Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform

DEPC's 2022–23 Marijuana and Drug Policy Research Grant Call for Proposals

I am very excited that Ohio State's Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) is continuing its regular research grant program to fund work specifically in the marijuana and drug policy research/policy space. Here is the link to the DEPC grants page along with an overview of the call for proposals this year:  

The Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) invites researchers and policy experts from universities, government agencies and independent research centers in the United States to submit proposals for funded research or policy analysis focused on implementation and policy impacts of marijuana legalization and other emerging topics in drug enforcement and policy.  We are specifically interested in research addressing questions related to criminal justice administration, public health, and public safety, as well as their various intersections.

This year’s call for proposals encompasses two different tracks: traditional research projects (maximum award of $25,000) and policy analysis/model policy creation (maximum award of $10,000).  In selection for funding, we are likely to prioritize shorter-term research projects (e.g., completed before end of 2023) that can help inform the work of lawmakers, regulators and advocates eager to promote evidence-based best practices and policies in emerging and future reforms efforts.  Topics may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Impacts of marijuana reform and other drug decriminalization efforts on criminal case processing and law enforcement work including resource allocation, changes to existing arrest/charging/sentencing practices, use of fines and fees for enforcement, and broader effects on crime, clearance rates and community relations.
• Study and evaluation of present expungement and record relief efforts focusing particularly on marijuana offenses and other drug crimes and the impact of new laws and practices on affected populations.
• Impacts and attitudes toward various drug reform efforts in specific neighborhoods/communities defined by geography, political affiliation, social-economic status, and/or other demographics.
• Cost-benefit analyses of marijuana legalization/decriminalization policies, with a focus on economic development and budgetary impacts resulting from reforms such as tax revenues, law enforcement expenditures, treatment costs and regulatory expenses.

A fuller overview is available in this detailed document and the deadline for submissions is January 15, 2023, but proposals will be considered on a rolling basis.  Submit complete proposals to Jana Hrdinová at hrdinova.1  @  osu.edu.

How can we best answer this question: "Does marijuana legalization bring crime?"

Audacy News has this notable new piece headlined "Does marijuana legalization bring crime?  The data may surprise you."  Unfortunately, the piece does not provide a lot of new or sophisticated data on this important question, but the article still is a useful review of the debate over marijuana reform and public safety.  Here are short excerpts from the lengthy piece:

Looking back on a decade of data, did any of the dire predictions come true about weed mania? The short answer appears to be 'no.' If anything, states with legal weed have had declining rates of overall crime.

For the purposes of this study, Audacy used the numbers publicly available from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Crime Data Explorer website. Then we honed in on the year of legalization for all 17 states (and D.C.) and looked at the year prior and the year following legalization.

What we found: There wasn’t much change. Certainly not enough change was evident to warrant making it a key talking-point either for or against legalization.... It seems the definitive answer to this continuing question is that there isn’t one.

For a host of reasons, research on the relationships between marijuana reform and crime presents a host of challenges.  But, as highlighted in this post at my other blog, I am helping with an event that looks to explore and tackle some of these challenges.

Related posting:

Call for Papers: "Drugs and Public Safety: Exploring the Impact of Policy, Policing, and Prosecutorial Reforms" 

"Synthetic cannabinoid poisonings and access to the legal cannabis market: findings from US national poison centre data 2016–2019"

The title of this this post is the title of this notable new research just published in the journal Clinical Toxicology.  Here is its abstract:

Aim

To investigate trends in synthetic cannabinoid exposures reported to United States (US) poison control centres, and their association with status of state cannabis legalisation.

Methods

A retrospective study of National Poison Data System (NPDS) data from 2016 to 2019 identified and associated synthetic poisoning reports with annual state cannabis law and market status. State status was categorised as restrictive (cannabis illegal or limited medical legalisation), medical (allowing THC-containing medical cannabis use) and permissive (allowing non-medical use of THC-containing cannabis by adults).  We categorised a subset of states with permissive policies by their implementation of legal adult possession/use and opening retail markets, on a quarterly basis.  Mixed-effects Poisson regression models assessed synthetic exposures associated with legal status, first among all states using annual counts, and then among states that implemented permissive law alone using quarterly counts.

Results

A total of 7600 exposures were reported during the study period.  Overall, reported synthetic exposures declined over time.  Most reported exposures (64.8%) required medical attention, and 61 deaths were documented.  State implementation of medical cannabis law was associated with 13% fewer reported annual exposures.  Adoption of permissive state cannabis policy was independently and significantly associated with 37% lower reported annual synthetic exposures, relative to restrictive policies (IRR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.50–0.79).  Among states with permissive law during the period, implementation of legal adult possession/use was associated with 22% fewer reported quarterly exposures.  Opening of retail markets was associated with 36% fewer reported exposures, relative to states with medical cannabis only.

Conclusions

Adoption of permissive cannabis law was associated with significant reductions in reported synthetic cannabinoid exposures.  More permissive cannabis law may have the unintended benefit of reducing both motivation and harms associated with use of synthetic cannabis products.

"Association of cannabis potency with mental ill health and addiction: a systematic review"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new article published this week online at The Lancet Psychiatry authored by multiple researchers. Here is its summary:

Cannabis potency, defined as the concentration of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has increased internationally, which could increase the risk of adverse health outcomes for cannabis users.  We present, to our knowledge, the first systematic review of the association of cannabis potency with mental health and addiction (PROSPERO, CRD42021226447).  We searched Embase, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE (from database inception to Jan 14, 2021). Included studies were observational studies of human participants comparing the association of high-potency cannabis (products with a higher concentration of THC) and low-potency cannabis (products with a lower concentration of THC), as defined by the studies included, with depression, anxiety, psychosis, or cannabis use disorder (CUD).

Of 4171 articles screened, 20 met the eligibility criteria: eight studies focused on psychosis, eight on anxiety, seven on depression, and six on CUD.  Overall, use of higher potency cannabis, relative to lower potency cannabis, was associated with an increased risk of psychosis and CUD.  Evidence varied for depression and anxiety.  The association of cannabis potency with CUD and psychosis highlights its relevance in health-care settings, and for public health guidelines and policies on cannabis sales.  Standardisation of exposure measures and longitudinal designs are needed to strengthen the evidence of this association.

"Changes in Traffic Crash Rates After Legalization of Marijuana: Results by Crash Severity"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new article published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs and authored by Charles M. Farmer, Samuel S. Monfort and Amber N. Woods. Here is its abstract:

Objective:

The objective of this study was to estimate the effects of marijuana legalization and the subsequent onset of retail sales on injury and fatal traffic crash rates in the United States during the period 2009–2019.

Method:

State-by-state quarterly crash rates per mile of travel were modeled as a function of time, unemployment rate, maximum posted speed limit, seat belt use rate, alcohol use rate, percent of miles driven on rural roads, and indicators of legalized recreational marijuana use and sales.

Results:

Legalization of the recreational use of marijuana was associated with a 6.5% increase in injury crash rates and a 2.3% increase in fatal crash rates, but the subsequent onset of retail marijuana sales did not elicit additional substantial changes.  Thus, the combined effect of legalization and retail sales was a 5.8% increase in injury crash rates and a 4.1% increase in fatal crash rates.  Across states, the effects on injury crash rates ranged from a 7% decrease to an 18% increase.  The effects on fatal crash rates ranged from a 10% decrease to a 4% increase.

Conclusions:

The estimated increases in injury and fatal crash rates after recreational marijuana legalization are consistent with earlier studies, but the effects varied across states.  Because this is an early look at the time trends, researchers and policymakers need to continue monitoring the data.

"Maximizing social equity as a pillar of public administration: An examination of cannabis dispensary licensing in Pennsylvania"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper authored by Alfred Lee Hannah, Daniel J. Mallinson and Lauren Azevedo published in the Public Administration Review. (For the record, this research was supported by funding from the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center.)   Here is the paper's abstract:

Public administration upholds four pillars of an administrative practice: economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and social equity.  The question arises, however, how do administrators balance effectiveness and social equity when implementing policy?  Can the values contributing to administrative decisions be measured?

This study leverages the expansion of medical cannabis programs in the states to interrogate these questions.  The awarding of dispensary licenses in Pennsylvania affords the ability to determine the effect of social equity scoring on license award decisions, relative to criteria that represent the other pillars.  The results show that safety and business acumen were the most important determining factors in the awarding of licenses, both effectiveness concerns.  Social equity does not emerge as a significant determinant until the second round of licensing.  This study then discusses the future of social equity provisions for cannabis policy, as well as what the findings mean for social equity in public administration.

"What Tax Revenues Should Ohioans Expect If Ohio Legalizes Adult-Use Cannabis?"

The title of this post is the title of this new report available via SSRN and produced by the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center and authored by Jana Hrdinova and Dexter Ridgway. Here is its abstract:

Advocates for cannabis reform in Ohio and in other states often stress the tax revenue that can be raised through legalization.  If a citizen-initiated statute currently under consideration in the Ohio General Assembly were to reach the ballot, Ohio voters are likely to hear from reform advocates about the potential tax revenue a new cannabis industry could bring to the Buckeye State.  The purpose of this policy paper is to provide an initial estimate of potential cannabis tax revenue in Ohio that is informed by tax revenue data and trends from a select group of other adult-use states.

Based on our analysis, we are using Michigan FY 2021 data on cannabis tax revenue as our focal point for Ohio cannabis tax revenue estimates given the demographic and tax structure similarities; we are assuming a conservative rate of diminishing retail sales growth through year five of an operational legal adult-use program; we are using state population figures as our basis for calculating per capita cannabis tax revenue rates; and we are modeling for three different Ohio pricing scenarios.  Given these assumptions, the potential annual tax revenue from adult-use cannabis in the state of Ohio ranges from $276 million in year five of an operational cannabis market to $374 million in year five of operations.

New Leafly report concludes "legal cannabis now supports 321,000 full-time American jobs"

The folks at Leafly have this notable new report seeking to address this basic question: "How many jobs are in America’s legal cannabis industry?" Here is part of the answer:

The 2022 Leafly Jobs Report found 428,059 full-time equivalent jobs supported by legal cannabis as of January 2022.  In the second year of the Covid-19 pandemic, America’s cannabis industry sold nearly $25 billion in products and created more than 107,000 new jobs — enough to fill the Rose Bowl and then some.

That’s a 33% increase in jobs in a single year.  And it marks the fifth year in a row of annual job growth greater than 27%. No other industry in America can match that.  Last year, America’s legal cannabis industry created more than 280 new jobs every day.  In 2021, someone was hired for a cannabis-supported job about every 2 minutes of the work day....

Those 428,059 jobs include direct cannabis jobs like cultivation and retail sales — what are often called “plant-touching jobs” — as well as indirect ancillary jobs that serve licensed companies or depend on legal cannabis sales. Ancillary jobs include work in accounting, human resources, legal affairs, regulatory compliance, security, maintenance, and construction.  Also included are indirect jobs in cannabis media, technology platforms, public relations, lobbying, non-cannabis product suppliers, and industry associations....

America now has three times as many cannabis workers as dentists.  Cannabis workers outnumber insurance salespeople. There are more people employed in the cannabis industry than there are hair stylists, barbers, and cosmetologists—combined....

While legal cannabis now supports 428,059 jobs, the total employment potential in a mature US legal cannabis market is approximately 1.5 million to 1.75 million workers.  The economic and employment potential for legal cannabis remains quite bright for many years to come.

"Societal Costs and Outcomes of Medical and Recreational Marijuana Policies in the United States: A Systematic Review"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new research in the journal Medical Care Research and Review authored by Michael French, Julia Zukerberg, Tara Lewandowski, Katrina Piccolo and Karoline Mortensen.  Here is its abstract:

Significant support exists in the United States for legalization of marijuana/cannabis.  As of 2021, 36 states and four territories approved the legalization of medical cannabis via medical marijuana laws (MMLs), and 15 states and District of Columbia (DC) have adopted recreational marijuana laws (RMLs).  We performed structured and systematic searches of articles published from 2010 through September 2021.  We assess the literature pertaining to adolescent marijuana use; opioid use and opioid-related outcomes; alcohol use; tobacco use; illicit and other drug use; marijuana growing and cultivation; employment, earnings, and other workplace outcomes; academic achievement and performance; criminal activity; perceived harmfulness; traffic and road safety; and suicide and sexual activity.  Overall, 113 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria.  Except for opioids, studies on use of other substances (illicit drugs, tobacco, and alcohol) were inconclusive. MMLs and RMLs do not generate negative outcomes in the labor market, lead to greater criminal activity, or reduce traffic and road safety.

MPP provides new accounting of "Cannabis Tax Revenue in States that Regulate Cannabis for Adult Use"

The Marijuana Policy Project has this notable new online report under the heading "Cannabis Tax Revenue in States that Regulate Cannabis for Adult Use."   The report provides a state-by-state accounting of public tax revenue data, and it sets up the discussion this way:

Legalizing cannabis for adults has been a wise investment.  Since 2014 when sales began in Colorado and Washington, legalization policies have provided states a new revenue stream to bolster budgets and fund important services and programs.  As of December 2021, states reported a combined total of $10.4 billion in tax revenue from legal, adult-use cannabis sales.  In addition to revenue generated for statewide budgets, cities and towns have also generated hundreds of thousands of dollars in new revenue from local adult-use cannabis taxes.

Eighteen states have laws that legalize, tax, and regulate cannabis for adults 21 and older (the 2020 voter-approved adult-use legalization law in South Dakota was overturned by the state’s Supreme Court in November 2021).  Eight of the laws were approved in 2020 or 2021, and in seven of those states, sales and tax collections have not yet begun.  This document reviews each state’s adult-use cannabis tax structure, population, and revenue from legalization.  These figures do not include medical cannabis tax revenue, application and licensing fees paid by cannabis businesses, additional income taxes generated by workers in the cannabis industry, or corporate taxes paid to the federal government.

The last line of this introduction highlights why this review in necessarily an under-reporting of state revenues generated by legalization regimes.

"Cannabis decriminalization and racial disparity in arrests for cannabis possession"

The title of this post is the title of this encouraging new research in the January 2022 issue of the journal Social Science & Medicine.  This piece is authored by Christian Gunadi and Yuyan Shi, and here is its abstract:

Rationale

Minorities often bear the brunt of unequal enforcement of drug laws. In the U.S., Blacks have been disproportionately more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than Whites despite a similar rate of cannabis use. Decriminalizing cannabis has been argued as a way to reduce racial disparity in cannabis possession arrests. To date, however, the empirical evidence to support this argument is almost non-existent.

Objectives

To examine whether cannabis decriminalization was associated with reduced racial disparity in arrests for cannabis possession between Blacks and Whites in the U.S.

Methods

Using FBI Uniform Crime Report data from 37 U.S. states, cannabis possession arrest rates were calculated separately for Blacks and Whites from 2000 to 2019.  A difference-in-differences framework was used to estimate the association between cannabis decriminalization and racial disparity in cannabis possession arrest rates (Blacks/Whites ratio) among adults and youths.

Results

Cannabis possession arrest rates declined over 70% among adults and over 40% among youths after the implementation of cannabis decriminalization in 11 states. Among adults, decriminalization was associated with a roughly 17% decrease in racial disparity in arrest rates between Blacks and Whites.  Among youths, arrest rates declined among both Blacks and Whites but there was no evidence for a change in racial disparity between Blacks and Whites following decriminalization.

Conclusions

Cannabis decriminalization was associated with substantially lower cannabis possession arrest rates among both adults and youths and among both Blacks and Whites.  It reduced racial disparity between Blacks and Whites among adults but not youths.  These findings suggested that cannabis decriminalization had its intended consequence of reducing arrests and may have potential to reduce racial disparity in arrests at least among adults.

"The Effects of Marijuana Legalization in Colorado: More Neutral than Expected"

The title of this post is the title of this paper recently posted to SSRN and authored by Jesse Plaksa, a student at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.  (This paper is yet another in the on-going series of student papers supported by the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center.)   Here is this latest paper's abstract:  

In 2012, Colorado was among the first states to legalize marijuana for recreational use, coming only second to Washington by four days.  However, Colorado was the first state to begin selling recreationally.  Thus, interested parties immediately began looking to Colorado’s experiment to help determine what exactly happens when a state begins regulating marijuana like alcohol.  Any major policy change will have many wide-ranging effects.

This paper will examine a variety of those effects, including the effects on crime, use of other illicit drugs, policing, health, and economic effects.  The effects on crime are not clear because there are conflicting reports showing crime has gone down, but others show a neutral effect on crime.  Legalization does not seem to affect clearance rates of crimes, as proponents often argue it would.  It is not yet clear whether marijuana legalization lowers opioid overdose deaths, though researchers would expect that some opioid users would use marijuana instead. Additionally, legalization appears to have little to no effect on traffic accidents and fatalities.  Legalization also added a substantial amount of new jobs to Colorado’s economy and brings in substantial revenue with Colorado’s high tax rate on marijuana sales.

Marijuana is still federally illegal, being a schedule I drug along with heroin, but states have pushed forward with little to no interference from the federal government.  Colorado has paved the way by showing that legalization can, at the very least, bring in much-needed revenue via taxes.  By being aware of the possible effects of legalization, state lawmakers and citizens can be better informed to make decisions for their own states.  Additionally, the federal government can look to Colorado as an experiment that it can then learn from to better decide whether to make any changes at the federal level.  Given that Pew polls show around two thirds of Americans favor legalization, a close look at the consequences of such a policy is warranted.

"Smoke and Fears: The Effects of Marijuana Prohibition on Crime"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new working paper authored by Scott Callahan, David M. Bruner and Chris Giguere. Here is its abstract:

U.S. drug policy presumes prohibition reduces crime.  Recently states have enacted medical marijuana laws creating a natural experiment to test this hypothesis but is impeded by severe measurement error with available data.  We develop a novel imputation procedure to reduce measurement error bias and estimate significant reductions in violent and property crime rates, with heterogeneous effects across and within states and types of crime, contradicting drug prohibition policy.  We demonstrate uncorrected measurement error or assuming homogeneous policy effects leads to underestimation of crime reduction from ending marijuana prohibition.

And here is a key paragraph from the paper's introduction:

Our results indicate that MMLs result in significant reductions in both violent and property crime rates, with larger effects in Mexican border states.  While these results for violent crime rates are consistent with previously reported evidence (Gavrilova et al., 2017), we are the first paper to report such an effect on property crime as well.  Moreover, the estimated effects of MMLs on property crime rates are substantially larger, which is not surprising given property crimes are more prevalent.  We also find novel evidence consistent with our hypothesis that MMLs reduce violent crime rates more in urban counties compared to rural counties, contrary to previous estimates (Chu and Townsend, 2019).  We attribute this result to greater conflict between producers in urban counties under prohibition.  Overall, our results are consistent with the need for market participants to create de facto property rights under prohibition, often through the use of violence.  Our results are also consistent with prohibition causing a diversion of scarce policing resources, which when reallocated have the greatest impact on more pervasive types of crime and in locations where crime rates are higher.  These findings demonstrate both the importance of accounting for heterogeneous policy effects on crime and the necessity to correct for measurement error in crime data when conducting policy analysis.

"Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines for reducing health harms from non-medical cannabis use: A comprehensive evidence and recommendations update"

The title of this post is the title of this new article by multiple authored appearing in the International Journal of Drug Policy. Here is its abstract:

Background

Cannabis use is common, especially among young people, and is associated with risks for various health harms.  Some jurisdictions have recently moved to legalization/regulation pursuing public health goals.  Evidence-based ‘Lower Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines’ (LRCUG) and recommendations were previously developed to reduce modifiable risk factors of cannabis-related adverse health outcomes; related evidence has evolved substantially since.  We aimed to review new scientific evidence and to develop comprehensively up-to-date LRCUG, including their recommendations, on this evidence basis.

Methods

Targeted searches for literature (since 2016) on main risk factors for cannabis-related adverse health outcomes modifiable by the user-individual were conducted.  Topical areas were informed by previous LRCUG content and expanded upon current evidence. Searches preferentially focused on systematic reviews, supplemented by key individual studies.  The review results were evidence-graded, topically organized and narratively summarized; recommendations were developed through an iterative scientific expert consensus development process.

Results

A substantial body of modifiable risk factors for cannabis use-related health harms were identified with varying evidence quality.  Twelve substantive recommendation clusters and three precautionary statements were developed.  In general, current evidence suggests that individuals can substantially reduce their risk for adverse health outcomes if they delay the onset of cannabis use until after adolescence, avoid the use of high-potency (THC) cannabis products and high-frequency/-intensity of use, and refrain from smoking-routes for administration.  While young people are particularly vulnerable to cannabis-related harms, other sub-groups (e.g., pregnant women, drivers, older adults, those with co-morbidities) are advised to exercise particular caution with use-related risks.  Legal/regulated cannabis products should be used where possible.

Conclusions

Cannabis use can result in adverse health outcomes, mostly among sub-groups with higher-risk use.  Reducing the risk factors identified can help to reduce health harms from use.  The LRCUG offer one targeted intervention component within a comprehensive public health approach for cannabis use.  They require effective audience-tailoring and dissemination, regular updating as new evidence become available, and should be evaluated for their impact.

"Recreational Cannabis Legalization and Alcohol Purchasing: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new research by Collin Calvert and Darin Erickson now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:

Background:  Whether recreational cannabis legalization is associated with changes in alcohol consumption (suggesting a potential substitution or complementary relationship) is a key question as cannabis policy evolves, particularly given the adverse health and social effects of alcohol use.  Relatively little research has explored this question.

Methods:  This study examined the association between recreational cannabis legalization and alcohol purchasing in the U.S. using an interrupted time series design. We used data from the Nielsen Consumer Panel (2004-2017) from 69,761 households in all 50 states to calculate monthly milliliters of pure ethanol purchased for four beverage categories (beer, wine, spirits, and all alcohol products). We used difference-in-differences models and robust cluster standard errors to compare changes in milliliters of pure ethanol purchased.  We fit models for each beverage category, comparing three “policy” states that have legalized recreational cannabis (Colorado, Oregon, and Washington) to states that had not legalized recreational cannabis.  In one set of models, a single control state was selected that matched pre-policy purchasing trends in the policy states.  In another set, policy states were compared to all states that had not legalized recreational cannabis.

Results:  Compared to all other states that did not legalize recreational cannabis, Colorado households showed a 13% average monthly decrease in purchases of all alcoholic products combined (estimate: 0.87; CI: 0.77, 0.98) and a 6% decrease in wine (0.94; CI: 0.89, 0.99).  Estimates in Washington were suggestive of an increase in spirits purchased in both the unrestricted (1.24; CI: 1.12, 1.37) and restricted sample (1.18; CI: 1.02, 1.36).  Oregon showed a significant decrease in monthly spirits purchased when compared to its selected comparator state (0.87; CI: 0.77, 0.99) and to all other states without legalized recreational cannabis (0.85; CI: 0.77, 0.95).

Conclusions:  Results suggest that alcohol and cannabis are not clearly substitutes nor complements to one-another.  Future studies should examine additional states as more time passes and more post-legalization data becomes available, use cannabis purchase data and consider additional methods for control selection in quasi-experimental studies. 

Notable new report on the "Impacts of Marijuana Legalization in Colorado"

As discussed in this local news piece, this week brought this big new report with lots of new data on some of the impacts of marijuana reform in Colorado.  Here are excerpts from the press account:

More than seven years since Colorado became the first state to allow cannabis to be sold at stores for recreational use, pot arrests are down, marijuana-impaired driving cases are up and school expulsions are both up and down.

Those numbers — and a whole lot more — come from a new report released Monday by the state Department of Public Safety, which is required by law to study the impacts of cannabis legalization. In a new 180-page report, a statistical analyst from the department’s Division of Criminal Justice painstakingly goes through the numbers to provide the most comprehensive summary available about what has happened since voters in 2012 approved a state constitutional amendment legalizing possession and sales of small amounts marijuana. (Recreational cannabis stores opened during a New Year’s Day snowstorm in 2014.)

But the analyst, a longtime tracker of marijuana data named Jack Reed, is also hesitant about drawing conclusions from this mountain of information. He cited inconsistencies in how data was collected and other limitations that make it difficult to draw hard conclusions. “The lack of pre-commercialization data, the decreasing social stigma, and challenges to law enforcement combine to make it difficult to translate these preliminary findings into definitive statements of outcomes,” he wrote.

Here’s what Reed found: Marijuana-related arrests are down....

Major marijuana-related crime has been on a rollercoaster....

Marijuana DUIs are up....

Adults are using cannabis more — especially older adults....

Hospitalizations have leveled off....

It’s not clear if kids are using cannabis more....

School expulsions were way up, then way down....

Tax revenue has grown....

Interesting look into marijuana reform and home values

I just came across this interesting new online report from the realtor website Clever Real Estate under the heading "2021 Study: How Legalizing Recreational Marijuana Impacts Home Values."  Here are excerpts:

To learn how marijuana legalization may impact real estate, we used publicly available data from Zillow and the U.S. Census, among other sources, to explore the relationships between home values, marijuana legalization, dispensaries, and tax revenue.  We used multiple regression analyses to model current trends and predict future patterns.

Overall, we found marijuana legalization leads to higher property values and millions of dollars in new tax revenue.  In fact, states that legalize recreational marijuana and add new retail dispensaries see far greater property value and tax revenue gains than states that block dispensaries or limit marijuana to medicinal use.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• From 2017 to 2019, home values increased $6,338 more in states where marijuana is legal in some form, compared to states that haven’t legalized marijuana. 

• As states tax marijuana sales for the first time, the increased revenue drives new investment in things such as public services and infrastructure — which in turn drives higher demand in real estate, higher property values, and greater revenue from property taxes.

• On average, home values increase by $470 for every $1 million increase in tax revenue.  In 2020, the eight states that reported a full year of marijuana tax revenue earned $2.3 billion — including $1 billion in California alone.  The seven states (and Washington, D.C.) that have yet to collect a full year of marijuana taxes are predicted to collectively bring in $601 million in new annual tax revenue.

• States that have legalized and allowed sales of recreational marijuana see the biggest increases in home values: Between April 2017 and April 2021, property values rose $17,113 more in states where recreational marijuana is legal, compared to states where marijuana is illegal or limited to medicinal use.

• In the five states that have legalized recreational marijuana but have yet to begin sales, home values are predicted to increase by an average of $61,343 when sales go into effect.  Among states that have legalized recreational marijuana, California has seen the biggest increase in home values — up by $128,341 since 2017, after we controlled for other variables.

• We found that cities with more dispensaries are positively correlated with higher home values, suggesting legalization boosts jobs and economic growth. Home values increased $22,090 more in cities with recreational dispensaries, compared to home values in cities where recreational marijuana is legal but dispensaries are not available. With each new dispensary a city adds, property values increase by $519.

"Changes in traffic crash rates after legalization of marijuana: results by crash severity"

The title of this post is the title of this new research authored by Charles Farmer, Samuel Monfort and Amber Woods and supported by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.  Here is its abstract:

Objective:  The objective of this study was to estimate the effects of marijuana legalization on injury and fatal traffic crash rates in the United States during the period 2009–2019.

Method:  State-by-state quarterly crash rates per mile of travel were modeled as a function of time, unemployment rate, maximum posted speed limit, seat belt use rate, alcohol use rate, and indicators of legalized recreational marijuana sales and use.

Results:  Legalization of the recreational use of marijuana was associated with a statistically significant 6.6% increase in injury crash rates and a nonsignificant 2.3% increase in fatal crash rates.  In contrast, the subsequent onset of retail marijuana sales ― 3 to 18 months later depending on the state ― did not elicit additional substantial increases to injury or fatal crash rates.  Thus, the combined effect of legalization and retail sales was a statistically significant 5.9% increase in injury crash rates and a nonsignificant 3.8% increase in fatal crash rates.  However, these estimates varied by state.  The effects of legal marijuana use and sales on injury crash rates ranged from a 7% decrease to an 18% increase.  The effects on fatal crash rates ranged from an 8% decrease to a 4% increase.

Conclusions:  The estimated increases in injury and fatal crash rates after marijuana legalization are consistent with earlier studies, but they were not always statistically significant, and the effects varied across states.  However, this is an early look at the time trends, and researchers and policymakers need to continue monitoring the data.  National, state, and local governments considering changes to their marijuana policies should be cautious, proceed slowly, and take note of the lessons learned from these initial experiences.

Another notable accounting of marijuana tax revenues

In this prior post, I flagged of this recent report and accounting from folks at the Marijuana Policy Project titled "Marijuana Tax Revenue in States that Regulate Marijuana for Adult Use."  While that report focused on cumulative tax revenue in various states, this recent MJBiz Daily article, headlined "Marijuana legalization efforts get boost from billions in MJ tax dollars," drills into some more tax specifics while also discussing the MPP report.  I recommend the piece in full, and here are excerpts:

Adult-use marijuana programs are generating billions of dollars in tax revenues for state governments each year – bolstering the economic and equity case for legalization in other markets across the country as well as at the federal level. The economic argument might particularly resonate among reluctant Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, experts say....

MPP’s tax revenue report comes as the organization is involved in adult-use legalization advocacy efforts in Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island – and in the wake of successful recreational marijuana legalization across the country in the past few months from New York to New Mexico.  Maryland is on MPP’s radar for next year ... as are potentially several other states....

Social equity and racial justice issues have become critical pieces in adult-use legalization negotiations, and tax revenues are important because they help fund those programs.  In New York, state tax revenues will be directed toward community reinvestment grants (40%), public schools (20%) and drug-treatment and public-health programs (40%).

Other states also are using portions of the tax revenues for such areas as childcare services (California), conservation (Montana), environment (California), law enforcement (Oregon and Maine), mental-health services (Illinois), public transportation (Michigan) and reentry programs for those imprisoned with drug convictions (Alaska)....

The report doesn’t detail the hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue generated for cities and towns from local cannabis taxes or the various economic development impacts such as job creation.  But other studies have.  The newly published MJBizFactbook, for example, estimates that the total U.S. economic impact from marijuana sales in 2021 is expected to reach $92 billion – up more than 30% from last year – and upwards of $160 billion in 2025.

"Illegal drug market responses to state recreational cannabis laws"

The title of this post is the title of this notable research report recently published in the journal Addiction authored by Angélica Meinhofer and Adrian Rubli. Here is its abstract:

Background and Aims

In the United States, 15 states and the District of Columbia have implemented recreational cannabis laws (RCLs) legalizing recreational cannabis use. We aimed to estimate the association between RCLs and street prices, potency, quality and law enforcement seizures of illegal cannabis, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, oxycodone,hydrocodone, morphine, amphetamine and alprazolam.

Design

We pooled crowd sourced data from 2010–19 Price of Weed and 2010–19 Street Rx, and administrative data from the 2006–19 System to Retrieve Information from DrugEvidence (STRIDE) and the 2007–19 National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS). We employed a difference-in-differences design that exploited the staggered implementation of RCLs to compare changes in outcomes between RCL and non-RCL states.

Setting and cases

Eleven RCL and 40 non-RCL US states.

Measures

The primary outcome was the natural log of prices per gram, overall and by self-reported quality. The primary policy was an indicator of RCL implementation, dened using effective dates.Findings The street price of cannabis decreased by 9.2%[β = 0.092; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.15–, –0.03] in RCL states after RCL implementation, with largest declines among low-quality purchases (β = 0.195; 95% CI = –0.282, –0.108). Price declines were accompanied by a 93%(β = 0.93; 95% CI = –1.51, –0.36) reduction in law enforcement seizures of cannabis in RCL states. Among illegal opioids, including heroin, oxycodone and hydrocodone, street prices increased and law enforcement seizures decreased in RCLstates.

Conclusions

Recreational cannabis laws in US states appear to be associated with illegal drug market responses in those states, including reductions in the street price of cannabis.  Changes in the street prices of illegal opioids analyzed may suggest that in states with recreational cannabis laws the markets for other illegal drugs are not independent of legal cannabis market regulation.