Dataset Information

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Cannabis Use Following Legalization in US States With Medical Cannabis Laws.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Little is known about changes in cannabis use outcomes by race and ethnicity following the enactment of recreational cannabis laws (RCLs).

Objectives

To examine the association between enactment of state RCLs and changes in cannabis outcomes by race and ethnicity overall and by age groups in the US.

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional study used restricted use file data from the National Surveys of Drug Use and Health between 2008 and 2017, which were analyzed between September 2019 and March 2020. National survey data included the entire US population older than 12 years.

Main outcomes and measures

Self-reported past-year and past-month cannabis use and, among people that used cannabis, daily past-month cannabis use and past-year Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) cannabis use disorder. Multi-level logistic regressions were fit to estimates changes in cannabis use outcomes by race and ethnicity overall and by age between respondents in states with and without enacted RCLs, controlling for trends in states with medical cannabis laws or no cannabis laws.

Results

A total of 838 600 participants were included for analysis (mean age, 43 years [range, 12-105 years]; 434 900 women [weighted percentage, 51.5%]; 511 900 participants (weighted percentage, 64.6%) identified as non-Hispanic White, 99 000 (11.9%) as non-Hispanic Black, 78 400 (15.8%) as Hispanic, and 149 200 (7.6%) as other (including either Native American, Pacific Islander, Asian, or more than 1 race or ethnicity). Compared with the period before RCL enactment, the odds of past-year cannabis use after RCL enactment increased among Hispanic (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15-1.52), other (aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.52), and non-Hispanic White (aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.31) populations, particularly among those aged 21 years or more. Similarly, the odds of past-month cannabis use increased among Hispanic (aOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.22-1.69), other (aOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.20-1.70), and non-Hispanic White (aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.13-1.35) populations after RCL enactment. No increases were found in the odds of past-year or past-month cannabis use post-RCL enactment among non-Hispanic Black individuals or among individuals aged 12 to 20 years for all race and ethnicity groups. In addition, among people who used cannabis, while no increases were found in past-month daily cannabis in any racial or ethnic group, the odds of cannabis use disorder increased post-RCL among individuals categorized as other overall (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.07-1.95), but no increases were found by age group.

Conclusions and relevance

Changes in cannabis use by race and ethnicity that may be attributable to policy enactment and variations in recreational policy provisions should be monitored. To ensure that the enactment of recreational cannabis laws truly contributes to greater equity in outcomes and adheres to antiracist policies, monitoring unintended and intended consequences that may be attributable to recreational cannabis use and similar policies by race and ethnicity is needed.

SUBMITTER: Martins SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8477268 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIndividuals of racial and ethnic minority groups may be less likely to use telemedicine in part due to lack of access to technology (ie, digital divide). To date, some studies have found less telemedicine use by individuals of racial and ethnic minority groups compared with White individuals, and others have found the opposite. What explains these different findings is unclear.ObjectiveTo quantify racial and ethnic differences in the receipt of telemedicine and total visits with and without accounting for demographic and clinical characteristics and geography.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included individuals who were continuously enrolled in traditional Medicare from March 2020 to February 2022 or until death.ExposureRace and ethnicity, which was categorized as Black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, White non-Hispanic, other (defined as American Indian/Pacific Islander, Alaska Native, and Asian), and unknown/missing.Main outcomes and measuresTotal telemedicine visits (audio-video or audio); total visits (telemedicine or in-person) per individual during the study period. Multivariable models were used that sequentially adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics and geographic area to examine their association with differences in telemedicine and total visit utilization by documented race and ethnicity.ResultsIn this national sample of 14 305 819 individuals, 7.4% reported that they were Black, 5.6% Hispanic, and 4.2% other race. In unadjusted results, compared with White individuals, Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals of other racial groups had 16.7 (95% CI, 16.1-17.3), 32.9 (95% CI, 32.3-33.6), and 20.9 (95% CI, 20.2-21.7) more telemedicine visits per 100 beneficiaries, respectively. After adjustment for clinical and demographic characteristics and geography, compared with White individuals, Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals of other racial groups had 7.9 (95% CI, -8.5 to -7.3), 13.2 (95% CI, -13.9 to -12.6), and 9.2 (95% CI, -10.0 to -8.5) fewer telemedicine visits per 100 beneficiaries, respectively. In unadjusted and fully adjusted models, and in 2019 and the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals of other racial groups continued to have fewer total visits than White individuals.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cross-sectional study of US Medicare enrollees suggest that although nationally, Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals of other racial groups received more telemedicine visits during the pandemic and disproportionately lived in geographic regions with higher telemedicine use, after controlling for geographic region, Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals of other racial groups received fewer telemedicine visits than White individuals.

Project description:BackgroundMany countries now allow the consumption of cannabis or cannabinoids for medical purposes with varying approaches concerning products allowed and the regulatory frameworks prevailing their endowment. On 18 February 2019 Thailand passed legislation allowing the use of cannabis for medical purposes. This study aimed to examine patterns and purposes for consumption of medical cannabis, and consumers' perceptions and opinions towards benefits and harms of cannabis and related policies in 2019-2020.MethodsA cross-sectional study using a respondent-driven sampling (RDS) method was conducted in four sites across Thailand. Participants were 485 adults aged 18 years and over, living in the study region, who had used cannabis for medical purposes within the past 12 months. Face-to-face interviews using a structured questionnaire were used to collect data on (1) demographic characteristics, (2) pattern of consumption, (3) source of information and perception of benefits and harms of medical cannabis, and (4) opinion towards cannabis policies. Data were analyzed using RDS Analyst and presented as percentage and mean with 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsMost participants (84.7%, 95% CI [78.9-90.5]) used an oral form of crude oil extract while 9.2% (95% CI [4.1-14.2]) used the raw form. The most common uses were for treatment of cancers (23.3%, 95% CI [16.1-30.4]), neuropsychiatric symptoms (22.8%, 95% CI [17.5-28.0]), and musculoskeletal pains (21.6%, 95% CI [16.7-26.6]). Illegal sources such as underground traders (54.5%, 95% CI [40.8-68.3]), friends and relatives (12.2%, 95% CI [6.2-18.3]), not-for-profit provider groups (5.2%, 95% CI [0.5-10.9]), and clandestine growers or producers (2.9%, 95% CI [0.6-5.3]) were the main suppliers. Most (>80%) perceived cannabis could treat cancers, chronic pains, insomnia, Parkinson's disease and generalized anxiety disorder. Less than half perceived that cannabis could cause adverse conditions e.g., palpitation, panic, memory impairment and schizophrenic-like psychosis. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the policies regarding permission to use cannabis for medical purposes (95.1%, 95% CI [92.0-98.2]), for the legal sale of medical cannabis products (95.9%, 95% CI [93.7-98.2]), and for people to grow cannabis for medical use (94.2%, 95% CI [91.8-96.5]). However, only two-thirds agreed with policies concerning the sales of cannabis (65.3%, 95% CI [56.9-73.7]) and home-grown cannabis for recreational purposes (61.3%, 95% CI [52.7-69.9]).ConclusionOur study reports the experiences of consumers of medical cannabis in the first year after its legalization in Thailand. Consumers reported various patterns and indications of consumption that were not supported by scientific evidence, but had positive perception of the results of consumption. These findings highlight ongoing policy challenges for Thailand and can be a lesson to be learned for other countries in the region.

Project description:ImportanceOver the last 25 years, illicit cannabis use and cannabis use disorders have increased among US adults, and 28 states have passed medical marijuana laws (MML). Little is known about MML and adult illicit cannabis use or cannabis use disorders considered over time.ObjectiveTo present national data on state MML and degree of change in the prevalence of cannabis use and disorders.Design, participants, and settingDifferences in the degree of change between those living in MML states and other states were examined using 3 cross-sectional US adult surveys: the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey (NLAES; 1991-1992), the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC; 2001-2002), and the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III; 2012-2013). Early-MML states passed MML between NLAES and NESARC ("earlier period"). Late-MML states passed MML between NESARC and NESARC-III ("later period").Main outcomes and measuresPast-year illicit cannabis use and DSM-IV cannabis use disorder.ResultsOverall, from 1991-1992 to 2012-2013, illicit cannabis use increased significantly more in states that passed MML than in other states (1.4-percentage point more; SE, 0.5; P = .004), as did cannabis use disorders (0.7-percentage point more; SE, 0.3; P = .03). In the earlier period, illicit cannabis use and disorders decreased similarly in non-MML states and in California (where prevalence was much higher to start with). In contrast, in remaining early-MML states, the prevalence of use and disorders increased. Remaining early-MML and non-MML states differed significantly for use (by 2.5 percentage points; SE, 0.9; P = .004) and disorder (1.1 percentage points; SE, 0.5; P = .02). In the later period, illicit use increased by the following percentage points: never-MML states, 3.5 (SE, 0.5); California, 5.3 (SE, 1.0); Colorado, 7.0 (SE, 1.6); other early-MML states, 2.6 (SE, 0.9); and late-MML states, 5.1 (SE, 0.8). Compared with never-MML states, increases in use were significantly greater in late-MML states (1.6-percentage point more; SE, 0.6; P = .01), California (1.8-percentage point more; SE, 0.9; P = .04), and Colorado (3.5-percentage point more; SE, 1.5; P = .03). Increases in cannabis use disorder, which was less prevalent, were smaller but followed similar patterns descriptively, with change greater than never-MML states in California (1.0-percentage point more; SE, 0.5; P = .06) and Colorado (1.6-percentage point more; SE, 0.8; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceMedical marijuana laws appear to have contributed to increased prevalence of illicit cannabis use and cannabis use disorders. State-specific policy changes may also have played a role. While medical marijuana may help some, cannabis-related health consequences associated with changes in state marijuana laws should receive consideration by health care professionals and the public.

Project description:Background: Among youth already using cannabis, legalization of medical cannabis may influence cannabis-related attitudes and behaviors, including increasing access through use of someone else's medical cannabis (diversion). Objective: To examine cannabis-related attitudes and behaviors (including diverted cannabis use) in cannabis-using youth in the four years following medical cannabis legalization. Additionally, we investigated characteristics of youth who used vs. did not use diverted medical cannabis. Methods: Data were collected in Boston from 2013 (when medical cannabis legislation took effect in Massachusetts) through 2016 (when recreational cannabis use became legal in Massachusetts). Cannabis-using youth (age 13-24) presenting to an outpatient adolescent substance use treatment program (ASUTP) or recruited for an adolescent medicine clinic study (AMCS) completed a confidential survey on demographic characteristics and cannabis use behaviors and attitudes. We used multiple logistic regression to analyze changes in attitudes and behaviors over three years versus the reference year (2013), controlling for demographics. We used chi-square to compare characteristics of youth reporting use of diverted medical cannabis versus those not. Results: The sample included 273 cannabis-using youth (ASUTP n = 203, AMCS n = 70; 2013 n = 67, 2014 n = 67, 2015 n = 77, 2016 n = 62). Mean ± SD age was 18.2 ± 2.5 years, 32% were female, 58% were White non-Hispanic, and 70% had college-graduate parents. In 2013, most youth reported that cannabis was easy to obtain (97.9%), and that occasional cannabis use had "no" or "slight" risk of harm (89.4%), with little change across years. In 2016, 44% of youth reported using someone else's medical cannabis, versus 15% in 2013 (aOR 4.66, 95% CI 1.81, 11.95). Youth using diverted medical cannabis had higher likelihood of reporting riding with a driver, or driving themselves, after cannabis use (both p < .01). Conclusion: Among at-risk youth in Massachusetts, use of diverted medical cannabis increased after medical cannabis legalization, and those using diverted medical cannabis reported higher risk for cannabis-related traffic injury.

Project description:BackgroundRacial/ethnic disparities in access to diagnostic services are pervasive for autistic children. However, a few studies have examined racial/ethnic health disparities among autistic adults, who commonly experience higher rates of health conditions than non-autistic adults. We aimed at examining the intersection of autism and race/ethnicity in association with psychiatric and medical diagnoses.MethodsThe study population included adult members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California enrolled from 2008 to 2012. We ascertained 1507 adults who had an autism diagnosis documented in their electronic medical records. We sampled a matched control group of adults without an autism diagnosis (N = 15,070) at a 10:1 ratio. Our sample was 46% White, 17% Hispanic, 16% Asian, 7% Black, and 14% other race/ethnicity. We compared health diagnoses (a) between autistic and non-autistic adults within strata of race/ethnicity and (b) across race/ethnicity within strata of autistic and non-autistic adults. Lastly, we examined the interaction between autism and race/ethnicity on both multiplicative and additive scales.ResultsAutistic adults were more likely to be diagnosed with most medical and psychiatric conditions compared with their non-autistic counterparts of the same race/ethnicity. Among autistic adults, Black, Hispanic, and Asian adults were less likely to be diagnosed with psychiatric conditions and Black and Hispanic autistic adults were more likely to be diagnosed with obesity than their White counterparts. In interaction models, we found that adults who were Black and autistic were disproportionately less likely to be diagnosed with psychiatric conditions and autoimmune disease and more likely to be diagnosed with hypertension than expected.ConclusionHealth vulnerabilities may be compounded at the intersection of autism and race/ethnicity. Future research should continue to apply an intersectional lens toward understanding and addressing these disparities. Our findings likely underestimate the health disparities that exist in uninsured autistic adults and those living in other parts of the United States.