Recreational marijuana legalization's impact and opioid death rates: A synthetic control approach

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Public Health Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-29 DOI:10.1016/j.puhe.2024.12.047
Elisha Kwaku Denkyirah , Raymond J. March , Glenn L. Furton , Veeshan Rayamajhee , Ryan M. Yonk
{"title":"Recreational marijuana legalization's impact and opioid death rates: A synthetic control approach","authors":"Elisha Kwaku Denkyirah ,&nbsp;Raymond J. March ,&nbsp;Glenn L. Furton ,&nbsp;Veeshan Rayamajhee ,&nbsp;Ryan M. Yonk","doi":"10.1016/j.puhe.2024.12.047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To develop a more robust understanding of the relationship between increased recreational marijuana access and opioid overdose deaths. Increasing opioid-related deaths in conjunction with the rising popularity of liberalized marijuana laws make additional research examining the interrelation of both a timely and insightful question.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>We use synthetic control method to assess the impact of opening recreational marijuana dispensaries via recreational marijuana legalization (RML) on opioid death rates in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon. These states were the first to introduce recreational marijuana legalization, providing a sufficiently long post-treatment period to draw fruitful policy-related insights.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We utilize state-level data collected from the Centers for Disease Control, Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Census Bureau, American Foundation for AIDS Research's Opioid and Health Indicators Database, and other data sources to construct our synthetics.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Our analysis shows each synthetic control's average treatment effect is approximately −6.49 for Colorado, −2.89 for Washington, and −4.8 for Oregon. However, these findings were not statistically significant. Additional robustness checks performed on each synthetic yield a consistent negative relationship but non-significance.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>We did not find significant relationships between recreational marijuana dispensary openings and opioid death rates.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49651,"journal":{"name":"Public Health","volume":"239 ","pages":"Pages 201-206"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350625000113","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To develop a more robust understanding of the relationship between increased recreational marijuana access and opioid overdose deaths. Increasing opioid-related deaths in conjunction with the rising popularity of liberalized marijuana laws make additional research examining the interrelation of both a timely and insightful question.

Study design

We use synthetic control method to assess the impact of opening recreational marijuana dispensaries via recreational marijuana legalization (RML) on opioid death rates in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon. These states were the first to introduce recreational marijuana legalization, providing a sufficiently long post-treatment period to draw fruitful policy-related insights.

Methods

We utilize state-level data collected from the Centers for Disease Control, Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Census Bureau, American Foundation for AIDS Research's Opioid and Health Indicators Database, and other data sources to construct our synthetics.

Results

Our analysis shows each synthetic control's average treatment effect is approximately −6.49 for Colorado, −2.89 for Washington, and −4.8 for Oregon. However, these findings were not statistically significant. Additional robustness checks performed on each synthetic yield a consistent negative relationship but non-significance.

Conclusions

We did not find significant relationships between recreational marijuana dispensary openings and opioid death rates.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
娱乐性大麻合法化的影响和阿片类药物死亡率:一种综合控制方法。
目的:对娱乐性大麻获取增加与阿片类药物过量死亡之间的关系有更深入的了解。与阿片类药物相关的死亡人数不断增加,加上大麻合法化的日益普及,使得进一步研究两者之间的相互关系成为一个及时而有见地的问题。研究设计:我们采用合成对照方法评估通过娱乐性大麻合法化(RML)开设娱乐性大麻药房对科罗拉多州、华盛顿州和俄勒冈州阿片类药物死亡率的影响。这些州是第一个引入娱乐性大麻合法化的州,提供了足够长的治疗后期,以获得富有成效的政策相关见解。方法:利用美国疾病控制中心、美国劳工统计局、美国人口普查局、美国艾滋病研究基金会阿片类药物和健康指标数据库等数据源收集的国家级数据构建我们的合成方法。结果:我们的分析显示,每种合成对照的平均治疗效果在科罗拉多州约为-6.49,华盛顿州为-2.89,俄勒冈州为-4.8。然而,这些发现没有统计学意义。对每个合成进行的额外稳健性检查产生一致的负相关关系,但不显著。结论:我们没有发现娱乐性大麻药房开业与阿片类药物死亡率之间的显著关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health
Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
280
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: Public Health is an international, multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal. It publishes original papers, reviews and short reports on all aspects of the science, philosophy, and practice of public health.
期刊最新文献
An overview of artificial intelligence approaches for automating evidence synthesis Analysis of adult non-communicable disease (NCD) screening data in Uzbekistan using the UZ-SPEED NCD tool A cluster-randomised controlled trial evaluating the effects of a blended care intervention in pregnancy and postpartum on weight, health behaviour, and mental health in women with low socio-economic status Exploring the validity of using the English index of Multiple Deprivation as a proxy for individual or household income The hidden burden of disease in Brazil: A quantitative comparison between official notifications and modeled estimates from the Global Burden of Disease study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1