Comparison of recreational marijuana users in three nations

1
Comparison of recreational marijuana users in
three nations
Monisha Jayakumar, MPH PhD Program in Maternal
and Child Health Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School
of Public Health
David F. Duncan, DrPH, FAAHB Duncan Associates
Thomas Nicholson, PhD John White, PhD Dept. of
Public Health Western Kentucky University
Richard Wilson, DHSc, MPH Health Knowledge and
Cognitive Sciences University of Louisville
2
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.

3
Use of Cannabis 2001-2003
Source UNODC, World drug report, 2004
4
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?

5
Limitations

• Self-administered survey
• No probability sampling technique in selection
• Exclusion of individuals without internet access
• Study 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

6
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

7
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

8
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
  Statistics U.S Health and Nutrition Examination
  Survey (HANES I)
• Scores 0 to 110 with higher scores signifying
  greater well-being

9
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 parents 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

10
Demographic Indices
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
11
Demographic Characteristics

• No statistically significant difference
• Race white
• Gender male
• Employment employed full-time
• Educational status high school/bachelors
• Income upper/middle SES
• Marital Status single (never married / widowed /
  divorced / separated)

12
Lifestyle Characteristics

• No statistically significant difference
• Happy with marital status Yes
• Child responsibility No
• Child knows of parents drug use Yes
• Registered to vote Yes
• Hobbies Yes
• Active in church No

13
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

14
Recreational Marijuana Use

• Possibly significant differences
• Level of intoxication (X2 10.206, df 4, N
  227, p lt 0.05)
• Medium intoxication most frequent (in all 3
  samples)
• Marijuana with other drugs (X2 23.314, df 8,
  N 222, p lt 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

15
Legal History

• U.S more legal problems consequent to drug use
• (X2 7.485, df 2, N 225, p lt 0.05)
• Drug-related felony (ns)
• Non-drug related felony (ns)

16
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 points p gt .05
17
Summary

• Samples from countries with differing drug
  policies maintained similar marijuana consumption
  patterns
• Similar demographic and lifestyle characteristics
• Significant difference in legal histories

18
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

19
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.

20
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.