Comparison of recreational
marijuana users in three nations
Monisha Jayakumar, MPH
PhD Program in Maternal and Child Health
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Thomas Nicholson, PhD
John White, PhD
Dept. of Public Health
Western Kentucky University
David F. Duncan, DrPH, FAAHB
Duncan & Associates
Richard Wilson, DHSc, MPH
Health Knowledge and Cognitive Sciences
University of Louisville
Purpose of Study
Compare the association of drug polices of
the U.S., the U.K., and Canada in the 1990s
and recreational marijuana use patterns.
Compare demographic and lifestyle
characteristics, legal history, and mental
well-being of samples drawn from the
DRUGNET study, from the three countries.
Use of Cannabis 2001-2003
Source: UNODC, World drug report, 2004
Research Question
Is there a difference in patterns of use among
the convenience samples of recreational
cannabis users from the three countries
(viz., United States, United Kingdom, and
Canada) with differing drug policies?
Limitations
Self-administered survey
No probability sampling technique in selection
Exclusion of individuals without internet access
Study results cannot be generalized to the entire
population of recreational marijuana users in the
three countries
Selection bias (better educated, above average
socioeconomic class)
Delimitation: 1996-1997
Population
 The study population involved adult recreational marijuana
users in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada.
 DRUGNET survey was an internet based cross-sectional survey
of adult recreational drug users.
 Data collection: 1996-1997
 Advertised on web and several mailing lists
 Self-selected subjects
 Taking the survey: informed consent
 Anonymity assured
Sample Size
 272
 U.S.A: 83 (5% of 1,660 by simple random sampling)
 U.K: 69
 Canada: 120
Design
 Epidemiological study: cross-sectional descriptive study
 Data collection: 1996-1997
 Drug policies of countries during 1990s compared
Instrumentation
 Survey instrument included four primary sub-sections:
•
•
•
•
Demographic and lifestyle indices
Recreational marijuana use
Past legal history and attitudes about drug issues
General Well-being Schedule (GWBS)
 GWBS: designed for the National Center for Health Statistic’s
U.S Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HANES I)
 Scores: 0 to 110 with higher scores signifying greater well-being
Data Analysis

Independent Variable
•

Nationality
Dependent Variables
•
Recreational marijuana use (i.e., age of first use, past year use, frequency
of use, current use and 1st year use, heavy use and 1st year use, health problems,
problems with marijuana, quit use, level of intoxication, marijuana and other
drugs.)
•
•
•
Demographics and Lifestyle (i.e., race, gender, work status, education
level, in college, household income, income needs, marital status,
spouse working, happy with marital status, have child responsibility,
child knows parent’s drug use behavior, registered to vote, selfperception of health, have hobbies, involved in church activities,
involved in community activities)
Legal history (i.e., legal problems because of drug use, convicted of
drug-related felony)
General well-being status
Demographic Indices
Variable
Total subjects
Race
White
Other
Gender:
Male
Female
Work status
Full-time
Part-time
Self-emp
Unemp
U.S.A.
n
%
Canada
n
%
U.K.
n
%
83
120
69
77
5
65
17
51
16
10
4
(93.9%)
(6.1%)
(79.3%)
(20.7%)
(63.0%)
(19.8%)
(12.3%)
(4.9%)
101 (87.8%)
14 (12.2%)
88
29
62
26
16
12
(75.2%)
(24.8%)
(53.4%)
(22.4%)
(13.8%)
(10.3%)
X2
df
p
2.427
2
0.297
4.720
2
0.094
8.351
6
0.213
62 (92.5%)
5 (7.5%)
61 (88.4%)
8 (11.6%)
48
9
4
5
(72.7%)
(13.6%)
(6.1%)
(7.6%)
Demographic Characteristics
No statistically significant difference
Race: white
Gender: male
Employment: employed full-time
Educational status: high school/bachelors
Income: upper/middle SES
Marital Status: single (never married / widowed / divorced /
separated)
Lifestyle Characteristics
No statistically significant difference
Happy with marital status: Yes
Child responsibility: No
Child knows of parent’s drug use: Yes
Registered to vote: Yes
Hobbies: Yes
Active in church: No
Recreational Marijuana Use
No statistically Significant difference
 Age of onset: 16-17 years
 Past year use: Yes
 Frequency of use
 Current use vs. 1st year use
 Heavy use vs. 1st year use
 Health/psych problems from use: No
 Problems with use, cut down use: Yes
 Quit use: No
Recreational Marijuana Use
Possibly significant differences:
 Level of intoxication (X2 = 10.206, df = 4, N = 227, p < 0.05)
• Medium intoxication: most frequent (in all 3 samples)
 Marijuana with other drugs (X2 = 23.314, df = 8, N = 222, p <
0.01)
• U.K.: most common among highly frequent users and least common
among rare users
• U.S. & Canada: most common among medium frequency users (once
a month, once a year users)
• Frequency of use consistent among samples
Legal History
U.S: more legal problems consequent to drug use
(X2 = 7.485, df = 2, N = 225, p < 0.05)
Drug-related felony (ns)
Non-drug related felony (ns)
General Well-Being Schedule
Variable
U.S.A.
Canada
U.K.
Total number of subjects
69
96
56
Mean
78.1159
77.9167
81.4464
SD
16.41962
14.88529
14.72852
Scale = 0-110 points
p > .05
Summary
 Samples from countries with differing drug policies maintained
similar marijuana consumption patterns
 Similar demographic and lifestyle characteristics
 Significant difference in legal histories
Impact of US Laws
Punitive laws of the U.S have little impact on
marijuana use (i.e., postponing age of
experimentation, attitude towards use,
quitting use)
U.S. sample had more legal problems but not
for drug-related felony
Major Finding
The criminalization centered drug policy of
the U.S. and the more lenient policies of
Canada and the U.K. seem to explain the
difference in legal histories among the
samples. American drug laws seem to have
no impact on reducing marijuana use.
Recommendation
 Possession of marijuana for personal use should not be a
considered a felony or misdemeanor
 Drug abuse should be considered as a public health
problem
 Allocation of equal funds and resources for drug abuse
prevention and treatment as law enforcement, if not more
 Further studies comparing major cities in the U.S, Canada,
U.K, Netherlands, & Sweden on recreational marijuana use
may provide in depth information & better contrast.
 Trends in marijuana use in Canada & U.K following the
introduction of decriminalization-based drug policies
should be studied and compared with that of the predecriminalization era.