The impacts of marijuana dispensary density and neighborhood ecology on marijuana abuse and dependence

Abstract

Background As an increasing number of states liberalize cannabis use and develop laws and local policies, it is essential to better understand the impacts of neighborhood ecology and marijuana dispensary density on marijuana use, abuse, and dependence. We investigated associations between marijuana abuse/dependence hospitalizations and community demographic and environmental conditions from 2001–2012 in California, as well as cross-sectional associations between local and adjacent marijuana dispensary densities and marijuana hospitalizations. Methods We analyzed panel population data relating hospitalizations coded for marijuana abuse or dependence and assigned to residential ZIP codes in California from 2001 through 2012 (20,219 space-time units) to ZIP code demographic and ecological characteristics. Bayesian space-time misalignment models were used to account for spatial variations in geographic unit definitions over time, while also accounting for spatial autocorrelation using conditional autoregressive priors. We also analyzed cross-sectional associations between marijuana abuse/dependence and the density of dispensaries in local and spatially adjacent ZIP codes in 2012. Results An additional one dispensary per square mile in a ZIP code was cross-sectionally associated with a 6.8% increase in the number of marijuana hospitalizations (95% credible interval 1.033, 1.105) with a marijuana abuse/dependence code. Other local characteristics, such as the median household income and age and racial/ethnic distributions, were associated with marijuana hospitalizations in cross-sectional and panel analyses. Conclusions Prevention and intervention programs for marijuana abuse and dependence may be particularly essential in areas of concentrated disadvantage. Policy makers may want to consider regulations that limit the density of dispensaries.

Assessing the risk of marijuana use disorder among adolescents and adults who use marijuana

“…For the logistic and multinomial regression analyses, age categories included: adolescents (aged 14-17), late adolescents (aged [18][19][20], young adults (aged [21][22][23][24][25], and adults (aged [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. Respondents aged 12-13 and 45 and older were excluded from these latter analyses due to very low rates of reported marijuana use and MUD.…”

“…Against a backdrop of an increase in the potency of marijuana (18), use and acceptance of the drug, low perceptions of its harm (19)(20)(21), trends toward statebased legalization (22)(23)(24), and calls for national legalization, it is important to provide ongoing and up-todate assessments of MUD prevalence among the people who use the drug. This is especially critical given recent significant shifts in marijuana policy in the United States.…”

“…This derives from a study that operationalized the disorder as dependence only, based it on the diagnostic criteria of the DSM-III-R (14), and utilized national data collected approximately 25 years ago. Although this study did include older adolescents, it grouped them with young adults (ages [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] in its analysis (13).…”

Le cannabis et ses effets délétères : pour un débat plus nuancé

“…Par exemple, la présence de traumatismes au cours de l'enfance, tel que le fait d'avoir été abusé (durant l'enfance) ou d'avoir été victime d'intimidation (à l'âge de 13 ans), prédisait l'initiation à la consommation de cannabis (Blanco et al, 2014 ;Kelly et al, 2015). Le faible statut socioéconomique, en particulier dans les pays riches, a également été lié plus fortement au risque de présenter une dépendance (Legleye, Beck, Khlat, Peretti-Watel et Chau, 2012 ;Mair, Freisthler, Ponicki et Gaidus, 2015). Dans une cohorte d'adolescents britanniques, par exemple, la pauvreté matérielle triplait l'incidence des risques d'avoir un TLU-cannabis (Heron et al, 2013).…”

The potential impact of cannabis legalization on the development of cannabis use disorders

“…For example, states with medical cannabis laws that legally protect dispensaries have more adult and youth cannabis use treatment admissions than medical cannabis states that do not legally protect dispensaries (Pacula et al, 2015). More cannabis dispensaries per square mile also predicts more frequent cannabis use (Freisthler and Gruenewald, 2014), and higher CUD-related hospitalizations (Mair et al, 2015). Last, a greater number of dispensaries per capita predicts cannabis use and a younger age of initiation of vaping and edible products (Borodovsky et al, 2016; Borodovsky et al, 2017).…”