the past month, including how many times they used per day. They also calculated the density of medical marijuana dispensaries around respondents’ homes.
According to the study‘s findings, 84 percent of participants reported living within four miles of at least 10 medical cannabis storefronts. As such, researchers found those who lived in a neighborhood with a higher concentration of dispensaries had consumed more marijuana in the past 30 days than those who did not. Interestingly, the study also pointed to storefront marijuana signage as a potential factor.
“For [medical marijuana dispensaries, or MMDs] with marijuana signage,” the authors write, “after adding [medical marijuana] card status, associations between density of MMDs with signage and positive expectancies and times used in a day remained statistically significant, and the magnitude of associations was four times as large for number of times used in a day, and five times as large for positive expectancies compared to total MMD count.”
Alternatively, a third recent study, published in Substance Use & Misuse, found that the density of medical dispensaries in L.A. did not actually affect current use among young people. The parameters they utilized, however, were different from the aforementioned work.
The authors interviewed 329 young adults ages 18-26 in 2014-2015. To determine frequency, researchers asked participants how many days they’d used marijuana in the past 90 days, as well as how many hits they typically did per day. They also identified more than 400 operational medical marijuana dispensaries within the city and calculated the density per population for each ZIP code area.
Their analysis found that the “density of medical marijuana dispensaries per square mile in Los Angeles ZIP code areas was not associated with” how often people—whether they were medical marijuana patients or not—toked in the past three months. These results support other studies that have found no relationship between proximity to medical marijuana establishments and use.
“Based upon these results,” the new study‘s authors speculate, “one could infer that the arrival of new marijuana dispensaries into neighborhoods and subsequent concentration of dispensaries in particular locations will not impact use of marijuana use among current marijuana users who live in areas with the greatest density of dispensaries—including those who cannot legally purchase marijuana from nearby dispensaries.”
Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash
President Influences Public Opinion On Marijuana Legalization, Study Finds
When it comes to how Americans view marijuana legalization, the person sitting in the Oval Office makes a difference, a new study reports.
“Findings indicate that confidence in the executive branch, fear of crime, and presidential drug rhetoric predict attitudes toward legalization despite controls for other factors such as estimated levels of marijuana use and arrests,” the paper states. The findings were published last month in the journal Deviant Behavior.
It’s probably not news to anyone that the president of the United States has the power to sway public opinion—they are, after all, the most powerful person in the country and a great deal of attention is paid to messaging coming out of the White House. Like the mainstream media, POTUS can therefore help shape attitudes about marijuana and other drugs.
Researchers at Kennesaw State University and Old Dominion University, however, were interested to know just how much influence a president may have, especially when it comes to how the general public views cannabis policy.
For their analysis, the study’s authors used data from the General Social Survey spanning 1972–2016 to gauge Americans’ opinions on legalizing cannabis. They also reviewed reports on estimated marijuana use as well as related arrests. To get a sense of how often presidents talked about cannabis and illicit drugs during the study period, they looked at public presidential documents, including State of the Union (SOTU) addresses and other speeches, messages and executive orders.
The study’s authors worked with several variables and control measures, and chose to conduct a multi-level model analysis in order to consider changing contexts over time. Here’s some of what they found:
- The year 2014 was a turning point for how Americans viewed marijuana legalization. For the first time since 1975, more people that year supported ending prohibition than those who didn’t.
- How much the president talks about marijuana and other drugs matters. The study found that “each annual percent increase in SOTU words about drugs predicts a decreased odds of favoring legalization of about 6%.” Also, an increase in drug-related presidential documents led to a small decrease in favor of legalization, though the number of cannabis-related documents were not as influential.
- When more people expressed having confidence in the executive branch, the odds of their supporting legalization fell about 29 percent compared to people who said they had “hardly any confidence” in the White House.
- The crack-cocaine drug panic of the late 1980s—which other researchers say was created by President Ronald Reagan’s anti-drug rhetoric—impacted how people felt about marijuana legalization: The odds of the public favoring legalization decreased by about 27 percent then compared to the other time periods.
- As more people reported consuming cannabis, the odds of supporting legalization also increased. “For every percent increase in aggregate marijuana use, the models predict a five percent increased odds of favoring marijuana legalization,” the study states.
- Political party matters. “Specifically, the model illustrates that when a Republican president is in office, each increase in confidence leads to decreased odds of favoring legalization of approximately 36%. However, when a Democratic president is in office the decreased odds of favoring legalization is reduced to 24%.”
Researchers also found that fear of crime was found to be positively associated with legalization. As they explain it, if two persons with the same individual level fear of crime are located in two different states, the respondent in the state with higher mean fear of crime will have a 52% increased odds of favoring legalization per unit increase in the mean fear of crime compared to the individual in the state with lower mean fear of crime.”
It’s possible, they added, that people have begun to question some of the fear-mongering associated with marijuana.
“While attitudes toward legalization of marijuana have varied greatly over time, so has presidential rhetoric about marijuana and drugs,” the study’s authors wrote. “The lowest support for legalization is consistently found during President Reagan’s Just Say No era. However, beginning around the election of President Clinton, a steady increase in attitudes favoring legalization…is observed. This project supports the hypothesis that presidential drug rhetoric is related to public opinion about drugs, and more specifically, about marijuana.”
As for the current occupant in the White House, President Trump has maintained that his administration will leave marijuana policy for states to decide.
Photo courtesy of Rick Proctor.
Legal Marijuana Is A ‘Positive Amenity’ For New Colorado Residents, Study Finds
Many people consider a number of factors before deciding to move to a new state, including the availability of jobs, the quality of schools and the cost of living, among other things. In recent years, another amenity that may attract new residents to a state, according to a recent study, is access to legal marijuana.
Specifically, researchers focused on the number of people who migrated to Colorado before and after legalization as compared with a model of what the state would look like under continued prohibition.
“We find strong evidence,” the paper states, “that potential migrants view legalized marijuana as a positive amenity with in-migration significantly higher in Colorado compared with synthetic-Colorado after the writing of the [Department of Justice] memo in October 2009 that effectively allowed state laws already in place to be activated, and additionally after marijuana was legalized in 2013 for recreational use.”
The findings, which were published in the journal Economic Inquiry last month, are “consistent with most previous research that has in general found positive effects of legalization, such as reductions in youth suicide, traffic accidents and crime.”
Researchers in Spain and Italy used data from the American Community Survey to track how many people moved within the United States, including where they lived originally and where they migrated. To understand how local laws may help entice newcomers to an area, they focused primarily on Colorado, which legalized medical cannabis in 2000 and adult-use marijuana in 2012. For comparison purposes, they created a “synthetic Colorado” using data from 20 states where marijuana was still illegal in 2017 with a goal of creating a synthetic model of a Colorado that had not legalized marijuana.
Because legal access to medical cannabis was not widely available until after 2009—the year the Obama Department of Justice issued guidelines that made enforcement of federal law a low priority for individuals operating in compliance with state medical cannabis laws—the study’s authors focused on the years 2010–2015 as the treatment period in their analysis. They compared migration numbers for 2005–2009 as the pretreatment period.
“From 2005 to 2009, on average, 187,600 people migrated to Colorado in each year,” the study states. “Between 2010 and 2013, in-migration increased by 21,372 people per year (a 11.4% increase) in Colorado compared with synthetic-Colorado. After full legalization in 2013, in-migration further increased by 14,087 people per year (an additional 7.5% increase).”
“When we employ permutation methods to assess the statistical likelihood of our results given our sample, we find that Colorado is a clear and significant outlier,” the researchers wrote. “We find no evidence for significant changes in out-migration from Colorado relative to synthetic-Colorado suggesting that marijuana legalization did not change the equilibrium for individuals already living in the state.”
Overall, the authors write, 156,406 more people moved to Colorado after 2009 than what was predicted using their synthetic-Colorado analysis. “Given that we find no impact on outmigration, this implies that marijuana legalization increased Colorado’s population by 3.2% as of 2015.”
Their findings support the results of a related paper published in 2018. That analysis found that legalization in Colorado lead to a 6 percent increase in housing values, which were driven by an increase in demand.
“Taken together,” the current study states, “this suggests that, at least initially, easier access as opposed to the generation of new jobs and local tax revenues, was the main driver of migration inflows to Colorado.”
Harmful Stereotypes About Marijuana Consumers Persist In The Media, Study Finds
When mainstream news outlets—particularly those that lean conservative—publish stories about marijuana, they still tend to perpetuate stereotypes about cannabis with depictions of lazy stoner culture and criminal activity, a new study found.
“This study starkly demonstrated the heavily politicalized nature of marijuana legalization,” the paper states. “Conservative news outlets depicted stereotypes more frequently than liberal or neutral outlets, and this pattern held true in both visuals and their accompanying headlines.”
Researchers also found that “the legalization of marijuana did little to decrease these stereotypes.”
The study, which was published in the journal Visual Communication last month, focuses on how visual framing in mass media impacts the social reality of controversial issues such as marijuana legalization, which is still widely stigmatized in parts of the United States. Many people continue to believe marijuana users are dangerous criminals, lazy stoners or rebellious outcasts.
For their analysis, the study’s authors searched select American online news sites for cannabis-related articles published from June 1, 2013 to July 1, 2014 (that is, the six months before and the six months after legal marijuana sales began in Colorado). They ultimately gathered 458 visuals from 10 different media outlets: four sites they categorized as conservative (Dallas Morning News, New York Daily News, New York Post, Houston Chronicle), four liberal sites (Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune), and two they deemed neutral sites (USA Today and Wall Street Journal). A majority of the images (268) were taken from stories published after Colorado legalized adult-use.
Researchers then took the visuals and divided them into broad categories based on cultural, racial and criminal stereotypes. They also assessed how headlines were used to frame the images.
According to their findings, there were more images that did not contain stereotypes than ones that did. However, 21 percent of photos featured pot culture stereotypes. For example, the New York Post published a photo featuring an Asian man presumably in his 20s smoking from a bong, his face obscured by smoke. Other images included close-ups of rolled joints and festivals featuring young people hanging out amidst clouds of smoke.
Additionally, 15 percent of images associated criminal behavior with marijuana, and often featured a person of color getting arrested or in court. “Overall,” the study’s authors write, “more racial minorities are depicted as criminals (21.5%) than are non-racial minorities (13.4%). Further, significantly more racial minorities are associated with headlines with a topic about crime (42.5%) than are non-racial minorities (23.1%)”
As for political ideology, conservative news sites depicted racial minorities, criminal stereotypes and pot culture stereotypes more frequently than liberal or neutral publications.
Importantly, the study also assessed how often news organizations used images that normalize marijuana: These include photos of the cannabis plant as opposed to a joint, images of bud in a laboratory setting, or pictures of families or couples. “Politically neutral news sites visually depict normification in images significantly more frequently (9.0%) than liberal (8.6%) news outlets,” the study’s authors write. “Conservative news outlets were significantly less likely to depict marijuana use as normal than either of the two other ideologies (1.9%).”
Interestingly, after Colorado approved adult-use, the prevalence of these types of photos did not increase significantly.
“Broadly,” the authors wrote, “this study suggests that ‘ready-made’ images of what marijuana users are supposed to look like are indeed being used and reinforced by the media. As more states begin to acknowledge the false propaganda and exaggerations associated with marijuana’s history in the U.S. through legalization efforts, the media will play a leading role in either reinforcing or debunking these myths through the representations they choose to visually illustrate the issue.”
“The heavy reliance on stereotypes of marijuana users is an ethical issue, as media representations will influence how audiences draw conclusions about marijuana use, judge the character of its users, and continue to either stigmatize users or open up new spaces within commercial media culture for alternate, more mainstreamed marijuana use,” the study concluded.
It’s clear we’ve got a ways to go. Last month, popular online news site Vox published an explainer on the current state of marijuana legalization in the U.S. Sharing that story on Twitter, the news site’s account tweeted: “9 questions about marijuana legalization you were too stoned to ask.”
9 questions about marijuana legalization you were too stoned to ask https://t.co/jeuKrlvLFO
— Vox (@voxdotcom) August 30, 2019
Photo courtesy of Aphiwat chuangchoem.