[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Youth and Adult Arrests for Cannabis Possession After Decriminalization and Legalization of Cannabis

Educational Objective To review if arrests of youths for possession of cannabis change when cannabis policy focuses on adults.
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  Do arrests of youths for possession of cannabis change when cannabis policy focuses on adults?

Findings  This quasi-experimental study suggests that arrest rates of youths significantly decreased in states that decriminalized cannabis possession for everyone but did not decrease in states that legalized adult use.

Meaning  It appears to be important to consider what happens to youths when cannabis policy treats adults and youths differently.

Abstract

Importance  Civil liberty advocates typically support legalization of cannabis, which targets adult use, rather than decriminalization, which can affect both adults and youths. However, it is unknown how arrests of youths for cannabis possession change when adult use of cannabis is legalized.

Objective  To model changes in arrest rates of adults and youths after decriminalization and legalization of cannabis.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This quasi-experimental study used the publicly available Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race administrative data set to examine arrest rates in 38 states from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2016. Adult (age, ≥18 years) and youth (age, <18 years) arrests for possession of cannabis were examined. States were excluded if they did not report complete arrest data or if a policy was implemented that reduced penalties for possession of cannabis but fell short of decriminalization. Fixed-effects regression was used in an extended difference-in-differences framework. The analyses in their final form were conducted between January 17 and February 28, 2019.

Exposure  Living in a state with a cannabis decriminalization policy (ie, making the penalty for cannabis possession similar to the small fine for a traffic violation) or legalization policy (ie, creating a legal supply of cannabis along with the removal of penalties for possession of a small amount of cannabis for recreational use).

Main Outcome and Measures  State cannabis possession arrest rate per 100 000 population.

Results  Data from 38 states were examined, including 4 states with cannabis legalization policies and 7 states with cannabis decriminalization policies. The adult arrest rate decreased by 131.28 (95% CI, 106.23-154.21) per 100 000 population after the implementation of decriminalization and 168.50 (95% CI, 158.64-229.65) per 100 000 population after the implementation of legalization. The arrest rate for youths decreased by 60 (95% CI, 42-75) per 100 000 population after decriminalization but did not significantly change after legalization in a state (7 per 100 000 population; 95% CI, −15 to 30).

Conclusions and Relevance  Legalization, as implemented through 2016, did not appear to reduce arrests for cannabis possession among youths, despite having benefited adults. The study’s findings suggest that decriminalization reduces youth arrests in most cases, but these findings also suggest that any benefit for youths could be lost when adult use has also been legalized. To address this problem, it appears that state decriminalization policies should take the additional step to explicitly describe when youths can be arrested for possession of small amounts of cannabis.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: March 12, 2019.

Corresponding Author: Andrew D. Plunk, PhD, MPH, Department of Pediatrics, Eastern Virginia Medical School, 855 Brambleton Ave, E. V. Williams Hall, Norfolk, VA 23510 (plunkad@evms.edu).

Published Online: June 17, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1539

Author Contributions: Dr Plunk had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Plunk, Grucza.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Plunk, Peglow, Harrell.

Drafting of the manuscript: All authors.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Peglow, Harrell, Grucza.

Statistical analysis: Plunk.

Obtained funding: Plunk.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Plunk, Peglow, Grucza.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Plunk reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. Dr Harrell reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Moffitt Cancer Center outside the submitted work. Dr Grucza reported receiving grants, personal fees, and honoraria from the National Institutes of Health, and holding stock in Allergan outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by grants DA046757, DA042195, DA040411, and DA031288 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References
1.
Committee on Substance Abuse, Committee on Adolescence; Committee on Substance Abuse Committee on Adolescence.  The impact of marijuana policies on youth: clinical, research, and legal update.  Pediatrics. 2015;135(3):584-587. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-4146PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Joffe  A; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Substance Abuse; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence.  Legalization of marijuana: potential impact on youth.  Pediatrics. 2004;113(6):1825-1826. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.e632PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Edwards  E, Bunting  W, Garcia  L.  The War on Marijuana in Black and White. New York, NY: American Civil Liberties Union; 2013; https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/1114413-mj-report-rfs-rel1.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2017.
4.
Wolfson  M, Hourigan  M.  Unintended consequences and professional ethics: criminalization of alcohol and tobacco use by youth and young adults.  Addiction. 1997;92(9):1159-1164. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb03675.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Wagenaar  AC, Toomey  TL.  Effects of minimum drinking age laws: review and analyses of the literature from 1960 to 2000.  J Stud Alcohol Suppl. 2002;Mar(14):206-225. doi:10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.206PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Grucza  RA, Vuolo  M, Krauss  MJ,  et al.  Cannabis decriminalization: a study of recent policy change in five US states.  Int J Drug Policy. 2018;59:67-75. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.06.016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Geller  A, Fagan  J, Tyler  T, Link  BG.  Aggressive policing and the mental health of young urban men.  Am J Public Health. 2014;104(12):2321-2327. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302046PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Kirk  DS, Sampson  RJ.  Juvenile arrest and collateral educational damage in the transition to adulthood.  Sociol Educ. 2013;88(1):36-62. doi:10.1177/0038040712448862PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Center for Community Alternatives. The use of criminal history records in college admissions: reconsidered. http://communityalternatives.org/pdf/Reconsidered-criminal-hist-recs-in-college-admissions.pdf. Accessed May 7, 2019.
10.
The Office of Federal Student Aid, US Dept of Education. Students with criminal convictions have limited eligibility for federal student aid. https://studentaid.ed.gov/eligibility/criminal-convictions. Published March 26, 2017. Accessed October 14, 2017.
11.
Pager  D, Western  B, Sugie  N.  Sequencing disadvantage: barriers to employment facing young black and white men with criminal records.  Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2009;623(1):195-213. doi:10.1177/0002716208330793PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Cohen  AK, Syme  SL.  Education: a missed opportunity for public health intervention.  Am J Public Health. 2013;103(6):997-1001. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300993PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Uniform crime reporting program data series. https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/series/00057. Accessed October 14, 2017.
14.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. About the UCR program. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/ucr/about-the-ucr-program.pdf. Published September 2018. Accessed October 22, 2018.
15.
National Cancer Institute. US Population Data—1969-2017. https://seer.cancer.gov/popdata/. Accessed October 14, 2017.
16.
US Department of Justice. UCR: Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook. https://ucr.fbi.gov/additional-ucr-publications/ucr_handbook.pdf. 2004. Accessed May 7, 2019.
17.
Allison  PD.  Fixed Effects Regression Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009. doi:10.4135/9781412993869
18.
Wooldridge  JM.  Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2010.
19.
Plunk  AD, Agrawal  A, Harrell  PT,  et al.  The impact of adolescent exposure to medical marijuana laws on high school completion, college enrollment and college degree completion.  Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;168:320-327. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.09.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Grucza  RA, Hur  M, Agrawal  A,  et al.  Medical marijuana laws and suicide.  Am J Public Health. 2015;105(8):e3. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302745PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Grucza  RA, Hur  M, Agrawal  A,  et al.  A reexamination of medical marijuana policies in relation to suicide risk.  Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;152:68-72. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.04.014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Cameron  AC, Gelbach  JB, Miller  DL. Robust inference with multi-way clustering. NBER technical working paper no. 327. https://www.nber.org/papers/t0327. Published September 2006. Accessed May 8, 2019. .
23.
R Development Core Team.  R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018.
24.
Collins  RB, Oesterle  D.  Structuring the ballot initiative: procedures that do and don’t work.  Univ Colo Law Rev. 1994;66:47.Google Scholar
25.
Brown  RA, Novak  KJ, Frank  J.  Identifying variation in police officer behavior between juveniles and adults.  J Crim Justice. 2009;37(2):200-208. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.02.004Google ScholarCrossref
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
jn-learning_Modal_SaveSearch_NoAccess_Purchase
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

Close

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close