Comparison of recreational marijuana users in three nations Monisha Jayakumar, MPH PhD Program in Maternal and Child Health Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School.

Comparison of recreational marijuana users in three nations

Monisha Jayakumar, MPHPhD Program in Maternal and Child Health

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Thomas Nicholson, PhDJohn White, PhD

Dept. of Public HealthWestern Kentucky University

David F. Duncan, DrPH, FAAHBDuncan & Associates

Richard Wilson, DHSc, MPHHealth Knowledge and Cognitive Sciences

University of Louisville

Purpose of Study

Compare the association of drug polices of the U.S., the U.K., and Canada in the 1990s and recreational marijuana use patterns.

Compare demographic and lifestyle characteristics, legal history, and mental well-being of samples drawn from the DRUGNET study, from the three countries.

Use of Cannabis 2001-2003

Source: UNODC, World drug report, 2004

Research Question

Is there a difference in patterns of use among the convenience samples of recreational cannabis users from the three countries (viz., United States, United Kingdom, and Canada) with differing drug policies?

Limitations

Self-administered surveyNo probability sampling technique in selectionExclusion of individuals without internet accessStudy results cannot be generalized to the entire

population of recreational marijuana users in the three countries

Selection bias (better educated, above average socioeconomic class)

Delimitation: 1996-1997

Population

The study population involved adult recreational marijuana users in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada.

DRUGNET survey was an internet based cross-sectional survey of adult recreational drug users.

Data collection: 1996-1997 Advertised on web and several mailing lists Self-selected subjects Taking the survey: informed consent Anonymity assured

Sample Size

272 U.S.A: 83 (5% of 1,660 by simple random sampling) U.K: 69 Canada: 120

Design Epidemiological study: cross-sectional descriptive study Data collection: 1996-1997 Drug policies of countries during 1990s compared

Instrumentation

Survey instrument included four primary sub-sections: • Demographic and lifestyle indices • Recreational marijuana use• Past legal history and attitudes about drug issues• General Well-being Schedule (GWBS)

GWBS: designed for the National Center for Health Statistic’s U.S Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HANES I)

Scores: 0 to 110 with higher scores signifying greater well-being

Data Analysis Independent Variable

• Nationality Dependent Variables

• Recreational marijuana use (i.e., age of first use, past year use, frequency of use, current use and 1st year use, heavy use and 1st year use, health problems, problems with marijuana, quit use, level of intoxication, marijuana and other drugs.)

• Demographics and Lifestyle (i.e., race, gender, work status, education level, in college, household income, income needs, marital status, spouse working, happy with marital status, have child responsibility, child knows parent’s drug use behavior, registered to vote, self-perception of health, have hobbies, involved in church activities, involved in community activities)

• Legal history (i.e., legal problems because of drug use, convicted of drug-related felony)

• General well-being status

Variable U.S.A. n %

Canada n %

U.K. n %

X2 df p

Total subjects 83 120 69

Race White Other

77 (93.9%) 5 (6.1%)

101 (87.8%)14 (12.2%)

62 (92.5%) 5 (7.5%)

2.427 2 0.297

Gender: Male Female

65 (79.3%)17 (20.7%)

88 (75.2%)29 (24.8%)

61 (88.4%) 8 (11.6%)

4.720 2 0.094

Work status Full-time Part-time Self-emp Unemp

51 (63.0%)16 (19.8%)10 (12.3%) 4 (4.9%)

62 (53.4%)26 (22.4%)16 (13.8%)12 (10.3%)

48 (72.7%) 9 (13.6%) 4 (6.1%) 5 (7.6%)

8.351 6 0.213

Demographic Indices

Demographic Characteristics

No statistically significant differenceRace: whiteGender: maleEmployment: employed full-timeEducational status: high school/bachelorsIncome: upper/middle SES Marital Status: single (never married / widowed / divorced /

separated)

Lifestyle Characteristics

No statistically significant differenceHappy with marital status: YesChild responsibility: NoChild knows of parent’s drug use: YesRegistered to vote: YesHobbies: YesActive in church: No

Recreational Marijuana Use

No statistically Significant difference Age of onset: 16-17 years Past year use: Yes Frequency of use Current use vs. 1st year use Heavy use vs. 1st year use Health/psych problems from use: No Problems with use, cut down use: Yes Quit use: No

Recreational Marijuana Use

Possibly significant differences: Level of intoxication (X2 = 10.206, df = 4, N = 227, p < 0.05)

• Medium intoxication: most frequent (in all 3 samples)

Marijuana with other drugs (X2 = 23.314, df = 8, N = 222, p < 0.01)

• U.K.: most common among highly frequent users and least common among rare users

• U.S. & Canada: most common among medium frequency users (once a month, once a year users)

• Frequency of use consistent among samples

Legal History

U.S: more legal problems consequent to drug use (X2 = 7.485, df = 2, N = 225, p < 0.05)

Drug-related felony (ns)Non-drug related felony (ns)

General Well-Being Schedule

Variable U.S.A. Canada U.K.

Total number of subjects 69 96 56

Mean 78.1159 77.9167 81.4464

SD 16.41962 14.88529 14.72852

Scale = 0-110 pointsp > .05

Summary

Samples from countries with differing drug policies maintained similar marijuana consumption patterns

Similar demographic and lifestyle characteristics Significant difference in legal histories

Impact of US Laws

Punitive laws of the U.S have little impact on marijuana use (i.e., postponing age of experimentation, attitude towards use, quitting use)

U.S. sample had more legal problems but not for drug-related felony

Major Finding

The criminalization centered drug policy of the U.S. and the more lenient policies of Canada and the U.K. seem to explain the difference in legal histories among the samples. American drug laws seem to have no impact on reducing marijuana use.

Recommendation Possession of marijuana for personal use should not be a

considered a felony or misdemeanor Drug abuse should be considered as a public health problem Allocation of equal funds and resources for drug abuse

prevention and treatment as law enforcement, if not more Further studies comparing major cities in the U.S, Canada,

U.K, Netherlands, & Sweden on recreational marijuana use may provide in depth information & better contrast.

Trends in marijuana use in Canada & U.K following the introduction of decriminalization-based drug policies should be studied and compared with that of the pre-decriminalization era.