Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35636068›Full record

ArticleThe International journal on drug policy2022

Rating the comparative efficacy of state-level cannabis policies on recreational cannabis markets in the United States.

Jason G Blanchette, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Rosanna Smart, Marlene C Lira, Anne E Boustead, Jonathan P Caulkins, Beau Kilmer, William C Kerr, Ryan Treffers, Timothy S Naimi

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The International journal on drug policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

Jason G BlanchetteBoston University, 715 Albany St., Boston, MA 02118, USA.
Rosalie Liccardo PaculaUniversity of Southern California, 650 Childs Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA.
Rosanna SmartRAND Corporation, 1776 Main St, Santa Monica, CA 90401, USA.
Marlene C LiraBoston Medical Center, 801 Massachusetts Ave., Boston, MA 02118, USA.
Anne E BousteadUniversity of Arizona School of Government and Public Policy, 1145 E South Campus Dr, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA.
Jonathan P CaulkinsCarnegie Mellon University, Heinz College, Hamburg Hall, Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Beau KilmerRAND Corporation, 1776 Main St, Santa Monica, CA 90401, USA.
William C KerrPublic Health Institute, 6001 Shellmound St, Emeryville CA 94608, USA.
Ryan TreffersPacific Institute for Research & Evaluation, 11720 Beltsville Dr, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA.
Timothy S NaimiCanadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria, 2300 McKenzie Ave, V8P5C2, Canada. Electronic address: tnaimi@uvic.ca.
RAND Corporation · USBoston Medical Center · USBoston University · USCanadian Institute for Advanced Research · CACarnegie Mellon University · USPacific Institute For Research and Evaluation · USPublic Health Institute · USUniversity of Arizona · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

Scientific and Technical CoreP2CHD041022 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI HIRAM BELTRAN-SANCHEZ · 2016 to 2026
$6.9M
Impact of Marijuana Policies on Alcohol Use and Alcohol-Related MortalityR01AA026268 · NIAAA · BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER · PI NAIMI, TIMOTHY SIMONDS · 2018 to 2021
$2.5M
NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA026268NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD041022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCannabis policy is developing faster than empirical evidence about policy effects. With a panel of experts in substance use policy development and research, we identified key cannabis policies and their provisions enacted by U.S. states; rated their theoretical efficacy in a restrictive form for reducing problematic use and impaired driving in the context of a recreational cannabis market as judged by experts; and rated the strength of evidence for each policy.

methodsUsing a modified Delphi approach, 9 panelists rated the comparative efficacy of 18 state cannabis policies for reducing youth use of cannabis, excessive cannabis use among the general population, and cannabis-impaired driving. Each outcome was rated separately using a Likert scale, and panelists also rated the strength of evidence supporting each efficacy rating. Investigators provided descriptions of each policy so that the nine panelists had similar conceptions of each policy.

resultsState monopoly (state owns all production, manufacturing, wholesale, and retail operations) was rated as the most effective policy for all three outcome areas. Restrictions on retail physical availability, taxes, retail price restrictions, and retail operations restrictions were also highly rated for all three outcomes. Policies regulating cannabis businesses and products were judged more effective than policies targeting consumer use and behavior. Panelists reported there was little or no direct evidence from the cannabis policy literature for most of the included policies.

conclusionThese ratings can facilitate research as well as policy-making decisions. A relatively small number of policies were judged to be highly effective across all three domains, indicating that for the most part adult excessive use, youth use, and impaired driving can all be reduced with the same set of policies; these policies tended to target the behaviors of businesses rather than consumers. The low levels of direct evidence available to inform policy ratings, as reported by the policy panelists, makes clear the need for ongoing and sustained cannabis policy research.

Indexed as

CannabisHallucinogensAdolescentAdultAnalgesicsCannabinoid Receptor AgonistsCommerceHumansLegislation, DrugPolicyTaxesUnited StatesAnalgesicsCannabinoid Receptor AgonistsHallucinogensCannabisLegalizationMarijuanaPolicy

Identifiers

PMID35636068
PMCPMC11563470
OpenAlexW4281552312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.