Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35862417›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Estimating the effects of legalizing recreational cannabis on newly incident cannabis use.

Barrett Wallace Montgomery, Meaghan H Roberts, Claire E Margerison, James C Anthony

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Video gaming and cannabis use: A scoping review.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Why are the police against drug policy liberalisation?Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors.

Barrett Wallace MontgomeryDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3512-1710
Meaghan H RobertsDepartment of Economics, College of Social Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States of America.
Claire E MargerisonDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States of America.
James C AnthonyDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States of America.

Funding

Minding A Mid-America Gap: NIDA/NIAAA Epidemiology Research Training for Clinical Researchers and Clinicians in Currently Under-Served AreasR25DA051249 · NIDA · MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY · PI BARONDESS, DAVID · 2020 to 2021
$606k
NIDA NIH HHS R25 DA051249
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Liberalized state-level recreational cannabis policies in the United States (US) fostered important policy evaluations with a focus on epidemiological parameters such as proportions [e.g., active cannabis use prevalence; cannabis use disorder (CUD) prevalence]. This cannabis policy evaluation project adds novel evidence on a neglected parameter-namely, estimated occurrence of newly incident cannabis use for underage (<21 years) versus older adults. The project's study populations were specified to yield nationally representative estimates for all 51 major US jurisdictions, with probability sample totals of 819,543 non-institutionalized US civilian residents between 2008 and 2019. Standardized items to measure cannabis onsets are from audio computer-assisted self-interviews. Policy effect estimates are from event study difference-in-difference (DiD) models that allow for causal inference when policy implementation is staggered. The evidence indicates no policy-associated changes in the occurrence of newly incident cannabis onsets for underage persons, but an increased occurrence of newly onset cannabis use among older adults (i.e., >21 years). We offer a tentative conclusion of public health importance: Legalized cannabis retail sales might be followed by the increased occurrence of cannabis onsets for older adults, but not for underage persons who cannot buy cannabis products in a retail outlet. Cannabis policy research does not yet qualify as a mature science. We argue that modeling newly incident cannabis use might be more informative than the modeling of prevalences when evaluating policy effects and provide evidence of the advantages of the event study model over regression methods that seek to adjust for confounding factors.

Indexed as

CannabisSubstance-Related DisordersAgedCommerceHumansLegislation, DrugPrevalencePublic HealthUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35862417
PMCPMC9302774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.