Do arrests of youths for possession of cannabis change when cannabis policy focuses on adults?
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.
It appears to be important to consider what happens to youths when cannabis policy treats adults and youths differently.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 Credit(s)™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC
CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships. If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.
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 (email@example.com).
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.
You currently have no searches saved.
You currently have no courses saved.