IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-721267.html

Comparative Effects of Recreational and Medical Marijuana Laws on Drug Use among Adults and Adolescents

Author

Listed:
  • Alex Hollingsworth
  • Coady Wing
  • Ashley C. Bradford

Abstract

Thirty-four states have medical marijuana laws, and 10 states have recreational marijuana laws. Little research compares how these two types of laws affect drug consumption in the general population or in particular age groups. Using a difference-in-differences strategy, we find that recreational laws increase past-year marijuana use by 25 percent among adults and by 10 percent among adolescents. In contrast, medical laws increase adult use by only 5 percent and have a negligible effect on adolescent use. We also find that recreational marijuana dispensaries are an important driver of the increase in marijuana use for adults 26 and older. Our results suggest that medical laws succeed in mitigating recreational (nonmedical) use, that recreational laws produce large increases in marijuana use in the general population, and that underage marijuana use may be an important problem with existing implementations of recreational marijuana laws.

Suggested Citation

  • Alex Hollingsworth & Coady Wing & Ashley C. Bradford, 2022. "Comparative Effects of Recreational and Medical Marijuana Laws on Drug Use among Adults and Adolescents," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(3), pages 515-554.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/721267
    DOI: 10.1086/721267
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/721267
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/721267
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/721267?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/721267. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.