Marijuana legalization and disability claiming

Health, safety, and socioeconomic impacts of cannabis liberalization laws: An evidence and gap map

Background

Globally, cannabis laws and regulations are rapidly changing. Countries are increasingly permitting access to cannabis under various decriminalization, medicalization, and legalization laws. With strong economic, public health, and social justice incentives driving these domestic cannabis policy reforms, liberalization trends are bound to continue. However, despite a large and growing body of interdisciplinary research addressing the policy-relevant health, safety, and socioeconomic consequences of cannabis liberalization, there is a lack of robust primary and systematic research that comprehensively investigates the consequences of these reforms.

Objectives

This evidence and gap map (EGM) summarizes the empirical evidence on cannabis liberalization policies. Primary objectives were to develop a conceptual framework linking cannabis liberalization policies to relevant outcomes, descriptively summarize the empirical evidence, and identify areas of evidence concentration and gaps.

Search Methods

We comprehensively searched for eligible English-language empirical studies published across 23 academic databases and 11 gray literature sources through August 2020. Additions to the pool of potentially eligible studies from supplemental sources were made through November 2020.

Selection Criteria

The conceptual framework for this EGM draws upon a legal epidemiological perspective highlighting the causal effects of law and policy on population-level outcomes. Eligible interventions include policies that create or expand access to a legal or decriminalized supply of cannabis: comprehensive medical cannabis laws (MCLs), limited medical cannabidiol laws (CBDLs), recreational cannabis laws (RCLs), industrial hemp laws (IHLs), and decriminalization of cultivations laws (DCLs). Eligible outcomes include intermediate responses (i.e., attitudes/behaviors and markets/environments) and longer-term consequences (health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes) of these laws.

Data Collection and Analysis

Both dual screening and dual data extraction were performed with third person deconfliction. Primary studies were appraised using the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale and systematic reviews were assessed using AMSTAR 2.

Main Results

The EGM includes 447 studies, comprising 438 primary studies and nine systematic reviews. Most research derives from the United States, with little research from other countries. By far, most cannabis liberalization research focuses on the effects of MCLs and RCLs. Studies targeting other laws-including CBDLs, IHLs, and DCLs-are relatively rare. Of the 113 distinct outcomes we documented, cannabis use was the single most frequently investigated. More than half these outcomes were addressed by three or fewer studies, highlighting substantial evidence gaps in the literature. The systematic evidence base is relatively small, comprising just seven completed reviews on cannabis use (3), opioid-related harms (3), and alcohol-related outcomes (1). Moreover, we have limited confidence in the reviews, as five were appraised as minimal quality and two as low quality.

Authors’ Conclusions

More primary and systematic research is needed to better understand the effects of cannabis liberalization laws on longer-term-and arguably more salient-health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes. Since most research concerns MCLs and RCLs, there is a critical need for research on the societal impacts of industrial hemp production, medical CBD products, and decriminalized cannabis cultivation. Future research should also prioritize understanding the heterogeneous effects of these laws given differences in specific provisions and implementation across jurisdictions.

Recreational cannabis and opioid distribution

Twenty-one U.S. states have passed recreational cannabis laws as of November 2022. Cannabis may be a substitute for prescription opioids in the treatment of chronic pain. Previous studies have assessed recreational cannabis laws' effects on opioid prescriptions financed by specific private or public payers or dispensed to a unique endpoint. Our study adds to the literature in three important ways: by (1) examining these laws' impacts on prescription opioid dispensing across all payers and endpoints, (2) adjusting for important opioid-related policies such as opioid prescribing limits, and (3) modeling opioids separately by type. We implement two-way fixed-effects regressions and leverage variation from eleven U.S. states that adopted a recreational cannabis law (RCL) between 2010 and 2019. We find that RCLs lead to a reduction in codeine dispensed at retail pharmacies. Among prescription opioids, codeine is particularly likely to be used non-medically. Thus, the finding that RCLs appear to reduce codeine dispensing is potentially promising from a public health perspective.

Watching the grass grow: does recreational cannabis legalization affect retail and agricultural wages?

Background

Over the past several years, cannabis has become legal for recreational use in many US states and jurisdictions around the world. The opening of these markets has led to the establishment of hundreds of cannabis production and retail firms with accompanying demand for labor, leading to concerns about spillover effects on wages from incumbents.

Methods

We study the markets for agricultural and retail labor in Washington and Colorado from 2000 to 2019 using differences-in-differences with synthetic controls. We employ employment data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, state-level demographic data from the US Census Bureau, and agricultural data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service. We use the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) for variable selection and classification and regression trees (CART) for chained imputation of missing values.

Results

We find little-to-no evidence of a significant difference in weekly wages per worker generated by cannabis legalization: the log of the weekly wage per worker decreases by 0.013 in Washington’s agricultural sector (p value 0.091) and increases by 0.059 in Washington’s retail sector (p value 0.606). Results in Colorado are qualitatively similar. These results are limited in part by the short post-legalization period of the data.

Conclusions

Cannabis legalization is unlikely to negatively impact incumbent agriculture or retail firms through the labor market channel.

U.S. State approaches to cannabis licensing

U.S. states have taken varied approaches to licensing cannabis businesses under federal prohibition, but up to now there is limited research on cross-state licensing approaches. This paper provides a systematic analysis of the current licensing strategies taken by all states that have passed medical cannabis laws (MCLs)/recreational cannabis laws (RCLs). We construct comprehensive data on cannabis business licenses offered in each state, as well as metrics for license categories, cost, and issuance volume. We then analyze patterns between these metrics, also considering how long ago states implemented MCLs/RCLs, qualitative licensing aspects, state ideology and voting preference, and state cannabis taxation data. We observe that states tend to license medical cannabis more restrictively than adult-use cannabis: i.e., by offering licenses in fewer categories, at higher cost, in lower issuance volume, and more often mandating vertical integration. Additionally, states that implemented MCLs/RCLs earlier tend to offer licenses in more categories, at lower cost, and in greater volumes. Further, though states that implemented MCLs recently lean conservative and Republican, we do not observe clear relationships between ideology or voting preference and licensing policy. In our supporting results, we observe that a greater share of states with complex licensing structures impose non-retail price cannabis taxes than states overall, and we discuss how states have changed their licensing policies over time.

The effect of medical cannabis laws on pharmaceutical marketing to physicians

Although cannabis is federally prohibited, a majority of U.S. states have implemented medical cannabis laws (MCLs). As more individuals consider the drug for medical treatment, they potentially substitute away from prescription drugs. Therefore, an MCL signals competitor entry. This paper exploits geographic and temporal variation in MCLs to examine the strategic response in direct-to-physician marketing by pharmaceutical firms as cannabis enters the market. Using office detailing records from 2014-2018 aggregated to the county level, we find weak evidence of a relatively small and delayed response in substitute prescription drug- and opioid-related detailing. While these effects on detailing dollars are more pronounced among smaller pharmaceutical firms, the magnitudes are economically small and likely muted at aggregate levels by the small percent of doctors that actively recommend cannabis for medical treatment.

Marijuana legalization and household spending on food and alcohol

Utilizing the Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey from 2005 to 2019, I study spending on food and alcohol following recreational marijuana law (RML). Exploiting differences in the timing of the passage of RMLs and employing two-way fixed-effects methods, I find that households located in states adopting these laws increase their quarterly spending on food, which is driven mainly by spending on food consumed away from home. Legalization of recreational marijuana also leads to increased quarterly spending on alcohol. These findings suggest a complementarity between food, alcohol, and marijuana.