Table 4.
Smoking marijuana has preventive health benefits (strongly or somewhat agree) N* = 2334 |
Secondhand marijuana smoke is completely or somewhat safe N* = 1418 |
Marijuana use during pregnancy is completely or somewhat safe N* = 567 |
Marijuana is not at all addictive N* = 1988 |
|||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N* | Unadj OR (95% CI) | Adj OR (95% CI) | N* | Unadj OR (95% CI) | Adj OR (95% CI) | N* | Unadj OR (95% CI) | Adj OR (95% CI) | N* | Unadj OR (95% CI) | Adj OR (95% CI) | |
Social media platform, Google, or other Internet search | 439 | 1.40 (1.24, 1.57) | 1.32 (1.17, 1.49) | 273 | 1.43 (1.25, 1.64) | 1.27 (1.11, 1.46) | 102 | 1.31 (1.07, 1.59) | 1.17 (0.95, 1.44) | 376 | 1.49 (1.31, 1.69) | 1.42 (1.24, 1.61) |
Advertisement, marijuana dispensary, or other industry sources | 119 | 2.56 (1.97, 3.31) | 2.11 (1.61, 2.77) | 87 | 3.56 (2.73, 4.62) | 3.00 (2.27, 3.96) | 44 | 3.91 (2.83, 5.32) | 2.91 (2.07, 4.03) | 113 | 2.60 (1.99, 3.37) | 2.48 (1.89, 3.25) |
Friends or relatives | 517 | 1.45 (1.29, 1.62) | 1.30 (1.15, 1.46) | 355 | 1.63 (1.43, 1.85) | 1.43 (1.25, 1.63) | 138 | 1.44 (1.19, 1.73) | 1.21 (0.99, 1.46) | 400 | 1.21 (1.07, 1.37) | 1.17 (1.03, 1.33) |
Health professional | 524 | 0.90 (0.81, 1.00) | 0.92 (0.82, 1.03) | 293 | 0.91 (0.80, 1.03) | 0.93 (0.82, 1.07) | 115 | 0.83 (0.68, 1.01) | 0.86 (0.70, 1.04) | 438 | 0.90 (0.80, 1.01) | 0.90 (0.79, 1.01) |
Traditional media platform | 375 | 0.67 (0.59, 0.76) | 0.82 (0.73, 0.94) | 164 | 0.40 (0.34, 0.47) | 0.50 (0.42, 0.60) | 52 | 0.38 (0.29, 0.49) | 0.51 (0.38, 0.67) | 314 | 0.64 (0.56, 0.73) | 0.71 (0.62, 0.81) |
Politician or law enforcement professional | 68 | 0.60 (0.47, 0.77) | 0.55 (0.42, 0.71) | 42 | 0.60 (0.44, 0.81) | 0.60 (0.43, 0.81) | 21 | 0.72 (0.45, 1.09) | 0.70 (0.44, 1.07) | 56 | 0.61 (0.46, 0.79) | 0.60 (0.45, 0.79) |
OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
*Unweighted N
Odds ratios for the sources of information about marijuana are presented for multivariate models that included each source of information about marijuana, adjusted for socio-demographic characters (age, gender race/ethnicity, education, income, employment) and legalization status in the state of residence. There was a separate model for each source of information, and the referent in each model was all other sources of information