Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, Houston, Texas.
Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, Houston, Texas.
Clin Ther. 2023 Jun;45(6):599-615. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2023.03.006.
Despite the progression of recreational cannabis legalization, the legal system remains the largest source of referral to treatment for cannabis use. The legal system's continued practice of requiring participation in cannabis treatment programs raises questions regarding the extent to which individuals who interact with the legal system are monitored for cannabis use post-legalization. This article presents trends in justice-system referrals to treatment for cannabis use in legal and nonlegal states for 2007-2019. The relationship between legalization and justice system treatment referrals for black, Hispanic/Latino, and white adults and juveniles was explored. Given that minority and youth populations are subject to disproportionate levels of cannabis enforcement, legalization is expected to have a weaker relationship with justice-system referral rates in white juveniles and black and Hispanic/Latino adults and juveniles compared to white adults.
Using 2007-2019 data from the Treatment Episode Data Set-Admissions (TEDS-A), variables were created for state-level rates of legal system-referred treatment admissions for cannabis use in black, Hispanic/Latino, and white adults and juveniles. Rate trends were compared across populations and staggered difference-in-difference and event analyses were conducted to determine whether legalization is associated with a decline in justice-system referrals to treatment for cannabis use .
For the study period, the mean rate of legal system-referred admissions in the total population was 2.75 per 10,000 residents. Black juveniles had the highest mean rate (20.16), followed by Hispanic/Latino juveniles (12.35), black adults (9.18), white juveniles (7.58), Hispanic/Latino adults (3.42), and white adults (1.66). Legalization did not have a significant impact on treatment-referral rates in any population of study. Events analyses indicated significant rate increases in black juveniles in legalized states compared to controls at 2 and 6 years after policy change, and in black and Hispanic/Latino adults at 6 years after policy change (all, P < 0.05). While racial/ethnic disparities in referral rates declined in absolute terms, the relative size of these disparities increased in legalized states.
TEDS-A captures only publicly funded treatment admissions and relies on the quality of individual-state reporting. Individual-level factors that may impact decisions regarding treatment referrals for cannabis use could not be controlled for. Despite limitations, the present findings suggest that for individuals who interact with the criminal legal system, cannabis use may still result in legal monitoring after reform. The upward trend in legal system referrals for black (but not white) adults and juveniles several years after states legalize cannabis warrants further examination and may reflect continued disparate treatment of these populations at multiple points along the legal-system continuum.
尽管娱乐用大麻合法化有所进展,但法律体系仍然是将大麻使用者转介至治疗的最大来源。法律体系继续要求参与大麻治疗计划,这引发了一些问题,即与法律体系互动的个人在大麻合法化后,其大麻使用情况在多大程度上受到监测。本文介绍了 2007 年至 2019 年合法和非合法州中因大麻使用而被转介至治疗的司法系统转介治疗的趋势。还探讨了大麻合法化与黑人、西班牙裔/拉丁裔和白人成年人和青少年的司法系统治疗转介之间的关系。鉴于少数族裔和青年人口受到不成比例的大麻执法,预计大麻合法化与白人青少年以及黑人和西班牙裔/拉丁裔成年人和青少年的司法系统转介率之间的关系较弱,而与白人成年人的关系则较弱。
使用 2007 年至 2019 年来自治疗情节数据设置-入院(TEDS-A)的数据,为黑人、西班牙裔/拉丁裔和白人成年人和青少年因大麻使用而被转介至治疗的州级法律体系转介治疗率创建变量。比较了不同人群的趋势,并进行了交错差异差异分析和事件分析,以确定大麻合法化是否与大麻使用的司法系统转介治疗下降有关。
在研究期间,总人口中法律体系转介入院的平均率为每 10000 名居民 2.75 人。黑人青少年的平均比率最高(20.16),其次是西班牙裔/拉丁裔青少年(12.35)、黑人成年人(9.18)、白人青少年(7.58)、西班牙裔/拉丁裔成年人(3.42)和白人成年人(1.66)。在任何研究人群中,大麻合法化都没有对治疗转介率产生重大影响。事件分析表明,政策变化后 2 年和 6 年,与对照组相比,合法州的黑人青少年的比率显著增加,政策变化后 6 年,黑人青少年和西班牙裔/拉丁裔成年人的比率也显著增加(均 P < 0.05)。虽然转介率的种族/民族差异在绝对值上有所下降,但这些差异的相对规模在合法化州有所增加。
TEDS-A 仅捕获公共资助的治疗入院情况,并依赖于个别州的报告质量。无法控制可能影响大麻使用治疗转介决策的个体因素。尽管存在限制,但目前的研究结果表明,对于与刑事司法系统互动的个人来说,大麻使用可能仍会导致改革后进行法律监测。在大麻合法化几年后,黑人(但不是白人)成年人和青少年的法律系统转介呈上升趋势,这需要进一步研究,这可能反映了在法律系统连续体的多个点上对这些人群的持续不同待遇。