Abstract
Background:
Local policies prohibiting cannabis sales and lower cannabis retail availability are associated with a lower prevalence of adolescent cannabis use. In this study, we examine whether local prohibitions on cannabis retail and cannabis retailer proximity and density are associated with adverse cannabis-related mental health outcomes among adolescents.
Methods:
Cross-sectional study of 95,645 Northern California adolescents aged 13–17 who completed a well-check questionnaire in 2021 during standard pediatric care. Exposures included local bans on cannabis storefront and delivery retailers, and retail proximity and density in relation to adolescents’ geocoded residences. Past-year psychotic, depressive and anxiety disorders were identified using ICD codes; self-reported depression symptoms came from the questionnaire.
Results:
Relative to adolescents in jurisdictions allowing storefront and delivery retail, those in jurisdictions prohibiting storefront retail only (aPR=0.52;95%CI:0.32–0.85), or prohibiting both (aPR=0.67;95%CI:0.48–0.92) had a lower prevalence of psychotic disorders. Greater retailer density (≥6 vs. 0 retailers within a 15-minute drive) was associated with a greater prevalence of anxiety disorders (aPR=1.11;95%CI:1.04–1.19), depressive disorders (aPR=1.10;95%CI:1.02–1.19) and depression symptoms (aPR=1.08;95%CI:1.01–1.15). Having a ≥20-minute (vs. <5-minute) drive to the nearest retailer was associated with a lower prevalence of psychotic (aPR=0.53;95%CI:0.33–0.86), anxiety (aPR=0.89;95%CI:0.82–0.97), and depressive disorders (aPR=0.89;95%CI:0.81–0.98) and depression symptoms (aPR=0.91;95%CI:0.84–0.99).
Conclusions:
Local policies prohibiting storefront retail were associated with a lower prevalence of psychotic disorders. Greater retail availability of cannabis near adolescents’ residences was associated with a greater prevalence of psychotic, anxiety, and depressive disorders, and depression symptoms. Policies limiting retail density and availability may help reduce cannabis-related harms and merit further assessment.
Keywords: Adolescent, marijuana, policy, legalization, psychotic disorders, mental health, retailer, adolescents
Introduction
Cannabis use, especially when frequent or initiated during adolescence, is associated with adverse outcomes including psychotic disorders, anxiety disorders, and depressive disorders (Gobbi et al., 2019; Han et al., 2021; Kiburi et al., 2021; Lorenzetti et al., 2020; Lowe et al., 2024; van der Steur et al., 2020). State legalization of cannabis for adult-use is associated with lower perceived harmfulness of cannabis among adolescents (Kim et al., 2022), but its relationship with adolescent cannabis use is mixed (Pacula et al., 2022). Importantly, the implementation of state-level policies can vary at the local level (Padon et al., 2022; Silver et al., 2020), leading to important differences in cannabis access, particularly in states which allow local control of cannabis commerce. Local policies allowing retailers and greater retail availability expose youth to advertising and signage, promotions via social media, social normalization of cannabis, greater use among adults, and diversion, and are associated with greater cannabis use and lower perceived cannabis risks among adolescents (Firth et al., 2022; Garcia-Ramirez et al., 2021; Paschall & Grube, 2020; Young-Wolff et al., 2024).
Our prior study of adolescents in California in 2021, the fourth year of legal recreational sales, found a lower prevalence of cannabis use and problematic cannabis use among adolescents living in jurisdictions that prohibited vs. allowed storefront retailers or delivery (Young-Wolff et al., 2024). Further, those with a longer drive time to the nearest cannabis retailer had a lower prevalence of cannabis use. Yet, it is unknown whether local variation in the cannabis retail environment is associated with cannabis-related adverse mental health outcomes among adolescents.
This study tests whether local policies prohibiting vs. allowing cannabis sales and availability of legal retailers in Northern California near adolescents’ residences are associated with past-year psychotic, depressive, and anxiety disorder diagnoses and current depression symptoms. Understanding the relationship of these factors to adolescent cannabis-related mental health outcomes is essential for guiding public policies and prevention.
Methods
Sample
Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) is an integrated healthcare delivery system serving ~4.6 million patients similar to Northern California’s insured population (Gordon, 2020). All adolescents aged 13–17 with a valid address in KPNC 35 counties who had a teen well-check questionnaire (TWCQ) during standard pediatric care in 2021 were eligible ((n=106,195 completed questionnaires, n=104,338 unique adolescents; see eMethods). We excluded adolescents with <1-year continuous KPNC membership (n=7,489). We used the most recent questionnaire if an adolescent had >1 during the study (N=1,741). The final sample was 95,645 adolescents. The KPNC IRB approved the study and waived informed consent.
Measures
Outcomes
Psychotic, anxiety, and depressive disorders were based on ICD-10-CM codes documented in electronic health records (EHRs) the year TWCQ screening TWCQ (eMethods).
KPNC systematically screens all adolescents aged 13–17 in a confidential manner about general health (e.g., nutrition, sleep) and sensitive mental health topics, including depression symptoms with the TWCQ. Pediatricians privately review and confirm responses. Past two-week depression symptoms were based on a score of ≥3 on the Patient Health Questionnaire 2 (PHQ-2) (Kroenke et al., 2003), a validated questionnaire in the TWCQ that assessed: 1) little interest or pleasure in doing things, and 2) feeling down, depressed, or hopeless, with answer options of not at all (0), several days (1), more than half the days (2), and nearly all days (3).
Exposures
Local cannabis storefront and delivery policy.
California legalized medical cannabis in 1996 and “adult-use” (recreational) cannabis in November 2016. Legal adult-use sales began in January 2018, three years before this study. Cities and counties (jurisdictions) retained authority to ban or allow medical or adult-use storefront retailers or delivery. Similar to our prior work (Silver et al., 2020; Young-Wolff et al., 2024), we extracted information on local cannabis allowing any adult-use or medical retail outlets or delivery for the year before well-check screenings (i.e., 2020–2021) in the KPNC catchment area from the Fyllo Regulatory Database, complemented by verification on jurisdictions’ websites and municipal codes and outreach to jurisdiction staff when needed (eMethods).
Cannabis storefront retailer proximity and density.
As in prior work (Young-Wolff et al., 2024), we used the California Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) database to determine addresses and license dates as a proxy for operation dates for storefront retail licensees for medical and/or adult-use active in 2020–2021 in the KPNC catchment area. In addition to storefront retailers, addresses and license dates of microbusinesses (i.e., businesses with ≥3 of the following at one location: cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, retail) operating storefront retail in 2020–2021 were obtained from DCC. We calculated drive time from each patient’s geocoded address to all medical and adult-use storefronts within a 60-minute driving radius using ArcGIS Pro Version 2.2.4 (Esri). We calculated proximity to the nearest storefront retailer (<5, 5–9, 10–19, ≥20-minute drive) and density within a 15-minute drive (0, 1–5, ≥6 retailers) during the year before screening (Young-Wolff et al., 2024).
Socio-demographics
We extracted EHR data on age, sex, self-reported race and ethnicity, neighborhood deprivation index (NDI, in quartiles) (Messer et al., 2006); and patient geocoded home addresses at the time of the TWCQ.
Analysis
Prevalence ratios (aPRs) and two-tailed 95% CIs for each exposure were estimated using separate multivariable modified Poisson regression models accounting for clustering of adolescents within jurisdictions (Zou, 2004). Outcomes were modeled separately, adjusting for socio-demographics. Adolescents without self-reported depression information (n=698) were excluded from that analysis. Analyses were performed in SAS 9.4. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the potential impact of unmeasured confounding by computing e-values (Mathur et al., 2018; VanderWeele & Ding, 2017).
Results
The sample (n=95,645 adolescents) was 20.4% Asian/Pacific Islander (API), 7.4% Black, 28.0% Hispanic, 32.6% non-Hispanic White, and 11.6% Multiracial/Native-American/unknown, with a median (IQR) age of 15 (14–16) years; 48.9% were female; 0.2% had a past-year psychotic disorder, 9.3% a past-year anxiety disorder, 7.8% a past-year depressive disorder, and 10.0% self-reported current depression.
Socio-demographics, retail policies, and retailer proximity and density by outcomes are provided in Table 1.
Table 1.
Descriptive characteristics overall and across cannabis-related outcomes, among adolescents aged 13–17 screened during 2021, Kaiser Permanente Northern California.
| Psychotic disorders | Anxiety disorders | Depressive disorders | Depression symptoms1 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||
| Characteristics | Overall | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| N | N=95,645 | N=186 (0.2%) | N=95,459 (99.8%) | N=8,872 (9.3%) | N=86,773 (90.7%) | N=7,507 (7.8%) | N=88,138 (92.2%) | N=9,502 (10.0%) | N=85,445 (90.0%) |
| Socio-demographics | |||||||||
| Age, median (Q1-Q3) | 15.0 (14.0–16.0) | 15.0 (14.0–16.0) | 15.0 (14.0–16.0) | 15.0 (14.0–16.0) | 15.0 (14.0–16.0) | 15.0 (14.0 – 16.0) | 15.0 (14.0 – 16.0) | 15.0 (14.0–16.0) | 15.0 (14.0–16.0) |
| Age, years | |||||||||
| 13–14 | 43,377 (45.4) | 54 (29.0) | 43,323 (45.4) | 3,249 (36.6) | 40,128 (46.2) | 2,607 (34.7) | 40,770 (46.3) | 3,977 (41.9) | 39,055 (45.7) |
| 15–17 | 52,268 (54.6) | 132 (71.0) | 52,136 (54.6) | 5,623 (63.4) | 46,645 (53.8) | 4,900 (65.3) | 47,368 (53.7) | 5,525 (58.1) | 46,390 (54.3) |
| Sex | |||||||||
| Female | 46,779 (48.9) | 128 (68.8) | 46,651 (48.9) | 6,335 (71.4) | 40,444 (46.6) | 5,551 (73.9) | 41,228 (46.8) | 6,435 (67.7) | 39,989 (46.8) |
| Male2 | 48,866 (51.1) | 58 (31.2) | 48,808 (51.1) | 2,537 (28.6) | 46,329 (53.4) | 1,956 (26.1) | 46,910 (53.2) | 3,067 (32.3) | 45,456 (53.2) |
| Race and ethnicity | |||||||||
| Asian/PI | 19,532 (20.4) | 28 (15.1) | 19,504 (20.4) | 937 (10.6) | 18,595 (21.4) | 946 (12.6) | 18,586 (21.1) | 1,504 (15.8) | 17,910 (21.0) |
| Black | 7032 (7.4) | 20 (10.8) | 7,012 (7.3) | 459 (5.2) | 6,573 (7.6) | 560 (7.5) | 6,472 (7.3) | 864 (9.1) | 6,105 (7.1) |
| Hispanic | 26,764 (28.0) | 46 (24.7) | 26,718 (28.0) | 2,484 (28.0) | 24,280 (28.0) | 2,132 (28.4) | 24,632 (27.9) | 2,941 (31.0) | 23,606 (27.6) |
| Non-Hispanic White | 31,203 (32.6) | 61 (32.8) | 31,142 (32.6) | 4,084 (46.0) | 27,119 (31.3) | 3,084 (41.1) | 28,119 (31.9) | 3,111 (32.7) | 27,880 (32.6) |
| Multiracial/Native- American/unknown | 11,114 (11.6) | 31 (16.7) | 11,083 (11.6) | 908 (10.2) | 10,206 (11.8) | 785 (10.5) | 10,329 (11.7) | 1,082 (11.4) | 9,944 (11.6) |
| NDI | |||||||||
| Q1 (least deprived) | 25,270 (26.4) | 47 (25.3) | 25,223 (26.4) | 2,450 (27.6) | 22,820 (26.3) | 1,886 (25.1) | 23, 384 (26.5) | 2,055 (21.6) | 23,063 (27.0) |
| Q2 | 23,557 (24.6) | 39 (21.0) | 23,518 (24.6) | 2,381 (26.8) | 21,176 (24.4) | 1,931 (25.7) | 21,626 (24.5) | 2,251 (23.7) | 21,108 (24.7) |
| Q3 | 24,441 (25.6) | 49 (26.3) | 24,392 (25.6) | 2,256 (25.4) | 22,185 (25.6) | 1,989 (26.5) | 22,452 (25.5) | 2,564 (27.0) | 21,698 (25.4) |
| Q4 (most deprived) | 22,377 (23.4) | 51 (27.4) | 22,326 (23.4) | 1,785 (20.1) | 20,592 (23.7) | 1,701 (22.7) | 20,676 (23.5) | 2,632 (27.7) | 19,576 (22.9) |
| Local Cannabis Policy | |||||||||
| Storefront retail policy 3 | |||||||||
| Prohibited | 46,835 (49.0) | 70 (37.6) | 46,765 (49.0) | 4,350 (49.0) | 42,485 (49.0) | 3,618 (48.2) | 43,217 (49.0) | 4,395 (46.3) | 42,147 (49.3) |
| Allowed | 48,810 (51.0) | 116 (62.4) | 48,694 (51.0) | 4,522 (51.0) | 44,288 (51.0) | 3,889 (51.8) | 44,921 (51.0) | 5,107 (53.7) | 43,298 (50.7) |
| Delivery retail policy 2 | |||||||||
| Prohibited | 32,868 (34.4) | 53 (28.5) | 32,815 (34.4) | 2,944 (33.2) | 29,924 (34.5) | 2,517 (33.5) | 30,351 (34.4) | 3,119 (32.8) | 29,566 (34.6) |
| Allowed | 62,777 (65.6) | 133 (71.5) | 62,644 (65.6) | 5,928 (66.8) | 56,849 (65.5) | 4,990 (66.5) | 57,787 (65.6) | 6,383 (67.2) | 55,879 (65.4) |
| Storefront and delivery retail policy 4 | |||||||||
| Both allowed | 47,158 (49.3) | 114 (61.3) | 47,044 (49.3) | 4,358 (49.1) | 42,800 (49.3) | 3,755 (50.0) | 43,403 (49.2) | 4,951 (52.1) | 41,830 (49.0) |
| Delivery allowed, storefront prohibited | 13,606 (14.2) | 17 (9.1) | 13,589 (14.2) | 1,376 (15.5) | 12,230 (14.1) | 1,075 (14.3) | 12,531 (14.2) | 1,244 (13.1) | 12,253 (14.3) |
| Both prohibited | 34,861 (36.5) | 55 (29.6) | 34,806 (36.5) | 3,136 (35.3) | 31,725 (36.6) | 2,677 (35.7) | 32,184 (36.5) | 3,304 (34.8) | 31,345 (36.7) |
| Cannabis Storefront Retailer Proximity and Density | |||||||||
| Proximity | |||||||||
| Drive time to nearest retailer, minutes, median (Q1-Q3) | 10.0 (5.7–16.6) | 7.8 (4.3–13.5) | 10.0 (5.7–16.6) | 10.0 (5.6 – 16.7) | 10.0 (5.7 – 16.6) | 9.8 (5.5 – 16.2) | 10.0 (5.7 – 16.6) | 9.3 (5.4–15.3) | 10.1 (5.8–16.7) |
| Drive time to nearest retailer, minutes | |||||||||
| < 5 | 19,445 (20.3) | 58 (31.2) | 19,387 (20.3) | 1,874 (21.1) | 17,571 (20.2) | 1,628 (21.7) | 17,817 (20.2) | 2,105 (22.2) | 17,160 (20.1) |
| 5–9 | 28,255 (29.5) | 55 (29.6) | 28,200 (29.5) | 2,577 (29.0) | 25,678 (29.6) | 2,209 (29.4) | 26,046 (29.6) | 3,000 (31.6) | 25,035 (29.3) |
| 10–19 | 32,629 (34.1) | 49 (26.3) | 32,580 (34.1) | 2,979 (33.6) | 29,650 (34.2) | 2,520 (33.6) | 30,109 (34.2) | 3,076 (32.4) | 29,326 (34.3) |
| ≥ 20 | 15,316 (16.0) | 24 (12.9) | 15,292 (16.0) | 1,442 (16.3) | 13,874 (16.0) | 1,150 (15.3) | 14,166 (16.1) | 1,321 (13.9) | 13,924 (16.3) |
| Density | |||||||||
| No. of retailers within 15-min drive, median (Q1-Q3) | 4.0 (0.0–13.0) | 6.0 (1.0–15.0) | 4.0 (0.0–13.0) | 4.0 (0.0 – 13.0) | 4.0 (0.0 – 13.0) | 4.0 (0.0 – 13.0) | 4.0 (0.0 – 13.0) | 5.0 (0.0–13.0) | 4.0 (0.0–13.0) |
| Density of retailers within 15-minute drive | |||||||||
| 0 | 28,627 (29.9) | 40 (21.5) | 28,587 (29.9) | 2,670 (30.1) | 25,957 (29.9) | 2,177 (29.0) | 26,450 (30.0) | 2,474 (26.0) | 26,004 (30.4) |
| 1–5 | 25,189 (26.3) | 52 (28.0) | 25,137 (26.3) | 2,256 (25.4) | 22,933 (26.4) | 1,936 (25.8) | 23,253 (26.4) | 2,619 (27.6) | 22,369 (26.2) |
| ≥6 | 41,829 (43.7) | 94 (50.5) | 41,735 (43.7) | 3,946 (44.5) | 37,883 (43.7) | 3,394 (45.2) | 38,435 (43.6) | 4,409 (46.4) | 37,072 (43.4) |
Excluding 698 missing data on self-reported depression
Includes other/unknown
Based on policy in place during the year prior to screening
Based on policy in place as of January 1st, 2021, excluding 1 with only storefront retail allowed and 19 with storefront retail allowed and delivery only from outside without a permit
Local cannabis storefront and delivery policies examined separately
Overall, 49.0% and 34.4% of adolescents lived in jurisdictions prohibiting storefront retailers and delivery, respectively (Table 1). Adolescents living in jurisdictions prohibiting (vs. allowing) storefronts had a lower prevalence of psychotic disorders (aPR=0.64;95%CI:0.48–0.86) and those living in jurisdictions prohibiting (vs. allowing) delivery had a lower prevalence of anxiety disorders (aPR=0.93;95%CI:0.87–0.99) (eTable 1).
Local cannabis storefront and delivery policies examined together
Compared to adolescents living where both storefront retailers and delivery were allowed, those living where both were prohibited had a lower prevalence of psychotic disorders (aPR=0.67;95%CI:0.48–0.92), but not anxiety disorders (aPR=0.93;95%CI:0.87–1.99), depressive disorders (aPR=0.95;95%CI:0.88–1.03), or depression symptoms (aPR=0.97;95%CI:0.90–1.05) (Table 2; eTable 2). Additionally, those who lived where storefront retailers were prohibited but delivery was allowed had a lower prevalence of psychotic disorders (aPR=0.52;95%CI:0.32–0.85).
Table 2.
Adjusted Modified Poisson regression results, among adolescents aged 13–17 screened during 2021, Kaiser Permanente Northern California.
| Psychotic disorders | Anxiety disorders | Depressive disorders | Depression symptoms1 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||||
| Each exposure modeled separately | N (%) | aPR (95% CI) | N (%) | aPR (95% CI) | N (%) | aPR (95% CI) | N (%) | aPR (95% CI) |
| Local Cannabis Policy | ||||||||
| Storefront and delivery retail policy 2 | ||||||||
| Both allowed | 114 (0.24) | 1 [ref] | 4,358 (9.24) | 1 [ref] | 3,755 (7.96) | 1 [ref] | 4,951 (10.58) | 1 [ref] |
| Delivery allowed, storefront prohibited | 17 (0.12) | 0.52 (0.32 – 0.85) | 1,376 (10.11) | 0.99 (0.90 – 1.09) | 1,075 (7.90) | 0.97 (0.88 – 1.07) | 1,244 (9.22) | 0.97 (0.89 – 1.05) |
| Both prohibited | 55 (0.16) | 0.67 (0.48 – 0.92) | 3,136 (9.00) | 0.93 (0.87 – 1.00) | 2,677 (7.68) | 0.95 (0.88 – 1.03) | 3,304 (9.54) | 0.97 (0.90 – 1.05) |
| Cannabis Storefront Retailer Proximity and Density | ||||||||
| Drive time to nearest retailer, minutes | ||||||||
| < 5 | 58 (0.30) | 1 [ref] | 1,874 (9.64) | 1 [ref] | 1,628 (8.37) | 1 [ref] | 2,105 (10.93) | 1 [ref] |
| 5–9 | 55 (0.19) | 0.66 (0.47 – 0.94) | 2,577 (9.12) | 0.95 (0.88 – 1.01) | 2,209 (7.82) | 0.94 (0.88 – 1.01) | 3,000 (10.70) | 0.99 (0.93 – 1.05) |
| 10–19 | 49 (0.15) | 0.51 (0.35 – 0.75) | 2,979 (9.13) | 0.91 (0.85 – 0.98) | 2,520 (7.72) | 0.93 (0.87 – 1.00) | 3,076 (9.49) | 0.96 (0.89 – 1.04) |
| ≥ 20 | 24 (0.16) | 0.53 (0.33 – 0.86) | 1,442 (9.41) | 0.89 (0.82 – 0.97) | 1,150 (7.51) | 0.89 (0.81 – 0.98) | 1,321 (8.67) | 0.91 (0.84 – 0.99) |
| Density of retailers within 15-minute drive | ||||||||
| 0 | 40 (0.14) | 1 [ref] | 2,670 (9.33) | 1 [ref] | 2,177 (7.60) | 1 [ref] | 2,474 (8.69) | 1 [ref] |
| 1–5 | 52 (0.21) | 1.45 (0.94 – 2.22) | 2,256 (8.96) | 1.01 (0.95 – 1.07) | 1,936 (7.69) | 1.02 (0.95 – 1.09) | 2,619 (10.48) | 1.10 (1.03 – 1.17) |
| ≥6 | 94 (0.22) | 1.58 (0.99 – 2.52) | 3,946 (9.43) | 1.11 (1.04 – 1.19) | 3,394 (8.11) | 1.10 (1.02 – 1.19) | 4,409 (10.63) | 1.08 (1.01 – 1.15) |
Notes.
Excluding 698 missing data on self-reported depression
Based on policies in place as of January 1st, 2021, excluding adolescents who lived in jurisdictions with only storefront retail allowed or storefront retail allowed and delivery from outside only without a permit (n=20 [0.0%] from all models).
Bold indicates statistical significance with CIs not containing null values (e.g., aPR = 1). Bolded CIs that include 1 are due to rounding.
Models adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and neighborhood deprivation index quartile.
Abbreviations: aPR = adjusted prevalence ratio; CI = confidence interval.
Cannabis storefront retailer proximity and density
Overall, adolescents had a median (IQR) drive time to the nearest retailer of 10.0 minutes (5.7–16.6) and a median (IQR) of 4 (0–13) retailers within a 15-minute drive from their homes (Table 1). A ≥20-minute (vs. <5-minute) drive time to the nearest cannabis retailer was associated with a lower prevalence of psychotic (aPR=0.53;95%CI:0.33–0.86), anxiety (aPR=0.89;95%CI:0.82–0.97), and depressive disorders (aPR=0.89;95%CI:0.81–0.98), and depression symptoms (aPR=0.91;95%CI:0.84–0.99) (Table 2; eTable 2). Greater retailer density within a 15-minute drive was associated with greater prevalence of anxiety disorders (aPR=1.11;95%CI:1.04–1.19 for ≥6 vs. none), depressive disorders (aPR=1.10;95%CI:1.02–1.19 for ≥6 vs. none), and depression symptoms (aPR=1.10;95%CI:1.03–1.17 for 1–5, aPR=1.08;95%CI:1.01–1.15 for ≥6 vs. none).
E-Value Sensitivity Analyses
E-values for the aPRs for psychotic disorders were high, ranging from 2.26–3.33, and for other outcomes were somewhat smaller (range:1.11–1.50), meaning that an unmeasured confounder would need to have associations of at least that magnitude with both the exposure (local policy or proximity/density) and the psychiatric outcome to fully explain reported associations (eTable 3).
Discussion
This large study of California adolescents found that local bans on cannabis storefronts or both storefronts and delivery were associated with a lower prevalence of past-year psychotic disorders. Greater retail availability of cannabis was associated with a higher prevalence of psychotic, anxiety, and depressive disorders, and depression symptoms. Notably, despite storefront bans, approximately half of adolescents lived within a 10-minute drive of a retailer, suggesting that overall access, including across jurisdictional borders, may have stronger associations with psychiatric outcomes than local bans alone.
Findings extend prior research showing that adolescents in areas with legal cannabis retailers or greater retail availability report higher perceived cannabis availability, cannabis use and problematic use, and lower perceived risks (Firth et al., 2022; Garcia-Ramirez et al., 2021; Paschall & Grube, 2020; Young-Wolff et al., 2024). Although adolescents cannot legally purchase cannabis, exposure to youth-appealing marketing, access through older peers, or the use of fake identification may facilitate indirect access. Greater access to cannabis may also contribute to higher adolescent use by normalizing consumption within social and familial networks (Farrelly et al., 2023). Legalization has been associated with higher frequency of adolescent cannabis use (Coley et al., 2024) and greater retail availability of cannabis has been associated with greater use of alternative consumption methods (e.g., vaping, dabbing), that provide higher doses of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and potentially elevated risk of dependency and psychiatric conditions (Borodovsky et al., 2017; Leal & Moscrop-Blake, 2024; Wadsworth et al., 2022). The relationship between greater retail availability and psychiatric conditions could be due to use of higher strength products or more frequent use, or self-medication among adolescents with pre-existing psychiatric conditions.
Retail bans and limits on storefront retailer density are common in California (Padon et al., 2022), but further studies are needed to assess their protective effect on adolescent cannabis use and mental health. This study, based on insured Northern California adolescents, may not generalize to uninsured populations or those in other states. Limitations include potential underestimation of psychiatric disorders in EHRs, non-anonymous self-reported depression symptom data, and the inability to measure illegal market access or other potential confounders (e.g., community connectedness, civic engagement, commercial land use). Additionally, our cross-sectional design does not allow us to make causal inferences and longitudinal studies are needed that examine the passage and implementation of state legalization and local policies over time.
Conclusions
Local bans on cannabis sales were associated with a lower prevalence of adolescent psychotic disorders, and greater retail availability was associated with a higher prevalence of psychotic, anxiety, and depressive disorders, and current depressive symptoms. Policies limiting retail density and access may reduce adolescent harms in the context of legalization and warrant further evaluation.
Supplementary Material
Funding:
This study was supported by a NIH NIDA R01 (DA0531920) and by the California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (28IP-0035C). The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Footnotes
Declaration of Interests: Dr. Campbell and Ms. Does have received support managed through their institution from the Industry PMR Consortium, a consortium of companies working together to conduct post-marketing studies required by the Food and Drug Administration that assess risks related to opioid analgesic use. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data Sharing:
The data underlying this article are not available.
References
- Borodovsky JT, Lee DC, Crosier BS, Gabrielli JL, Sargent JD, & Budney AJ (2017). U.S. cannabis legalization and use of vaping and edible products among youth. Drug Alcohol Depend, 177, 299–306. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.02.017 (https://doi.org/) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coley RL, Carey N, Kruzik C, Hawkins SS, & Baum CF (2024). Recreational Cannabis Legalization, Retail Sales, and Adolescent Substance Use Through 2021. JAMA Pediatr, 178(6), 622–625. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.0555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Farrelly KN, Wardell JD, Marsden E, Scarfe ML, Najdzionek P, Turna J, & MacKillop J (2023). The impact of recreational cannabis legalization on cannabis use and associated outcomes: a systematic review. Subst Abuse, 17, 11782218231172054. 10.1177/11782218231172054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Firth CL, Carlini B, Dilley J, Guttmannova K, & Hajat A (2022). Retail cannabis environment and adolescent use: the role of advertising and retailers near home and school. Health Place, 75, 102795. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102795 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Garcia-Ramirez G, Paschall MJ, & Grube JW (2021). Retail availability of recreational marijuana and alcohol in Oregon counties and co-use of alcohol and marijuana and related beliefs among adolescents. Subst Use Misuse, 1–8. 10.1080/10826084.2020.1858104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gobbi G, Atkin T, Zytynski T, Wang S, Askari S, Boruff J, Ware M, Marmorstein N, Cipriani A, Dendukuri N, & Mayo N (2019). Association of cannabis use in adolescence and risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidality in young adulthood: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 76(4), 426–434. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.4500 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gordon NP (2020). Similarity of adult Kaiser Permanente members to the adult population in Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Service Area: comparisons based on the 2017/2018 cycle of the California Health Interview Survey. https://memberhealthsurvey.kaiser.org/Documents/compare_kp_ncal_chis2017-18.pdf [Google Scholar]
- Han B, Compton WM, Einstein EB, & Volkow ND (2021). Associations of suicidality trends with cannabis use as a function of sex and depression status. JAMA Netw Open, 4(6), e2113025. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.13025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kiburi SK, Molebatsi K, Ntlantsana V, & Lynskey MT (2021). Cannabis use in adolescence and risk of psychosis: Are there factors that moderate this relationship? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Subst Abus, 42(4), 527–542. 10.1080/08897077.2021.1876200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kim J, Jang J, Kim B, & Lee KH (2022). Effect of the PRECEDE-PROCEED model on health programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev, 11(1), 213. 10.1186/s13643-022-02092-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, & Williams JB (2003). The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care, 41(11), 1284–1292. 10.1097/01.MLR.0000093487.78664.3C [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Leal WE, & Moscrop-Blake K (2024). The many forms of cannabis use: Prevalence and correlates of routes of administration among nationally representative samples of U.S. adult and adolescent cannabis users. Addict Behav, 159, 108146. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2024.108146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lorenzetti V, Hoch E, & Hall W (2020). Adolescent cannabis use, cognition, brain health and educational outcomes: A review of the evidence. European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 36(2), 169–180. 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lowe DJE, Sorkhou M, & George TP (2024). Cannabis use in adolescents and anxiety symptoms and disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse, 50(2), 150–161. 10.1080/00952990.2023.2299922 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mathur MB, Ding P, Riddell CA, & VanderWeele TJ (2018). Web Site and R Package for computing E-values. Epidemiology, 29(5), e45–e47. 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000864 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Messer LC, Laraia BA, Kaufman JS, Eyster J, Holzman C, Culhane J, Elo I, Burke JG, & O’Campo P (2006). The development of a standardized neighborhood deprivation index. Journal of Urban Health, 83(6), 1041–1062. 10.1007/s11524-006-9094-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pacula RL, Smart R, Lira MC, Pessar SC, Blanchette JG, & Naimi TS (2022). Relationships of cannabis policy liberalization with alcohol use and co-use with cannabis: a narrative review. Alcohol Res, 42(1), 06. 10.35946/arcr.v42.1.06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Padon AA, Young-Wolff KC, Avalos LA, & Silver LD (2022). Local laws regulating cannabis in California two years post-legalization: assessment of progress incorporating lessons from tobacco control. Cannabis, 5(3), 47–60. 10.26828/cannabis/2022.03.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Paschall MJ, & Grube JW (2020). Recreational marijuana availability in Oregon and use among adolescents. Am J Prev Med, 58(2), e63–e69. 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.09.020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Silver LD, Naprawa AZ, & Padon AA (2020). Assessment of incorporation of lessons from tobacco control in city and county laws regulating legal marijuana in California. JAMA Netw Open, 3(6), e208393. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- van der Steur SJ, Batalla A, & Bossong MG (2020). Factors moderating the association between cannabis use and psychosis risk: a systematic review. Brain Sci, 10(2), 97. 10.3390/brainsci10020097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- VanderWeele TJ, & Ding P (2017). Sensitivity analysis in observational research: Introducing the E-value. Annals of Internal Medicine, 167(4), 268–274. 10.7326/M16-2607 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wadsworth E, Craft S, Calder R, & Hammond D (2022). Prevalence and use of cannabis products and routes of administration among youth and young adults in Canada and the United States: A systematic review. Addict Behav, 129, 107258. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.107258 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Young-Wolff KC, Asera A, Padon AA, Slama NE, Alexeeff SE, Pacula RL, Campbell CI, Sterling SA, Satre DD, Lu Y, Dyer WT, Does MB, & Silver LD (2024). Association of Local Cannabis Policy and Retail Availability With Cannabis Use and Problematic Cannabis Use Among Adolescents in Northern California. Am J Public Health, 114(S8), S654–s663. 10.2105/ajph.2024.307787 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zou G (2004). A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol, 159(7), 702–706. 10.1093/aje/kwh090 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The data underlying this article are not available.