Dataset Information

Association between legalization of recreational cannabis and fatal motor vehicle collisions in the United States: an ecologic study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

With the recent legalization of recreational cannabis in Canada, cannabis-impaired driving is an important public safety concern. Our aim was to examine the association between recreational cannabis legalization and fatal motor vehicle collisions using data from the United States, which present a timely natural experiment of cannabis legalization.

Methods

We conducted an ecologic study using the number of fatal motor vehicle collisions and the associated number of deaths for US jurisdictions with legalized recreational cannabis (2007-2018) retrieved from the US Fatality Analysis Reporting System. We examined jurisdiction-specific rates of fatal motor vehicle collisions and associated deaths before and after recreational cannabis legalization using Poisson regression and meta-analyzed estimates across jurisdictions using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models.

Results

After adjustment for calendar year, legalization was associated with increases in rates of fatal motor vehicle collisions (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.26) and associated deaths (IRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.27). Differences between the first 12 months after legalization relative to subsequent months were inconclusive for rates of fatal motor vehicle collisions (IRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-1.02) and associated deaths (IRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-1.01).

Interpretation

Recreational cannabis legalization in the US was associated with a relative increased risk of fatal motor vehicle collisions of 15% and a relative increase in associated deaths of 16%, with no conclusive difference between the first and subsequent years after legalization. These findings raise concern that there could be a similar increase in fatal motor vehicle collisions and associated deaths in Canada following recreational cannabis legalization.

SUBMITTER: Windle SB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8096392 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecreational cannabis laws (RCL) in the United States (US) can have important implications for people who are non-citizens, including those with and without formal documentation, and those who are refugees or seeking asylum. For these groups, committing a cannabis-related infraction, even a misdemeanor, can constitute grounds for status ineligibility, including arrest and deportation under federal immigration policy-regardless of state law. Despite interconnections between immigration and drug policy, the potential impacts of increasing state cannabis legalization on immigration enforcement are unexplored.MethodsIn this repeated cross-sectional analysis, we tested the association between state-level RCL adoption and monthly, state-level prevalence of immigration arrests and deportations related to cannabis possession. Data were from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Immigration arrest information was available from Oct-2014 to May-2018 and immigration deportation information were available from Jan-2009 to Jun-2020 for. To test associations with RCLs, we fit Poisson fixed effects models that controlled for pre-existing differences between states, secular trends, and potential sociodemographic, sociopolitical, and setting-related confounders. Sensitivity analyses explored potential violations to assumptions and sensitivity to modeling specifications.ResultsOver the observation period, there were 7,739 immigration arrests and 48,015 deportations referencing cannabis possession. By 2020, 12 stated adopted recreational legalization and on average immigration enforcement was lower among RCL compared to non-RCL states. In primary adjusted models, we found no meaningful changes in arrest prevalence, either immediately following RCL adoption (Prevalence Ratio [PR]: 0.84; [95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.57, 1.11]), or 1-year after the law was effective (PR: 0.88 [CI: 0.56, 1.20]). For the deportation outcome, however, RCL adoption was associated with a moderate relative decrease in deportation prevalence in RCL versus non-RCL states (PR: 0.68 [CI: 0.56, 0.80]; PR 1-year lag: 0.68 [CI: 0.54, 0.82]). Additional analyses were mostly consistent by suggested some sensitivities to modeling specification.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that decreasing penalties for cannabis possession through state RCLs may reduce some aspects of immigration enforcement related to cannabis possession. Greater attention to the immigration-related consequences of current drug control policies is warranted, particularly as more states weigh the public health benefits and drawbacks of legalizing cannabis.

Project description:Importance:Little is known about changes in marijuana use and cannabis use disorder (CUD) after recreational marijuana legalization (RML). Objectives:To examine the associations between RML enactment and changes in marijuana use, frequent use, and CUD in the United States from 2008 to 2016. Design, Setting, and Participants:This survey study used repeated cross-sectional survey data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2008-2016) conducted in the United States among participants in the age groups of 12 to 17, 18 to 25, and 26 years or older. Interventions:Multilevel logistic regression models were fit to obtain estimates of before-vs-after changes in marijuana use among respondents in states enacting RML compared to changes in other states. Main Outcomes and Measures:Self-reported past-month marijuana use, past-month frequent marijuana use, past-month frequent use among past-month users, past-year CUD, and past-year CUD among past-year users. Results:The study included 505?796 respondents consisting of 51.51% females and 77.24% participants 26 years or older. Among the total, 65.43% were white, 11.90% black, 15.36% Hispanic, and 7.31% of other race/ethnicity. Among respondents aged 12 to 17 years, past-year CUD increased from 2.18% to 2.72% after RML enactment, a 25% higher increase than that for the same age group in states that did not enact RML (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55). Among past-year marijuana users in this age group, CUD increased from 22.80% to 27.20% (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.59). Unmeasured confounders would need to be more prevalent in RML states and increase the risk of cannabis use by 1.08 to 1.11 times to explain observed results, indicating results that are sensitive to omitted variables. No associations were found among the respondents aged 18 to 25 years. Among respondents 26 years or older, past-month marijuana use after RML enactment increased from 5.65% to 7.10% (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.16-1.40), past-month frequent use from 2.13% to 2.62% (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.41), and past-year CUD from 0.90% to 1.23% (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.08-1.71); these results were more robust to unmeasured confounding. Among marijuana users in this age group, past-month frequent marijuana use and past-year CUD did not increase after RML enactment. Conclusions and Relevance:This study's findings suggest that although marijuana legalization advanced social justice goals, the small post-RML increase in risk for CUD among respondents aged 12 to 17 years and increased frequent use and CUD among adults 26 years or older in this study are a potential public health concern. To undertake prevention efforts, further studies are warranted to assess how these increases occur and to identify subpopulations that may be especially vulnerable.

Project description:AimsTo estimate the effect of recreational legalization on cannabis use frequency and sources of variance across legal environments.DesignLongitudinal discordant twin and gene-environment interaction models in twins recruited from birth records and assessed prospectively.SettingThe United States, including states with different recreational cannabis policies before and after 2014, when recreational cannabis was first legalized.ParticipantsTwo longitudinal, prospectively assessed samples of American twins aged 24-47 (n = 1425 in legal states, n = 1996 in illegal states), including 111 monozygotic pairs discordant for residence.MeasurementsCurrent cannabis use frequency (measured continuously and ordinally) was the primary outcome, and the predictor was recreational status of cannabis (legal/illegal) in the participant's state of residence at the time of assessment. Covariates include age, sex and cannabis use frequency prior to 2014.FindingsAccounting for pre-2014 use, residents of legal states used cannabis more frequently than residents of illegal states (b = 0.21, P = 8.08 × 10-5 ). Comparing 111 pairs of monozygotic twins discordant for residence confirmed the effect (b = 0.18, P = 0.014). There was inconclusive evidence for genetic influences on cannabis use frequency that were specific to the legal environment [χ2 = 2.9 × 10-9 , degrees of freedom (d.f.) = 1, P > 0.999]. Existing genetic influences were moderated by the legal environment, as the genetic correlation between marijuana use before and after legalization was lower in states that legalized (rgenetic = 0.24) compared with states that did not (rgenetic = 0.78, Pdifference = 0.016).ConclusionsIn the United States, there appears to be a ~ 20% average increase in cannabis use frequency attributable to recreational legalization, consistent across increasingly rigorous designs. In addition, the heritability of cannabis use frequency appears to be moderated by legalization.

Project description:Cannabis related online searches are associated with positive attitudes toward medical cannabis, particularly when information is obtained from dispensaries. Since pain is the main reason for medicinal cannabis use, information from dispensary websites has the potential to shape the attitude of pain patients towards cannabis. This is relevant because cannabis has demonstrated efficacy in neuropathic pain with low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations (< 5-10%), in contrast to potent cannabis (>15% THC), which is highly rewarded in the recreational realm. The role of CBD in pain is not clear, however it has gained popularity. Thus, we hypothesize that the potency of medical cannabis that is advertised online is similar to the cannabis advertised for recreational purposes, which would potentially create a misconception towards medical cannabis. The current lack of knowledge surrounding advertised potencies in the legal cannabis market limits the ability to generate clear policies regarding online advertising to protect patients that are willing to use cannabis for their condition. Thus, we evaluated the advertised THC and CBD content of cannabis products offered online in dispensaries in the United States to determine products' suitability to medicinal use and compare the strength of products offered in legal medical and recreational programs. We recorded THC and CBD concentrations for all herb cannabis products provided by dispensary websites and compared them between or within states. Four Western states (CA, CO, NM, WA) and five Northeastern states (ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) were included. A total of 8,505 cannabis products across 653 dispensaries were sampled. Despite the clear differences between medicinal and recreational uses of cannabis, the average THC concentration advertised online in medicinal programs was similar (19.2% ±6.2) to recreational programs (21.5% ±6.0) when compared between states with different programs, or between medicinal and recreational programs within the same states (CO or WA). Lower CBD concentrations accompanied higher THC products. The majority of products, regardless of medicinal or recreational programs, were advertised to have >15% THC (70.3% - 91.4% of products). These stated concentrations seem unsuitable for medicinal purposes, particularly for patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Therefore, this information could induce the misconception that high potency cannabis is safe to treat pain. This data is consistent with reports in which THC and CBD in products from legal dispensaries or in nationwide products from the illegal market were actually measured, which indicates that patients consuming these products may be at risk of acute intoxication or long-term side effects. Our study offers grounds to develop policies that help prevent misconceptions toward cannabis and reduce risks in pain patients.