Citation

Trangenstein PJ, Jernigan DH. Addiction 2022; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/add.15984

PMID

35821596

Abstract

Amid sweeping momentum world-wide to repeal cannabis bans, evaluations of non-medical cannabis laws have proliferated. However, cross-sectional designs [1] or inappropriate design choices [2] limit many of these studies. The article by Gunadi, Zhu & Shi demonstrates the potential for using causal inference methods in longitudinal settings to overcome these methodological hurdles [3]. Their work underscores the need to refine research conceptualization and methods to more clearly inform policy discussions.

Taxonomies that classify jurisdictions according to the restrictiveness of their cannabis policy environments [4] may allow researchers to identify more appropriate control and treatment locations. Currently, evaluations of non-medical cannabis legalization are too heterogeneous to meta-analyze [5]. Some of this heterogeneity may arise from the profoundly different ways jurisdictions that fall under the same stage of cannabis legalization (i.e. illegal, decriminalized, medical cannabis or non-medical cannabis) regulate cannabis sale and consumption [6-9]. When this is the case, grouping these jurisdictions together to form treatment and control conditions will probably reduce researchers' odds of detecting associations.

Increasing attention to legalization time-lines presents another opportunity to strengthen the links between non-medical cannabis policy research and policymaking processes. Building a non-medical cannabis market is a lengthy process in which different aspects emerge and stabilize at different time...

Language: en

Keywords

Cannabis; cannabis policy; cannabis-related disparities; legalization; policy evaluation; research methods