Alexis Blavos, PhD, MCHES SUNY Cortland Tavis Glassman, PhD, MCHES University of Toledo Jiunn-Jye Sheu, PhD, MCHES University of Toledo Amy Thompson,

Transcription

1 Alexis Blavos, PhD, MCHES SUNY Cortland Tavis Glassman, PhD, MCHES University of Toledo Jiunn-Jye Sheu, PhD, MCHES University of Toledo Amy Thompson, PhD, CHES University of Toledo Faith DeNardo, PhD, CHES Bowling Green State University

2 Explain the associated academic outcomes that marijuana has on college students. Describe the difference in negative outcomes experienced by students in states with and without medical marijuana policies. Analyze the difference in marijuana use perceptions between students in states with and without medical marijuana policies.

3 Marijuana represents the most widely-used illicit drug on college campuses. 45% of students used marijuana, 33% used marijuana in the past year with 19% reporting current use in the past 30 days (CORE, 2013). 86% of students believe that their peers smoked marijuana within the past 30 days, yet only a fraction of that percentage had actually used marijuana (20% - ACHA-NCHA II, 2014).

4 When used repeatedly, marijuana can impair students physical and mental health, intelligence, memory, and academic performance.

5 Academics: Use has been linked to reductions in college graduation, skipping class, early conduct problems, and lower Grade Point Average. Those who use drugs experience less academic motivation because substances hijack the brains reward pathways. (Arria, et al., 2013a; Arria, et al., 2013b; Arria, et al., 2013c; Falls et al., 2011; Hunt, Eisenberg, & Kilbourne, 2010; Jabobus et al., 2013).

6 Academics: Students who use drugs, especially marijuana, spend less time studying, skip more classes, and earn lower GPA s. As a result of poor attendance, students who regularly used marijuana had fewer interactions with faculty and their peers. (Arria, et al., 2013a; Arria, et al., 2013b; Arria, et al., 2013c)

7 Academics: Those who use drugs are more likely to have disruptions in obtaining their degree. Infrequent, increasing, and chronic/heavy marijuana use have all been associated with discontinuous enrollment. (Arria, et al., 2013a; Arria, et al., 2013b; Arria, et al., 2013c)

8 (Arria, et al., 2011, Glascoff, et al., 2013; Whitehall, Rivara, & Moreno, 2014) Drugged Driving Marijuana is the most commonly mentioned drug used during drugged driving episodes. More than 55% of drugged drivers drove drugged more than 3 times a year, regardless of age. One in four college students rode with a drugged driver at least once in the past year.

9 Negative Outcomes Almost 1 in 10 students met the criteria for the DSM-IV CUD diagnosis. 40% of marijuana users reported problems concentrating. 14% of marijuana users reported missing class. Caldeira et al., 2008; Fielder et al., 2013; Kilmer et al, 2007; Palmer et al., 2012)

10 Negative Outcomes 20% of students who had used marijuana in the past perceived there to be future academic consequences if they keep using marijuana. 70% of students who had never used marijuana perceived there to be future academic consequences if they used marijuana. 55% perceived future social consequences if they smoked marijuana. Caldeira et al., 2008; Fielder et al., 2013; Kilmer et al, 2007; Palmer et al., 2012)

11 (Arria, et al., 2013a; Arria, et al., 2013b; Arria, et al., 2013c; Falls et al., 2011; Hunt, Eisenberg, & Kilbourne, 2010; Jabobus et al., 2013; Solowij et al., 2011). Negative Outcomes: Cognition Heavy marijuana users experience deficits in complex attention, storing memory, planning sequencing abilities, verbal and visual memory when compared to non-users even after a month of abstinence. Memory impairment has also been linked specifically to cannabis use and was not attributable to co-use of cannabis and alcohol or cannabis and other drugs.

12 (Buckner, 2013; Ecker, Richter, & Buckner, 2014; Gold & Nguyen, 2009; Kilmer et al., 2006; LaBrie, Grossbard, & Hummer, 2009; Neighbors, Geisner, & Lee, 2008; Simmons, Neal, Gaher, 2006) Normative Influence Students perceive that the majority of their peers had used marijuana in their lifetime while actual use was about half.

13 Normative Influence Participants believed their friends experienced significantly fewer problems than they did. Marijuana users viewed marijuana-related problems as less problematic and less likely to occur than alcohol related problems. (Ecker, Richter, & Buckner, 2014; Gaher & Simmons, 2007; Simmons, Neal, & Gaher, 2006)

14 1996 CA AK, OR, WA 1999 ME CO, HI, NV MT, VT RI 2007 NM 2008 MI AZ, DC, NJ 2011 DE 2012 CT, MA CO, WA IL, NH MD, MN, NY AK, DC, OR (ProCon.org, 2016) PA recreational marijuana decriminalized use and possession

15 To determine the marijuana usage habits and related consequences among students who reside in states which permit medical marijuana.

16 Data set selection criteria.

17 Data set selection criteria. Secondary data analysis using Core Alcohol and Drug Survey Long From 2013 results Campuses self-select and decide administration methods individually Analysis using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 21 Descriptive Statistics and Frequencies Mean and Standard Deviation Odds Ratio (crosstabs 2x2) Logistic Regression

18 Total number of participants: n= 34,165 States with MM laws: n= 3,100 States without MM laws: n= 31,065 MM states included (law implemented by 2011): CA, MI, VT, WA NMM states included: FL, GA, IA, IL, KY, LA, MA, MN, NC, NY, OH, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI

19 MM NMM 9% 17% 32% 6% 16% 33% 41% % MM NMM

20 1% 34% 3% 38% 65% Male Female 59% Male Female Unknown Unknown MM NMM

21 10% 18% White 11% 6% 5% White 3% 62% Black Hispanic 75% Black Hispanic Asian Asian MM NMM

22 MM NMM 24% 27% 26% Freshmen 27% Freshmen 26% 21% Sophomore Junior Senior 25% 24% Sophomore Junior Senior MM NMM

23 Percent Within the last year, have you used marijuana (pot, hash, hash oil)? MM NMM 0 Did Not Use Marijuana Use Used Results are significant at the.001 level (p<0.001)

24 Percent Within the last 30 days, have you used marijuana (pot, hash, hash oil)? MM NMM 10 0 Did Not Use Marijuana Use Used Results are significant at the.001 level (p<0.001)

25 Percent Do you think the average student has used marijuana in the last year? Did Not Use Used in the Past Year Marijuana Use MM NMM Results are significant at the.001 level (p<0.001) *Potential Type 1 Error due to large sample size

26 Percent *Indicates results are significant at the.000 level (p<0.000) **Indicates that the results are significant at the.005 level (p<0.005) MM 60 NMM Substance

27 Students in states with medical marijuana laws were more likely to use: Hallucinogens (β=.75, p<.001) Designer drugs (β=.19, p<.05) Other illegal drugs (β=.32, p<.05)

28 Students in states without medical marijuana laws were more likely to use: Tobacco (β=.29, p<.001) Alcohol (β=.25, p<.005) Amphetamines (β=.35, p<.001)

29 Percent MM NMM A B C D GPA

30 Percent *Indicates results are significant at the.001 level (p<0.001) **Indicates that the results are significant at the.005 level (p<0.005) MM NMM 0 Location of Use

31 Students who attended college in states with medical marijuana laws were more likely to use: On campus, 2.78 (95% CI, 2.40 to 3.21) Residence halls, 2.47 (95% CI, 2.24 to 2.72) Where they live, 2.36 (95% CI, 2.18 to 2.55) Bar/restaurant, 2.21 (95% CI, 1.87 to 2.62) In a car, 2.00 (95% CI, 1.83 to 2.17) Private parties, 1.96 (95% CI, 1.81 to 2.12)

32 Percentage MM NMM Poor test Trouble with authority Argue or fight DWI Missed class Thought might have Consequences problem

33 Students who attended college in states with medical marijuana laws were MORE likely to experience: being hurt or injured increased (95% CI, 1.22 to 1.48) memory loss (95% CI,.95 to 1.15) doing something they later regretted (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.18) getting into trouble with the police times (95% CI,.96 to 1.20) doing poorly on an exam times (95% CI,.95 to 1.16)

34 Students who attended college in states with medical marijuana laws were LESS likely to experience: drive while under the influence 18% (95% CI,.73 to.91) be arrested for DWI/DUI 55% (95% CI,.25 to.78)

35 Percentage MM NMM Trying Marijuana 1x or 2x Smoking Marijuana Occasionally Smoking Marijuana Regularly Approval

36 Students perceptions of how their close friends would feel about their using marijuana: once or twice (β=.32, p<.001, R 2 range.53 to.72) smoking marijuana occasionally (β=.28, p<.001, R 2 range.60 to.80) smoking marijuana regularly (β=.22, p<.001, R 2 range.39 to.56)

37 The CORE utilizes self-reported data, which, because of the sensitive nature of questions, may have led respondents to underreport, over-report, and experience imperfect recall of their substance use. Causal inferences cannot be gleaned from cross-sectional data. The use of only one item to measure perceived risk, descriptive norms, and injunctive norms, respectively, could compromise construct validity through mono-method biases. Possible Type I error based on large sample size.

38 A set of questions asked how often students experienced negative outcomes in relation to all substances use, not just marijuana. Another question ( how do you think your close friends feel or would feel about you ) utilized a double negative response option ( don t disapprove ) which may have led to confusion for some respondents.

39 Dedicating funding toward developing prevention and treatment programs. Prevention information such as healthy decision making and alternative activities (student organizations, clubs, sports, etc.) could be shared with students and their parents as early as student orientation. Medical providers need to screen students for marijuana abuse, treat, and refer as appropriate. Specific interventions designed to prevent and reduce substance abuse need to be implemented and rigorously evaluated.

40 Discuss in groups of 2-3 what you could do to improve marijuana prevention on your campus.

41 Campus Health Practitioner Level Expand current prevention programming and evaluation Social norms marketing and health communication campaigns Interventions that target students and parents Campus wide programming that includes all students, faculty, and staff

42 Campus Administrators Level Campus taskforce Re-evaluate policies Dedicate additional monies to include marijuana prevention in current programming Dedicate a full-time position to address substance abuse prevention

43 Researchers/Grantors Level Meta-analysis of the literature focusing on interventionbased research to ascertain best practices for marijuana prevention similar to the National Institutes on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Tiers of Effectiveness for alcohol prevention on college campuses (NIAAA, 2002). Editors and reviewers for college health and prevention journals are urged to hold authors to higher standards in the peer review process.

44 Researchers/Grantors Level Future research should include states that have implemented recreational marijuana laws and should focus on student physical and mental health, nutrition, sexual activity, campus safety, academics, negative consequences, and social norms.

45 Researchers/Grantors Level Increased grant monies A nationally representative study assessing college students and marijuana use is needed to inform campus officials, and state and federal governments, of pertinent issues that may inform policies and laws. Since marijuana is a Schedule I Drug, intervention research in this area is sparse; specific Requests for Proposals in this area should be implemented.

46 State and Federal Government Level Discrepancies between state and federal laws will need to be further examined and ultimately resolved. Government officials (state & federal) are urged to review the scientific findings associated with marijuana policies and how they may influence college students including retention and graduation rates.

47 1. What prevention strategies are most effective with college students in states where medical marijuana is legal? 2. What prevention strategies are most effective on college campuses in states that have recreational marijuana laws? 3. What campus policies and prevention strategies will be supported by university administration? 4. How do campus policies differ in states with medical or recreational marijuana laws?

48 5. How are campuses enforcing marijuana policies in states with legalized medical or recreational marijuana? 6. Are students in states without recreational marijuana laws physically and/or mentally healthier than those in states with laws? 7. What are the long-term trends of marijuana use in states such as California who implemented medical marijuana laws almost 20 years ago? 8. What are the long term college retention and graduation rate trends in states that have more permissive marijuana laws?

49 Students in states with medical marijuana laws are more likely to have: used marijuana in the past year; use on campus; suffer academic challenges; and believe that their friends would approve of their use.

50 Alexis Blavos, PhD, MCHES