New agents and officers are required to complete a thorough training program to learn remote raid techniques. Teams sometimes hike into sites for covert operations, but more often, they rappel down from a helicopter into the nearby area. Officers face major disadvantages when raiding sites because cultivators have been living at the location for months. Covert operations involve the most risk because hiking conditions and landscape characteristics can subject officers to ambush and provide cultivators with vantage points for armed engagement. While no officers have been fatally wounded during remote operations, there have been various cases involving gunshot wounds. During helicopter raids, cultivators generally flee from the scene while law enforcement officers are lowered into the area. While living on-site for months, cultivators develop elaborate escape routes and hiding spots. Hiding places can be as close as one hundred feet from a grow site, and are rarely found without K-9 assistance. The cultivators that are obtained are generally low-level employees with minimal knowledge about the larger organization that employs them. To complement tactical operations, government agencies have developed another significant long-term goal to develop an understanding of commercial scale, remote marijuana cultivation, within the broader public. Regional leadership conducts public education programs by presenting PowerPoint demonstrations about DTOs at meetings, forums, and presentations for politicians, government employees, and the general public. Law enforcement organizations facilitate information sharing with the media and local contacts, and have developed “bi-lingual material to be distributed in high risk areas seeking information and offering rewards.” These programs aim to increase the awareness in an effort to increase reports of suspicious activities.

When marijuana related activities are reported early, enforcement agencies gain a strategic advantage in combating individual sites. In addition, early detection allows more sites to be discovered and raided throughout the year because enforcement efforts are spread over a longer period of time. Public education creates an understanding of the consequences of marijuana production on various scales. This can provide political support for the prevention of DTO related activities in California, as well as alter patterns of marijuana acquisition and consumption within the general public.The production of potent marijuana requires intensive resource inputs to achieve high yield. This means that carefully planned and executed cultivation systems are crucial to developing quality marijuana harvests, and that cultivators manipulate the environment to optimize conditions for Cannabis plants. The widespread influence of Mexican cartels on outdoor cultivation in California causes similar processes to be performed at separate sites dispersed across large geographic distances. DTO operated grow sites have developed systematic patterns of behavior that occur with regularity and make their efforts distinct. Cultivators inhabit remote sites over long periods of time to develop plantations, and create a multitude of adverse effects in the process.Site selection is a crucial aspect of the cultivation process. DTOs often choose prospective locations long before they enter into a site. Some key elements that they look for on maps and aerial photographs are isolated water sources, slight canopy cover and adequate sunlight exposure. Sites are created in areas such as logged landscapes, conservation reserves, remote areas of national parks, and other places with difficult access and visually indistinct features from a birds-eye view. These are often areas where people rarely go because entry is made difficult by physical barriers such as cliff faces, steep talus slopes, dense clusters of vegetation such as poison oak, and even man-made berms. Due to the rugged and highly vegetated condition of most prospective sites, preparing land for marijuana planting is both labor intensive and time-consuming. Laborers work long hours to provide Cannabis plants a monopolistic domination of the landscape. The dynamics of landscape alteration depend on site-specific characteristics, but many similar practices occur throughout DTO operations. During the site supply process, cultivators cut or wear trails into the landscape that weave back and forth making site access for material transport easier. In order to avoid detection, laborers try to avoid leaving evidence of their presence up to a certain point, such as a major physical barrier, after which distinct paths are worn into the ground. The sheer weight of laborers’ equipment loads combined with regular use of the trails is enough to trample and kill small vegetation.

Dense stands of brush and trees are removed with saws and machetes. The paths connect site entry routes to the food preparation area, sleeping area, latrine, and various marijuana plantations. One site may contain 30,000 plants, but within that site the plants are often divided up between multiple smaller plots. Laborers’ movement along the paths is responsible for the introduction and distribution of non-native plant species to new areas. Laborers accumulate and transport seeds or spores on their bodies, clothing, shoes and equipment. In the California central coast region, cultivator movement along self-created paths is cited for the spread of Sudden Oak Death syndrome in Tan Oak, Black Oak, and Coastal Live Oak trees. Studies conducted by the Santa Lucia Conservancy show that the occurrence of SOD is facilitated by remote inhabitance through transmission of the plant pathogen responsible for SOD, Phytophora ramorum. Marijuana cultivators contribute to the spread of Phytophora ramorum to uninfected oak trees and exacerbate the effects of Sudden Oak Death syndrome by moving throughout affected landscapes that are part of their widespread system of sites. Movement by any person or animal can effectively transmit this pathogen to uninfected oak trees, but cultivators navigate through these areas more frequently than other people who may pass through. Their movements are also responsible for the spread of a variety of harmful invasive species including thistles, Vinca, Periwinkle, English Ivy Yard, and others. Invasive organisms often out-compete native species because they possess adaptive characteristics and lack natural competitors when introduced in new areas, which results in widespread alterations to the food-web, nutrient cycling, fire regimes, and hydrology of otherwise well preserved ecosystems. Many attributes of remote ecosystems are not ideal for agriculture, weed dry rack so laborers invest much time and energy in altering land to make it suitable for Cannabis cultivation. Workers clear understory vegetation to eliminate potential competition and prepare the soil for Cannabis plantations. The cleared vegetation, referred to as “slash piles,” are discarded in stream beds, causing impediments to hydrologic flows, or used to create berms up to 8 feet tall in order to bar site access. Throughout the growing season, cultivators use chemical techniques to maximize THC content and bud production. These intensive methods change soil dynamics, nutrient levels and chemical makeup, thus creating the opportunity for a new composition of vegetation to emerge. Landscape alteration may awaken seedbanks in the soil that have sat dormant for up to hundreds of years, alter the ability for some plants to re-grow because of changes in soil chemistry, destroy habitat for a variety of organisms, and have many other adverse affects on otherwise preserved ecosystems. In short, remote Cannabis cultivation forever changes the ecosystems in which it takes place. In highly mountainous areas, growers dig out terraces on hill slopes to create planting beds. In the process, soil is displaced leading to accelerated rates of hill-slope erosion. Some terrace beds are stabilized by falling trees, trimming them into logs, and inserting the logs into the terrace walls to hold the dirt in place. This is an important step to provide somewhat stable access to individual plants on steep slopes, and to prevent landslides that could destroy entire plantations. However, when these are removed, the stock of topsoil is greatly diminished. On slight grades or flat surfaces, cultivators mound soil around Cannabis stems to optimize nutrient uptake. For plantations with high percentages of gravel or sand, growers will bring in loamy soil to provide proper soil composition and nutrients. The affects of these changes on the natural environment can vary. For instance, fallen trees naturally promote the growth of under story species; however, the cutting of trees can disturb soil and impact the ecosystem services that they once provided such as habitat, nutrient cycling and moisture retention. Many land alterations remove perennial root structures that stabilize sediment causing the hillsides to lose stability and become more susceptible to small landslides and sedimentation of water sources during precipitation. Sedimentation alters water flow, reduces the capacity of water stocks, degrades the habitats of various species, and makes waters turbid – reducing the capacity for organisms to photosynthesize. Further, chemical toxins and metals bind to clay particles in fluvial sediment, are consumed by bottom feeding organisms, and bio-accumulate in higher order predators throughout the food chain. Cultivators approach land alterations with utter disregard; falling old growth trees, discarding of brush in stream beds, and littering the ground indiscriminately with waste. In sites intended for continued cultivation, laborers dig deep holes that are used to dispose of trash at the end of the harvest season in order to reduce the chances of detection between one season and the next. While their grow operations are usually restricted to between 5 and 10 acres, according to the National Park service, “for every acre of forest planted with marijuana, 10 acres are damaged.” In other words, the adverse effects of remote Cannabis cultivation reach far beyond the borders of the plots in which the plants are grown. An isolated water source is essential for the success of the marijuana plant to produce market grade buds. Mendocino County Sheriff, Tom Allman, claims that “one marijuana plant requires approximately one gallon of water per large plant per day,” meaning that a typical remote grow site can consume approximately 7,000 gallons of water each day over a period of three to four months. This makes water diversion no simple task. Finding a reliable water source that is available year round is especially crucial because the growing season occurs during the summer months. Ideal water sources include springs, creeks, and small bodies of water that do not dry up even during the hot California summers. Cultivators enact a variety of methods to exploit water sources high in the watershed, some of which include makeshift dams, cisterns, storage tanks, on-site reservoirs, and gravity based PVC pipe flow systems. These systems are built to utilize gravity-based pressure to extract water from natural or man-made pools. The water is then transported through PVC pipes to cultivation sites. The resources that cultivators possess to build these extensive systems include shovels, pumps, sheets of plastic, tarps, string and large quantities of PVC piping. Other necessities are extracted from the nearby environment and include logs, rocks, clay, brush, and moss. One site in Carmel contained a makeshift cistern that was dug out, lined with black plastic, and held in place with rocks.

Furthermore, the former study found a direct mediational role of negative expectancies in the associations between impulsivity and marijuana problems, as well as between impulsivity and marijuana dependence. Two of the three prior studies found a mediating role of positive expectancies in the association between impulsivity and marijuana use among samples of adult marijuana users from the community. Due to the inconsistent findings in the few studies that have evaluated the APM for marijuana outcomes, additional research is needed to parse out the role of positive and negative expectancies. Although the three studies discussed above have tested the APM for marijuana outcomes, all used non-clinical samples. It is important to evaluate these associations in more severe populations as findings from such studies can be particularly helpful in informing prevention and intervention efforts for individuals at-risk. Prior research demonstrates greater impulsivity in individuals with substance use disorders than healthy controls , as well as a link between impulsivity and later cannabis use and abuse . In addition, research shows greater impulsivity among adolescents in treatment for serious substance and conduct problems than community controls. The present study expands on the APM literature by evaluating two marijuana outcomes, i.e. frequency of use and marijuana use disorder symptom count, in an at-risk sample of young adults with a history of both substance use and conduct disorder symptoms and their siblings. The siblings are considered lower risk than the probands, but higher risk than community counterparts. We hypothesized that marijuana expectancies would mediate the relationship between impulsivity and marijuana outcomes among this at risk sample.

However, given the discrepancy in the past literature, we had no a priori hypotheses regarding whether positive and/or negative expectancies would be significant mediators. Probands were originally identified via treatment programs and schools in San Diego County, CA and had to have one or more lifetime substance use disorder symptom and at least one conduct disorder symptom. Siblings of probands also were recruited, but did not need to meet the previously mentioned criteria. Overall, the siblings have been shown to be at higher risk for substance use and antisocial behavior than community samples, but symptom counts were not as high as those of the probands. At the time of original recruitment, probands were between 14 and 19 years old, and their siblings were between 14 and 27 years old. A follow-up assessment, which included self-reported measures of impulsivity and marijuana expectancies, was conducted approximately six years after the original assessment. As the impulsivity measure was not administered at baseline, the present study only used data collected on probands and siblings at the follow-up assessment. Participants older than 30 years of age were excluded from the study to maintain the focus of the study on a sample of young adults. The final study sample consisted of 48% probands, was 54% male, 36% white, 42% Hispanic, and had an average age of 23.5 years .The nested structure of these data presents a potential analytic challenge because related individuals share common family influences with a potential for interdependence among observations. Researchers traditionally measure the degree of interdependence by the intraclass correlations among the observed variables .

However, it has been argued that the “design effect,” which takes into account the average cluster size, is more important in determining the extent of interdependence in the data. In the current sample , 94% of the 180 families had only one proband with no sibling or a proband and one sibling ; there were 10 families with a proband and two siblings. The average cluster size, therefore, was small . This resulted in small design effects for marijuana use and MUD symptoms , suggesting that clustering did not pose a problem for a single-level analysis . As such, the use of multilevel modeling was not warranted, and instead within-family correlation on the outcomes was controlled for using a standard error correction . Indirect effects from sensation seeking to MUD symptoms via positive and negative marijuana expectancies were evaluated using a product-of-coefficients test known as the distribution of the product. The values at the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile reflect the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval; mediation can be said to occur if this confidence interval does not contain zero. Age, gender, and proband status were correlated with marijuana use and therefore included as covariates in the models, which were run separately for marijuana use and MUD symptoms. Descriptive analyses were conducted using SPSS . All indirect analyses were conducted in MPlus version 7.31 using the MLR estimator .This study evaluated the ability of the APM to account for marijuana outcomes in an at-risk sample of young adults. Preliminary analyses showed that sensation seeking was directly associated with higher marijuana use in the past 180 days and more symptoms of MUD. Other impulsivity facets, such as lack of perseverance, negative urgency, and positive urgency, were directly associated with MUD symptoms, but not with marijuana use in the past 180 days. Given that we wanted to evaluate both marijuana outcomes, the following discussion of the APM only refers to sensation seeking as the independent variable. We hypothesized that we would find a significant mediating relationship of marijuana expectancies on the relationship between impulsivity and marijuana outcomes. However, given the discrepancy in the prior APM literature regarding marijuana outcomes as well as the use of different measures of impulsivity , drying weed we had no a priori hypotheses on which facets of impulsivity and which type of marijuana expectancies would be significant in mediational models. Results indicated that only positive marijuana expectancies mediated the associations between sensation seeking and marijuana outcomes in this at-risk sample. Our findings suggest that higher sensation seeking is related to increased positive beliefs about marijuana outcomes, which is related to higher marijuana use and more MUD symptoms. In this way, our findings are consistent with the APM, which theorizes that certain “risky” traits predispose individuals to acquire certain beliefs, such as positive expectancies, which, in turn, lead to risky behaviors and negative consequences. This finding is particularly relevant for the sample used in this study, as individuals with a childhood history of antisocial behaviors and substance use tend to show increased levels of impulsivity. This study adds to the existing literature, which has been inconsistent regarding the role of positive and negative marijuana expectancies as mediators. The current study replicates the findings of two prior studies that demonstrated a mediating role of positive expectancies in the association between impulsivity and marijuana use among samples of adult marijuana users from the community. On the other hand, the current study did not find a mediating role of negative expectancies in the association between sensation seeking and marijuana use, which was previously demonstrated. In the present study, only positive marijuana expectancies mediated the association between sensation seeking and MUD symptoms.

It is possible that this inconsistency relates to the atrisk nature of our sample and that in our sample, 90% of the participants reported lifetime use of marijuana. For example, a study using an at-risk young adult sample found that negative expectancies in adolescence prevented marijuana use in young adulthood; however, 82% of the young adults reported never using marijuana. On the other hand, a research study using a clinical sample found that positive cannabis outcome expectancies, but not negative outcome expectancies, were a direct predictor of marijuana use. This is consistent with other research with individuals endorsing substance misuse, which shows that positive expectancies seem to play a more salient role in substance use behavior than negative expectancies. The literature has shown negative expectancies primarily play a role in preventing tobacco use, as well as influencing positive changes in alcohol treatment. It also is possible that we used a more nuanced measure of impulsivity than used in prior studies. That is, our study used the UPPS-P framework , which identifies five separate, though related, impulsivity facets. A recent meta-analysis of various UPPS-P impulsivity facets and marijuana-related outcomes found that marijuana use was associated with all impulsivity-related facets except lack of perseverance and that negative marijuana consequences were only significantly related to sensation seeking, lack of planning, and positive urgency. This meta-analysis also found small effects for marijuana use and medium effects for marijuana consequences . Because our analyses tested a mediational model that included marijuana expectancies, it is noteworthy that only the facet of sensation seeking, the tendency to seek sensory pleasure and excitement, was a significant impulsivity facet in the mediational model which also included positive expectancies and marijuana outcomes. The current study has several limitations. First, as neither the impulsivity nor the expectancy measures were administered at baseline, we utilized cross-sectional data collected at the follow-up assessment. Impulsivity is a more distal, stable, trait-like construct, whereas expectancies are more proximal and fluid, and therefore, a mediational model is acceptable, but not ideal. Future research would benefit from longitudinal designs, capturing changes in expectancies, marijuana use, and negative consequences. Second, marijuana use was measured using a single item, which is prone to self-report and recall biases. Although using single items to capture specific substance use behaviors is a common practice ,utilizing a method such as the timeline followback may provide a more nuanced and accurate assessment of substance use. Despite these limitations, the findings suggest that positive expectancies are a potentially important risk factor for marijuana use and misuse, particularly for at-risk individuals with elevated rates of sensation seeking. There is extensive empirical support for interventions that challenge expectancies of alcohol use . As such, challenging expectancies about marijuana’s positive effects may be an effective intervention for reducing marijuana related problems among at-risk individuals.Already the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States, marijuana is becoming more widely used and more potent with expanded legalization. Legalization has also popularized “edible” forms of marijuana, including teas and food products. Although often portrayed as a harmless drug with potential therapeutic uses, marijuana has detrimental effects on brain development, psychiatric health , lungs and heart . Public perception of these risks decreases with legalization, and no guidelines exist to help patients gauge the personal safety of use. As emergency providers treat more patients with cannabis use disorders, they must educate patients about these chronic health risks and also manage the acute medical and psychiatric complications of marijuana intoxication. To illustrate the management of acute complex marijuana intoxication and psychosis, we present a case of a woman requiring prolonged emergency department management after ingestion of edible tetrahydrocannabinol , the active ingredient in marijuana.A 34-year-old woman with no significant psychiatric history presented to the emergency department with erratic and disruptive behavior. She broke into a neighbor’s home, requesting to “go to heaven.” She feared people were stealing from her and that “something bad” was going to happen. She reported insomnia, racing thoughts, and euphoria for the past week.

The rapid and widespread diffusion of new models of decriminalization, depenalization, and legalization has relied on the operation of mechanisms of recursive transnational lawmaking. These mechanisms originate from the indeterminacy of drug prohibition norms, the ideological contradictions between competing interpretations of their meaning, the impact of diagnostic struggles over the social issues that the international drug control system should address, and the mismatch between the actors shaping formal prohibition norms at the international level and those implementing these norms in national and local contexts. However, our analysis also shows that the cannabis prohibition TLO creates path-dependent trajectories that constrain the development of non-punitive strategies for regulating cannabis markets. In this context, the Article explains why it is too early to sound the death knell for the prohibitionist agenda of cannabis control. The dense array of UN treaties, transnational and regional monitoring schemes, national laws, and local enforcement arrangements put in place throughout the institutionalization of the cannabis prohibition TLO impede efforts to initiate more progressive regulatory innovations in this field. The Article is organized as follows: Section I briefly introduces the historical formation of the international legal framework governing cannabis regulations. Italso identifies the inherent ambiguities giving rise to interpretive disagreements regarding the scope of application of cannabis prohibition norms. Section II examines the debates that evolved during the 1960s–70s regarding the criminological logic of drug prohibition policies and the cannabis liberalization reforms shaped by these debates.

It then considers the processes leading to the reversal of these liberalizing trends and the extensive institutionalization of new measures reinforcing strict interpretations of the prohibition norms enshrined in the international treaties. Section III discusses the causes and consequences of the legitimation crisis that the cannabis prohibition TLO has experienced since the mid- 1990s as well as the global wave of depenalization, decriminalization, and legalization reforms precipitated by this crisis. Section IV considers the extent to which this wave of cannabis liberalization reform lessens the impact of the prohibitionist approach on the development of cannabis regulations at the international, national, and local levels.Cannabis prohibition laws were initially established in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries through disparate national drug control initiatives. Over the course of the nineteenth century, cannabis medical uses were regulated in a patchwork manner as part of wider legal frameworks governing the production and sale of pharmaceuticals. In the US, cannabis use began to be perceived as a social problem that should be a subject of criminal regulation during the Progressive Era. This criminalization campaign was inspired by the legislative inroads made by the temperance movement during that period and by awakening nativist sentiments toward incoming Mexican migrants, whose habits of marijuana smoking became major objects of media attention and public anxiety.15In 1915, California introduced the nation’s first anti-marijuana criminal prohibition.

Three decades later, such prohibitions appeared in the statute books of forty-six states and a series of marijuana-related federal offenses were included in the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. An earlier international drug convention, signed at The Hague in 1912, focused on regulating opium, morphine, and cocaine and did not include implementation mechanisms. Under the League’s auspices, new requirements concerning the regulation of medical and non-medical uses of cannabis were introduced at the 1925 International Opium Convention. However,the pre-UN frameworks of international drug control did not place emphasis on the use of punitive measures to regulate cannabis or other psychoactive substances. Although the US had strongly advocated the introduction of a strict prohibitionist approach, this position was met with resistance from European colonial powers that had significant financial interests in the production of opium and coca and the manufacturing of their derivatives. In the absence of an international consensus regarding the need to strengthen the criminal regulation of illicit drug use, the preUN drug control framework focused on the development of administrative measures to govern cross-border commodity flows and to encourage a more effective domestic regulation of local drug markets. Following WWII, the growing capacity of the US to shape the rules and institutions of the international drug control system facilitated the move of the prohibitionist approach from the periphery to the center of the policy agenda. To a considerable extent, the institutionalization of the cannabis prohibition TLO provides a paradigmatic example of what has been usefully conceptualized as “globalized localism”—a process by which policy models that originated in the distinctive cultural and institutional contexts of a powerful country come to be perceived as global standards due to their inclusion in treaties, diagnostic indicators, interpretive guidelines, and other instruments of transnational legal diffusion. The introduction of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961 served as an important milestone in this process. The Convention frames the issue of drug use as a moral problem, stating in its preamble that “addiction to narcotic drugs constitutes a serious evil for the individual and is fraught with social and economic danger to mankind.” In line with this moralizing framing, commercial grow room the Convention requires signatory countries to criminalize a wide range of drug-related activities.The two subsequent UN drug conventions adopted in 1971 and 1988 sought to extend the application of the prohibitionist approach to new contexts of drugregulation. Responding to the increasing production and use of synthetic drugs as part of the rise of the counter-cultural movements of the late 1960s, the 1971 Psychotropic Drug Treaty applied these policy principles to synthetic psychoactive drugs, such as opioids and amphetamine-type stimulants. The 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances further expanded the array of criminal justice enforcement measures states are required to adopt. Importantly, however, the mandatory criminalization norms established by the UN drug conventions are defined in a manner that leaves two major sources of textual ambiguity regarding their scope of application. First, the conventions deliberately refrain from providing a definition of what constitutes medical and scientific uses of drugs. Second, they clarify that countries should implement the duty to criminalize drug-related activities in accordance with their domestic constitutional principles. As is often the case, these two provisions are products of efforts to paper over divergent policy preferences.

During the negotiations of the Single Convention, several countries objected to banning certain drugs that have traditional and quasi-medical uses among indigenous populations. India, for example, expressed concerns regarding the implied need to criminalize traditional uses of bhang, which is made from cannabis leaves with a low Tetrahydrocannabinol content. Other countries emphasized the need to retain interpretive flexibility in light of the possibility that future research would reveal new medical benefits. The resulting compromise encouraged countries that would not have otherwise supported the prohibitionist principles set by the treaties to come on board. However, this compromise also sowed the seeds of later controversies regarding the ways in which cannabis prohibition norms should be applied. As the following discussion shows, these controversies will set recursive processes of transnational legal change in motion, leading to the settling and unsettling of specific interpretations of the scope and meaning of these norms. It is an irony of history that the first decade following the entry into force of the Single Convention experienced a marked increase in the prevalence of cannabis use in Western countries. When the Single Convention was signed in 1961, cannabis use was particularly prevalent in developing countries where the plant was traditionally cultivated, while it had little impact on mainstream culture in North America and Europe. By the end of the decade, the drug acquired unprecedented political salience not only in light of objective increases in the prevalence of its use but also due to its symbolic association with emerging countercultures and the perceived threat they putatively posed to public morality. These dramatic changes intensified the enforcement of cannabis offenses, but they also attracted heightened public attention to the negative consequences of such enforcement efforts. In the late 1960s, there was an historical increase in the rates of arrests, prosecutions, and convictions of cannabis users in various Western countries. The magnitude of this change was most remarkable in the US. In California, for example, the number of people arrested for marijuana offenses increased from about 5,000 in 1960 to 37,514 in 1967. Arrests for cannabis possession became increasingly common in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Canada as well. The civil rights implications of these increased levels of drug law enforcement generated vigorous public debate on the justifications of treating cannabis on par with other psychoactive substances that are widely perceived to be more dangerous and harmful. Disagreements regarding whether cannabis should be classified under the strictest schedules of the UN drug control treaties were already evident during the Plenipotentiary Conference, which drafted the Single Convention However, it was only as a result of the increased enforcement of cannabis prohibitions that such disagreements precipitated domestic forms of political and legal resistance. Due to increasing public criticism, national governments in several countries appointed public committees to consider the effectiveness of the existing laws. These committees directed strong criticism towards the criminological and medical underpinnings of the prohibitionist approach and sided with proponents of the decriminalization of mild forms of cannabis use.Broadly similar conclusions were reached by other committees operating in the Netherlands , Canada , and Australia . In the US, the public debate that followed President Nixon’s famous identification of drug abuse as “America’s public enemy number one” led to the nomination of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse . To the surprise of many, the Commission’s 1972 Report, entitled Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, concurred with the liberal approach endorsed by other national investigation committees. While the Commission emphasized that cannabis was not a harmless substance, it stressed that its dangers had often been overstated. It advocated repealing the criminal prohibitions on the possession of small amounts of marijuana and establishing alternative measures to address the public health concerns associated with cannabis use. Such reforms, the Commission stated, are needed to relieve “the law enforcement community of the responsibility for enforcing a law of questionable utility, and one which they cannot fully enforce.” These recommendations were repudiated by the Nixon administration, but they inspired grassroots activists to mobilize cannabis liberalization reforms at the state and local levels. In 1973, Oregon became the first state that decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Eleven states followed suit during the next half of the decade. The failure of the US national administration to secure the compliance of state governments with the prohibitionist norms it sought to propagate internationally provided a clear indication of the decline of the cannabis prohibition TLO.

The general panel sample and the national probability survey sample included only binary “male/female” response options and did not assess whether respondents were assigned female at birth. The LGBT-specific panel allowed participants to select multiple sex and gender identities; however, pipp drying racks to be consistent with categorizations in the general panel and probability samples, only participants from this panel were included in the current study if they selected “female” as their gender . Although we refer to participants as“women” in this paper, we acknowledge that study participants may have endorsed other gender categories had they been provided such options. The SMW samples were initially screened based on endorsing sexual minority identity and the heterosexual comparison sample was selected based on prior endorsement of heterosexual identity; the few participants who selected “mostly heterosexual” in the current study were combined with those endorsing heterosexual or straight identity. As shown in Table 1, 44.6 % of the study sample was from the national population-based survey, one-quarter was from the LGBT panel sample, and close to one-third was from the general panel sample. Approximately 46 % of the sample identified as heterosexual; 23 % identified as bisexual and 31 % as lesbian. The majority of the sample was<50 years old , college-educated , currently employed , and currently partnered ; just under one-half identified their race as White. Although the majority also reported being Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or some other religion, a quarter of the sample reported not having a religious affiliation.

Table 1 displays characteristics by sexual identity. Differences by sexual identity were found with respect to age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, current employment, partner status, current religion, current religious environment, and study sample.In the current study we examined differences in the associations of religiosity and importance of spirituality with AUD and marijuana use by sexual identity in a large sample of adult sexual minority and heterosexual women. Consistent with prior research, importance of spirituality, importance of religion, and participation in religious services were independently associated with lower odds of substance use. However, this protective effect varied by sexual identity, particularly in regard to AUD. In analyses of the interaction between spirituality and the study outcomes, we found that greater importance of spirituality was associated with greater odds of AUD among both lesbian and bisexual women, but was protective for heterosexual women. Among study participants who reported the highest levels religious importance odds of AUD were also greater among lesbian women than heterosexual women. These findings are consistent with minority stress theory, which suggests that religiosity and spirituality are less protective for SMW than heterosexual women and, in some cases, may contribute to greater risk of substance use. Findings are also consistent with research results indicating that religiosity is not protective against, and is sometimes associated with, increased heavy episodic drinking among adolescent and young adult SMW . Although our study did not explore participants’ subjective experiences and meanings of religiosity and spirituality, findings from qualitative research suggests that although religion or spirituality may provide support for some sexual minorities, it can also be associated with unique stressors which may contribute to adverse psychological and health outcomes .

It may also be possible that some SMW are turning to accessible coping outlets to deal with minority stress—including both spirituality and substance use. Findings from tests of interaction between religious attendance and sexual identity approached but did not reach statistical significance in relation to past year AUD or any marijuana use in the past year. Lack of significant differences may be related to the markedly lower levels of religious service attendance reported by SMW relative to heterosexual women, which may have reduced our ability to detect differential risk by sexual identity. These findings underscore the importance of future research considering religious behavior, such as attending religious services, in addition to religiosity or spirituality, given the potential of each to contribute to disparately negative behavioral health outcomes for SMW. We also explored potential differences in outcomes among participants based on religious environment—specifically, whether the study outcomes differed for participants involved in religious environments that were unwelcoming to LGBT people. Differences by sexual identity in interaction models were attenuated and no longer significant when we added this variable. Our ability to explore this question in greater depth was limited by the relatively small number of SMW participants who reported that they attended services in unwelcoming religious environments . Although the percentage of participants reporting attendance at LGBT welcoming environments was similar across sexual identity groups , over 80 % of SMW, compared with 48.5 % of heterosexual women, described themselves as not affiliated with or attending services. These demographic differences are consistent with literature suggesting that sexual minorities are more likely than heterosexuals to dissociate from religious institutions entirely or seek alternatives to disaffirming religions . Studies with larger samples of SMW who attend religious services that are both welcoming and unwelcoming of LGBT people are needed to explore the potential impact of the immediate religious environment on substance use outcomes.Findings should be interpreted in the context of study limitations. Although the SMW participants were drawn from two large national panel samples of SMW, they were not recruited using probability sampling methods, which may limit generalizability. As noted above, the great majority of SMW did not participate in religious services, which limited our ability to explore the impact of religious environment on substance use outcomes. There were also some limitations related to measurement. We assessed importance of religion, religious attendance, and importance of spirituality each with a single item. Although the use of single items are common in survey research, there are other measures that capture different dimensions of religiosity not captured in the current study, such as organizational, nonorganizational, vertical grow room and subjective religiosity ; daily spiritual experiences such as awe, inner peace, gratitude, transcendent experiences ; or facets of religiosity that may be particularly salient to health such as religious coping and religious social support .

It is possible that a measure of religious coping or a multi-dimensional measure of spirituality would have yielded different results. Furthermore, it was not possible to assess the degree to which participants conflated religiosity and spirituality; multidimensional measures may have allowed for a more nuanced exploration of the impact of spirituality independent of religiosity. Measures of religious environment also differed between the SMW and heterosexual women, which may have contributed to the different distributions of “non-affirming” attendance by sexual identity. Given research suggesting differences in perceived importance of religion and religious affiliation by race and ethnicity among SMW , future studies might examine possible subgroup differences in the associations of religiosity and spirituality to substance use outcomes. Finally, differences between the two panel samples may have influenced the findings in the current study. Although research suggests that substance use is typically greater among SMW relative to heterosexual women regardless of the sample or measures used , LGBT specific panels may reach individuals whose characteristics differ than LGBT peers recruited from general samples .Findings from this study contribute to previous research suggesting that religiosity and spirituality are less protective against alcohol and marijuana use among SMW than among heterosexual women, and, in fact may be a risk factor for some SMW. Furthermore, risk and protection may differ for lesbian and bisexual women. Findings underscore the importance of research on risk factors for substance use among SMW that include distinct measures of religion and spirituality, and that disaggregate bisexual and lesbian subgroups in analyses.The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus is increasing, and it is projected that in the USA alone, type 2 DM will increase to 48.3 million by 2050. In addition to defects in pancreatic b-cell function and insulin sensitivity, systemic inflammation is thought to be involved in its pathogenesis.1 2 Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the USA and is currently used by 14.4 million Americans.The major psychoactive CB is delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol whose effect is mediated through the CB1 and the CB2 subtypes of CB receptors found in the brain and lymphoid tissues. The endocannabinoids, a group of neuromodulatory lipids also bind to these receptors. Cannabis, THC and other CBs have been shown to have both beneficial6 and detrimental effects. Marijuana users have higher caloric intake while eating less nutrient-rich foods, yet have similar or slightly lower body mass index than non users. We hypothesised that the prevalence of DM would be reduced in marijuana users due to the presence of one or more CBs because of their immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties. We assessed the association between DM and marijuana use among adults aged 20e59 years in a national sample of the general population.Data on marijuana use were collected by self-report. Non-marijuana users included never users and those who reported ever having used marijuana, but who had not used marijuana in the past month . We classified participants who reported using marijuana in the past month by frequency of use as either light current users or heavy current users as previously described. The definition of marijuana for purposes of this survey includes ‘hash,’ ‘pot’ or ‘grass’ or any other references to the Cannabis plant. The phrase ‘used marijuana’ refers to either smoking or ingesting marijuana. Subjects were defined as having DM if they answer ‘yes’ to the question ‘Have you ever been told you have sugar/diabetes?’ or had a fasting blood glucose level $126 mg/dl . Of the 719 patients with DM, 418 answered the question about whether they take insulin and 116 reported that they do take insulin. Of those, nine reported that they began using insulin at age #20 years, the majority being likely to have type 1 DM, although a few may have had type 2 DM. Thus, we estimate that 1.5% of patients with DM had type 1 DM, and because of this low number, we analysed all subjects with DM together. There was no difference in any of our analyses if the nine patients of age #20 years were excluded. The study included 151 pregnant women . Of them, eight women had diabetes. There was no difference in the use of marijuana by DM. Because of the low number in the diabetes category, we included them in the analysis. A series of sensitivity analyses excluding the pregnant women showed no difference. Plasma glucose and whole blood haemoglobin A1c were measured at the University of MissouriColumbia School of Medicine Department of Child Health, Diabetes Reference Laboratory, Columbia, Missouri, by David Goldstein, MD, director. Subjects were classified as obese/non-obese according to the BMI level using a cut-off of 30 kg/m2 . We analysed data related to DM, age, gender, race/ ethnicity, education level, family history of DM, physical activity, BMI, cigarette smoking, cocaine use, alcohol use, total serum cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D , HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose level, C reactive protein level and the serum levels of less robust inflammatory markers count and uric acid that have been previously used in NHANES III analysis.

Limited research suggests intragroup marginalization may lead to higher levels of acculturative stress, or stress associated with adapting to a new culture, and increased alcohol use among young adults .Past research, while not directly investigating intragroup marginalization, has made potential links between familial and peer stress with tobacco and marijuana use . Foster and Spencer suggest that marijuana and other drug use may underlie a deeper need for connection in the absence of close familial connections for marginalized young adults, or young adults that have been rejected by their families. These young adults may be seeking opportunities to connect and create a sense of belonging,and marijuana use can play a common and significant social role in building supportive and caring relationships . Researchers further contend that investigation is needed to better understand how culture impacts these young adults’ drug use . Currently, intragroup marginalization is measured using the Intragroup Marginalization Inventory , which is comprised of three separate scales measuring perceived intragroup marginalization from the heritage culture family , friends , and other members of the individual’s ethnic group . The inventory is comprised of 42-items rated on a 7-point Likert scale . While the scale is comprehensive, the length of the survey can make it difficult for researchers to distribute the entire inventory, with many opting to use only one scale in their research . In practice this has limited studies of intragroup marginalization to focus either on family members or friends, rather than examining both.

Due to the length of the survey, the feasibility of using the measure in large scale studies or with large sample sizes has been limited. Most studies using the inventory have limited sample sizes focused on one racial/ethnic group . Greater sample sizes allow for segmentation of the data across demographic characteristics , reduce the margin of error, and provide the statistical power to conduct more advanced analyses.In addition, some items may have less applicability for certain groups, such as items related to linguistic expectations .Lastly, the inventory was developed and validated with a college population and hasnot been validated with non-college populations . Tobacco and marijuana use are problematic for all young adults and intragroup marginalization may be an important factor in understanding tobacco and marijuana disparities in this population as a whole.Yet,without an efficient means to assess intragroup marginalization, this important construct will continue to remain absent within health disparities research.Limited research addresses whether shared cultural values or feelings of marginalization may help explain high rates of tobacco and marijuana use among young adults . The purpose of this study is to provide a psychometrically sound abbreviated measure of intragroup marginalization. Such a measure would have great utility when survey length is of concern and the survey needs to be distributed across diverse racial/ethnic groups. This study tests and validates an abbreviated measure of the Intragroup Marginalization Inventory, which we refer to as the IMI-6. The IMI-6 consists of six items that measure perceived intragroup marginalization from the heritage culture family and friends.

The items of the IMI-6 are hypothesized to have content validity, as items were taken directly from the existing scale, which has already been found to have content validity and were selected in consultation with the survey developer and by the primary author whose research focuses on racial/ethnic minority issues and intragroup marginalization in specific. We hypothesize that the IMI-6 also has construct validity, which we establish in this study through exploratory factor analyses. In addition to testing the feasibility of using this abbreviated measure, a primary aim of this study was to apply the IMI-6and examine relationships between intragroup marginalization and tobacco and marijuana use. We hypothesize that participants reporting more experiences of intragroup marginalization would be more likely to use cigarettes, e-cigarettes, cigars, blunts, hookahs, and marijuana.The original Intragroup Marginalization Inventory consists of three scales: Family, Friend, and Ethnic Group. The scales have a common factor structure, and while there are slight differences in items and factor names, they fall into five general factors: Homeostatic Pressure , Linguistic Expectations , and Accusations of Assimilation , Accusations of Differentiation , and Discrepant Values . The IMI-6 consists of six items that measure perceived intragroup marginalization from the heritage culture family and friends. The original scale developer provided consultation during item selection, ultimately reviewing and approving the final six items. Items were selected based on the researchers’ and developer’s experience with the survey as well as those items that had the greatest applicability to a diverse pool of respondents and were broad enough to remain appropriate for different racial/ethnic groups. Items from the Accusations of Assimilation and Linguistic Expectations factors were not included as they contained items that were tailored to specific racial/ethnic groups . Items from the Homeostatic Pressure were similar to items from the Accusations of Differentiation factor, however items from the Homeostatic Pressure focused solely on the individual’s behavior, while items from the Accusations of Differentiation included items assessing both behavior and appearance. The selected items were taken from the Discrepant Values factor and the Accusation of Differentiation factor of the full inventory .Two items were taken from the Discrepant Values factor assessing whether family and friends have the same hopes and dreams as the respondent. Four items were taken from the Accusation Differentiation factor assessing whether family and friends accuse the respondent of not really being a member of one’s ethnic group because s/he does not look like and act like members of the group. Responses were rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘never/does not apply’ to ‘extremely often .’ Items 3 and 6 were reverse coded, so that higher numbers represent greater experiences of intragroup marginalization. Items were piloted with 45 young adults from the San Francisco Bay Area. Participants were recruited from local bars on a Thursday, Friday and Saturday evening to be interviewed that same weekend and received a $75 incentive if they participated in a one-hour focus group, pipp rack completed the pilot questionnaire, and engaged in an interview with project staff to share feedback about the questionnaire Individuals reviewed the item clarity and representation of their experiences. No items were altered and participant feedback suggested that the selected items accurately captured participant experiences.

Sample—This study used data we collected in 2014 as part of the San Francisco Bay Area Young Adult Health Survey, a probabilistic multi-mode household survey of 18–26 year old young adults, stratified by race/ethnicity. The study was conducted in Alameda and San Francisco Counties in California. We identified potential respondent households using address lists from Marketing Systems Group in which there was an approximately 30–40% chance that an eligible young adult resided at a selected address . We used 2009–2013 American Community Survey and 2010 decennial census data in a multistage sampling design to identify Census Block Groups and then Census Blocks in which at least 15% of residents were Latino or nonHispanic Black adults in the eligible age range. Ultimately, we randomly selected 61 blocks, then households within these blocks then young adults within eligible households . We oversampled these blocks because young nonwhite urban adults are among the most difficult populations to survey, and we wished to ensure appropriate population representation. We surveyed in three stages and utilized four modes of contact . In the first stage we conducted a series of three mailings with sample 1 households; respondents returned paper questionnaires or completed surveys online using Qualtrics. In the second stage we telephoned those who did not respond to mail, and lastly we performed face-to-face interviews with a random selection of the remaining non-responders from sample 1 as well as all of the households identified in sample 2. Potential sample 2 respondents did not participate in the mail or telephone phases of the survey; each of these households was visited in person. The final sample consisted of 1,363 young adult participants, for a response rate of approximately 30%, with race, sex and age distributions closely reflecting those of the young adult population overall in the two counties surveyed. Ethnicity/race was measured using items from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey instrument, with participants first asked to identify if there were Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin and then to select their race from 14 categories. Race/ethnicity was then collapsed into mutually exclusive categories including Hispanic, non-Hispanic White, nonHispanic black, non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander and Mixed Race. Those who selected more than one race/ethnic category were categorized as Mixed Race.We constructed individual sample and post-stratification adjustment weights during data reduction .Results support the use of an abbreviated measure of intragroup marginalization. The IMI-6 was found to be psychometrically sound and representative of the full construct of intragroup marginalization as theorized by Castillo and colleagues . Two factors emerged from the abbreviated scale. The first factor encompassed items related to belonging and membership, capturing whether individuals felt marginalized due to deviations in their physical appearance or behaviors . The second factor encompassed whether the individual shared similar hopes and dreams as their families and friends. These factors reflected similarly identified factors from the validation study of the full inventory scales, suggesting good agreement between the original measure and the abbreviated version. Examining racial/ethnic differences in mean scores across factors demonstrated significant differences in Factor 1. Latinos and Mixed Race young adults experienced greater intragroup marginalization related to not looking or acting like members of their racial/ethnic group compared to non-Hispanic Blacks and Asian Americans/ Pacific Islanders. The full Intragroup Marginalization Inventory was developed with a diverse sample and past research has explored intragroup marginalization with African Americans , Asian Americans and Latinos ; however, specific racial/ethnic differences have not been examined. Latinos may be particularly susceptible to intragroup marginalization given the heterogeneity among Latinos in terms of national origin, physical appearance, political ideology, immigration status, and class status . In particular, Latinos can encompass different racial groups , which can contribute to differences in appearance one of the concepts captured in Factor 1. Physical appearance can limit the extent to which people are accepted as belonging to a certain racial/ethnic group, which is also especially relevant for multiracial individuals, whose physical appearance may not align with any specific ethnic/racial group. Additionally, multiracial individuals describe feeling marginalized from peers rooted in having different appearance, culture, and/or beliefs than their peers , explaining the higher rates of intragroup marginalization observed in this study. Research examining young adult tobacco and marijuana use often relies on college samples, thereby neglecting individuals in this age group that may be at greater risk of substance use . The Intragroup Marginalization Inventory, which may have particular utility with young adults who are negotiating the stresses of transitioning to adulthood, was also developed and tested with a college-only sample . This study validates an abbreviated version of the IMI, the IMI-6, which was developed to capture tensions experienced within racial/ethnic groups.We tested the IMI-6in a large representative household sample of racially/ethnically diverse young adults in the San Francisco Bay Area in order to better understand the impact of cultural stressors on tobacco and marijuana use among young adults in general. When controlling for demographic characteristics, Factor 1 was associated with greater marijuana use.

In particular, it was predicted that the improvement relative to the control condition would be greater for low authoritative parents than for high authoritative parents, greater for high authoritarian parents than for low authoritarian parents, and greater for high permissive parents than for low permissive parents. This is because it is believed that authoritarian and permissive parents will benefit more from authoritative tools compared to authoritative parents, as they are in the greatest need for assistance. The effects of the discussion tools on perceived interpretability, motivations to address the behavior, marijuana use discussion intentions, and willingness to pay for the tool were moderated by authoritative parenting styles. In fact, for parents with high authoritative parenting styles, the marijuana use discussion tool led to lower perceived interpretability and lower motivations to address the behavior. Whereas, for parents with low authoritative parenting styles, the marijuana use discussion tool led to higher marijuana use discussion intentions and higher willingness to pay for the tool relative to the sedentary behavior tool. In line with hypotheses, the findings on dependent measures show that the marijuana use discussion tool had greater effects for low authoritative parents compared to high authoritative parents. This extends research on the positive effects of authoritative parenting in encouraging parent communication about health related behaviors leading to better health outcomes for children as the tools were authoritatively-framed. The effects of the discussion tools on motivations to address the behavior, self efficacy of unhealthy eating discussions, coherence of unhealthy eating discussions, and self-efficacy of marijuana use discussions were moderated by authoritarian parenting styles.

In fact, for parents with high authoritarian styles, the marijuana use discussion tool led to higher coherence of unhealthy eating discussions and higher self-efficacy of marijuana use discussions relative to the sedentary behavior tool. Whereas, for parents with low authoritarian styles, the marijuana use discussion tool led to lower motivations to address the behavior, lower self efficacy of unhealthy eating discussions, lower coherence of unhealthy eating discussions, and lower self-efficacy of marijuana use discussions relative to the sedentary behavior tool. In line with hypotheses, the findings on dependent measures show that the marijuana use discussion tool had greater effects for high authoritarian parents compared to low authoritarian parents. These findings provide support for the efficacy of authoritative parenting-framed messages in motivating parental discussions of risky behaviors in parents with high authoritarian parenting styles.The effects of the discussion tools on perceived effectiveness, motivations to address the behavior, self-efficacy of unhealthy eating discussions, coherence of unhealthy eating discussions, unhealthy eating discussion intentions, coherence of marijuana use discussions, and sedentary behavior discussion intentions were moderated by permissive parenting styles. In fact, for parents with high permissive styles, the unhealthy eating discussion tool led to higher coherence of unhealthy eating discussions, lower unhealthy eating discussion intentions, and higher coherence of marijuana use discussions relative to the sedentary behavior tool. Whereas, for parents with low permissive styles, the unhealthy eating discussion tool led to higher perceived effectiveness, higher motivations to address the behavior, lower self-efficacy of unhealthy eating discussions, higher unhealthy eating discussion intentions, and higher sedentary behavior discussion intentions relative to the sedentary behavior tool. In line with hypotheses, the findings on coherence of unhealthy eating and marijuana use show that the unhealthy eating discussion tool had greater effects for high permissive parents compared to low permissive parents.

Contrary to hypotheses, the effects of the unhealthy eating discussion tool on unhealthy eating discussion intentions showed negative effects for high permissive parents, and negative effects for perceived effectiveness, motivations to address the behavior, intentions of unhealthy eating and sedentary behavior for low permissive parents. Overall, the findings for the moderation analyses mostly supported hypotheses by suggesting that low authoritative parents, high authoritarian parents, and high permissive parents find the tools more useful. For authoritative parents and authoritarian parents, the marijuana use discussion tool was more effective in motivating discussions compared to the unhealthy eating discussion tool for permissive parents. Specifically, for low authoritative parents the marijuana use discussion tool led to increased levels of perceived interpretability and motivations to address the behavior, and for high authoritarian parents the marijuana use discussion tool led to an increase in coherence of unhealthy eating discussions and self-efficacy of marijuana use discussions. For permissive parents the unhealthy eating discussion tool led to higher coherence of unhealthy eating and marijuana use. An interesting discovery is that authoritative and authoritarian parenting served as moderators for marijuana use conditions, whereas permissive parenting served as a moderator for the unhealthy eating conditions. It could be that authoritative and authoritarian parents are more likely to have marijuana use discussions because they feel more confident compared with permissive parents. Whereas, permissive parents identify better with unhealthy eating because it is an easier topic to discuss as compared with marijuana use. According to Baumrind Classification of parenting styles authoritative and authoritarian parents tend to be higher in discipline and structure, and expectation compared to permissive parents that have lower discipline and structure, and expectation. In fact, authoritarian parents are known for establishing strict rules which could be more common for marijuana use, while permissive parents allow for freedom of choice which could be more common for children when picking which foods to eat . This knowledge should be applied to revise the discussion tools that were developed for parents to have discussions about unhealthy eating and marijuana use with their children. A priority should be on the development of the discussion tools based on the behavior by taking into account aspects of the parenting styles and how they might affect the specific discussions. Being exploratory in nature, this study has several important study implications. First, the difference in unhealthy eating and marijuana use offers opportunity to refine and validate the discussion tools in future studies for these behaviors. These differences can be assessed by taking into account the behavior and framing the messages with not only parenting styles but behavior as well. For instance, rolling benches for growing implementing tools for unhealthy eating that utilizes friendlier language compared with more structure for marijuana use. Second, we generated two new discussion tools that were effective in motivating discussions. These discussion tools can be applied to other risky behaviors and possibly distributed to parents in different settings in order to test the adaptability and acceptability of each tool with larger parent populations. Future studies could look to examine these dynamics more clearly in a larger sample of parents of children ages 10 to 17 years old. It is important to note that there were several moderating relationships of various dependent measures that were not significant. Since these discussions tools are newly developed, more research is needed to explore the moderating effects of parenting styles in motivating discussion behaviors of unhealthy eating and marijuana use.

Additional studies could add more dimensions of authoritative parenting styles in the discussion tool , instead of just including a script. Strengths of the present study include its focus on a largely unexplored area of parent motivations to discuss unhealthy eating and marijuana use, its contributions to further development of discussion tools utilizing authoritative parenting-framed message, and the use of a longitudinal design, in a sample of parents in the United States. This study added partial evidence of the moderating effects of parenting styles in some of the relationships between unhealthy eating and marijuana use discussion tools and the PWM factors. A second strength of the study is that it could be replicated, and tested, with other conditions in order to test the moderating impact of authoritatively-framed discussion tools on more behaviors. Though, if replicated alterative strategies should be implemented for motivating parents to have these discussions by revising the tools or testing with a no-treatment control condition. A third strength is that the study provided valuable information on whether these newly developed discussion tools would be effective in promoting discussion behaviors in a sample of parents. These tools could possibly be disseminated to school settings in order to further test their effectiveness in motivating discussions of unhealthy eating and marijuana use. Lastly, these findings provided important data on the differences in discussion behaviors for unhealthy eating and marijuana use, in which the unhealthy eating discussion tool was more likely to motivate discussion behavior. Limitations of this study require consideration when interpreting the results and point to directions for future research. Initially, the results may not be representative of all parents across the nation or in other countries, as it consisted predominantly of NonHispanic White and well-educated participants. Although, MTurk has become a popular method used for recruiting large heterogeneous samples such as parents of adolescents from across the nation and has been demonstrated in several published psychological studies . Second, the findings may not be generalizable to all parents, particularly as we focused on parents of children ages 10 to 17 years old. More research is needed to determine if results would vary for different ages , ethnicities, number of children, gender of parent, and if the results would extend to other behaviors as well. There is a definite need to extend the study to test for differences in mothers and fathers and to assess if their possibly differing parenting styles could influence discussion motivations of unhealthy eating and marijuana use with their children. This could provide vital information on whether the discussion tools could be more generalizable to a more representative population of parents and children across the United States.The parent-child relationship has a major influence on child development and behavior. Parents can play a critical role in preventing their children from engaging in behaviors that could harm their health and well-being. Identifying whether or not discussion tools of unhealthy eating and marijuana use are effective for parent and child conversations centered on risky health behaviors is of particular importance. Another component to consider in promoting parent-child discussions about unhealthy eating and marijuana use is the associations of parenting styles. In particular, the present research project examined parenting styles in three ways. Initially, guided by an adapted PWM framework the study tested the associations of parenting styles, attachment styles, parent child communication; specific risks and prototypes of unhealthy eating and marijuana use by one’s child; levels of self-efficacy, coherence, worry; discussion intentions and willingness on parental past discussions of unhealthy eating and marijuana use . Second, it revealed the authoritative parenting-framed message on talking with one’s parent about unhealthy eating and marijuana use was perceived by young adults as most effective in motivating discussions about these behaviors . Finally, it provided partial support of the moderating effects of parenting styles on discussion tools and cognitive factors . The findings supported most of the hypothesized relationships delineated by an adapted PWM framework , suggesting the potential utility of the parenting styles and cognitive factors in promoting discussions about unhealthy eating and marijuana use.

Lastly for Aim 3, we tested the hypothesis that parents would be more likely to discuss unhealthy eating with younger children as compared with discussing marijuana use with older children.Table 1e presents the zero-order correlations for the measures of parent-child communication, perceived risks of unhealthy eating, negative prototypes of unhealthy eating, self-efficacy of unhealthy eating, coherence of unhealthy eating, worry of unhealthy eating, intentions of unhealthy eating, willingness of unhealthy eating, and past discussion of unhealthy eating with child. For unhealthy eating, parent-child communication exhibited positive correlations with negative prototypes, worry, intentions, willingness, and past discussion behavior. Perceived risks of unhealthy eating was positively correlated with self-efficacy, coherence, worry, intentions, willingness, and past discussion. Negative prototypes of unhealthy eating were positively correlated with worry, willingness, and past discussion. Self-efficacy of unhealthy eating was positively correlated with coherence, worry, intentions, and past discussion. Worry of unhealthy eating correlated positively with intentions, willingness, and past discussion. Intentions and willingness of unhealthy eating were positively associated with one another and both were positively correlated with past discussion behavior. Table 1f presents the zero-order correlations for the measures of parent-child communication, perceived risks of marijuana use, negative prototypes of marijuana use, self-efficacy of marijuana use, coherence of marijuana use, worry of marijuana use, intentions of marijuana use, willingness of marijuana use, and past discussion of marijuana use with child.

For marijuana use, parent-child communication exhibited positive correlations with negative prototypes, self-efficacy, worry, intentions, and past discussion behavior. Perceived risks of marijuana use was positively correlated with negative prototypes, self-efficacy, coherence, worry, intentions, willingness, and past discussion. Negative prototypes of marijuana use were positively correlated with self efficacy, coherence, worry, intentions, willingness, and past discussion. Self-efficacy of marijuana use was positively correlated with coherence, worry, intentions, willingness, and past discussion. Coherence of marijuana use was positively correlated with worry and willingness. Worry of marijuana use correlated positively with intentions, willingness, and past discussion. Lastly, intentions and willingness of marijuana use were positively associated with one another and both were positively correlated with past discussion behavior.Next, regression analyses were conducted on the model paths for the variables of parent-child communication, self-efficacy of unhealthy eating, coherence of unhealthy eating, worry of unhealthy eating, intentions of unhealthy eating, willingness of unhealthy eating, and past discussion behavior of unhealthy eating with child. Each analysis included all proximal and distal variables in the model that were predicted to have direct or indirect paths with the dependent measure. The analysis was repeated, taking out the non-significant variable with the lowest beta coefficient, until the model included only significant predictor variables. Table 1g presents the results of the regression analyses for unhealthy eating measures. Higher authoritative parenting style and lower authoritarian parenting style were associated with higher self-efficacy of unhealthy eating. Higher perceived risks of harms of unhealthy eating was associated with higher coherence of unhealthy eating and higher worry of unhealthy eating. While, more negative prototypes of unhealthy eating were associated with higher worry of unhealthy eating. Higher authoritative parenting style and higher worry about unhealthy eating were associated with higher intentions to discuss unhealthy eating with child. Higher parent-communication, higher perceived risks of harms of unhealthy eating, more negative prototypes of unhealthy eating, and higher worry of unhealthy eating were associated with higher willingness to discuss unhealthy eating with child. Lastly, higher authoritative parenting style, higher authoritarian parenting style, higher parent-child communication, more negative prototypes of unhealthy eating, higher self-efficacy of unhealthy eating, and higher intentions of unhealthy eating were associated with higher levels of past discussion of unhealthy eating with child.Similarly, regression analyses were conducted on the model paths for the variables of parent-child communication, self-efficacy of marijuana use, coherence of marijuana use, worry of marijuana use, intentions of marijuana use, willingness of marijuana use, and past discussion behavior of marijuana use with child. Each analysis included all proximal and distal variables in the model that were predicted to have direct or indirect paths with the dependent measure. The analysis was repeated, taking out the non-significant variable with the lowest beta coefficient, until the model included only significant predictor variables. Table 1h presents the results of the regression analyses for the marijuana use measures. Higher authoritative parenting style was associated with higher self-efficacy of marijuana use. Higher perceived risks of harms of marijuana use and more negative prototypes of marijuana users were associated with higher coherence of marijuana use. Higher perceived risks of harms of marijuana use was associated with higher worry of marijuana use. Higher parent-child communication, higher perceived risks of harms of marijuana use, higher coherence of marijuana use, and higher worry about marijuana use were associated with higher intentions to discuss marijuana use with child. Higher self efficacy of marijuana use was associated with higher willingness to discuss marijuana use with child. In addition, higher parent-child communication, higher perceived risks of harms of marijuana use, how to cure cannabis fast higher self-efficacy of marijuana use, higher coherence of marijuana use, and higher intentions of marijuana use were associated with higher levels of past discussion of marijuana use with child.The two sets of analyses testing the adapted PWM for parental discussions of unhealthy eating and marijuana use with one’s child yielded somewhat consistent patterns across the two behaviors and that provides support for the proposed model.

Figures 1c and 1d illustrate the patterns of significant relationships yielded by these analyses for unhealthy eating and marijuana use. The figures include significant paths, non-significant paths, and unpredicted significant paths. Lastly, Figures 1e and 1f illustrate the final model for all significant paths for unhealthy eating and marijuana use. The common significant paths for both unhealthy eating and marijuana use included: higher authoritative parenting style was associated with higher self-efficacy; higher perceived risks of harms was associated with higher coherence and higher worry; higher worry was associated with higher intentions; and higher parent-child communication, higher self-efficacy, and higher intentions were associated with higher levels of past discussion of behavior. The significant paths for unhealthy eating included : lower authoritarian parenting style was associated with higher self efficacy of unhealthy eating; more negative prototypes of unhealthy eating were associated with higher worry of unhealthy eating; higher authoritative parenting style was associated with higher intentions to discuss unhealthy eating with child; higher parent-communication, higher perceived risks of harms of unhealthy eating, more negative prototypes of unhealthy eating, and higher worry of unhealthy eating were associated with higher willingness to discuss unhealthy eating with child; and higher authoritative parenting style, higher authoritarian parenting style, and more negative prototypes of unhealthy eating were associated with greater past discussion of unhealthy eating with child. The significant paths for marijuana use included : more negative prototypes of marijuana users was associated with higher coherence of marijuana use; higher parent-child communication, higher perceived risks of marijuana use, and higher coherence of marijuana use were associated with higher intentions to discuss marijuana use with child; higher self-efficacy of marijuana use was associated with higher willingness to discuss marijuana use with child; and higher perceived risks of harms of marijuana use and higher coherence of marijuana use were associated with greater past discussion of marijuana use with child.This study initially gathers information on the extent of parental discussions of unhealthy eating and marijuana use with their children . Descriptive analyses revealed that, of the past discussions about unhealthy eating and marijuana use, parents’ reported greater ratings of encouraging child to eat healthy or not use marijuana; telling child to eat healthy or not use marijuana; and discussing the negative consequences of unhealthy eating and marijuana use. Of importance is that more than half of parents did not discuss the behaviors of unhealthy eating or marijuana use in the past 6 months. By supporting our hypothesis that parents were less likely to report past discussions of unhealthy eating and marijuana use with their child, this extends the possible benefits of developing discussion tools that would provide parents with guidance on how to have these discussions with their children. Next, this study provides new evidence about the proposed relationships of the extended PWM framework on parental discussions of unhealthy eating and marijuana use . The study focused on the associations of attachment styles, parenting styles, parent-child communication, perceived risks, prototypes, self-efficacy, coherence, worry, intentions, willingness, and past discussions of unhealthy eating and marijuana use with one’s child. The findings, which yielded patterns of relationships that were mostly in line with the adapted PWM predictions, further replicate and extend prior research in several ways. First, the association of attachment styles and parenting styles adds an interesting adaptation to the model. For instance, lower levels of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were associated with higher authoritative parenting, while higher levels of attachment anxiety were associated with more authoritarian and permissive parenting. This parallels previous literature on the relationship of higher levels of secure attachment and authoritative parenting style , and between higher levels of attachment anxiety and authoritarian and permissive parenting styles . There was not a significant relationship between greater attachment avoidance and authoritarian and permissive parenting styles. Authoritative parenting was a significant predictor of parent child communication, whereas attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, and permissive parenting were not. Several studies have found a positive association between authoritative parenting and increased open parent-child communication about problems .On the contrary, higher levels of authoritarian parenting were also associated with more parent-child communication. It could be that authoritarian parents are also inclined to talk to their kids about risky behaviors, but perhaps they are doing so in potentially harmful or ineffective ways, and may benefit from tools on how to effectively engage in these discussions. Consistent with hypotheses, higher authoritative parenting was associated with higher self-efficacy of unhealthy eating and marijuana use. Other studies have also found a parallel association with authoritative parents often times displaying more confidence in dealing with challenges their child faces as compared with authoritarian and permissive parents .

This method of data collection may have introduced bias in the types of tweets collected, thereby limiting the generalizability of findings as the majority of Twitter users do not geolocate their posts. Potential sampling biases for Twitter include oversampling for certain geographic areas , filtering for specific features , and the limitations of the Twitter public streaming API in lieu of other data collection approaches . Future studies should examine the use of multiple Twitter APIs to generate a more representative Twitter dataset and compliment findings with other traditional sources of data to generate findings that are more robust and generalizable, as well as use complementary Twitter and social media datasets made publicly available by other researchers. Specific to identification of Twitter users and conversations associated with colleges and universities, using keyword searches, and selecting accounts affiliated with higher education should be explored in future studies. Also, inclusion criteria required tweets to be posted from college campuses, which would not have accounted for variability in smoking related tweets from off-campus housing or areas/neighborhoods at the borders of campus properties where college students may reside. Furthermore, though the study design permitted searches of the Twitter API to return different volume of tweets for different keywords, there was a smaller number of original keywords for substances containing marijuana/cannabis than those for e-cigarettes or products containing tobacco due to our purposeful filtering for tobacco and alternative tobacco product keywords .

Additionally, the majority of tweets analyzed for this study were from 2015, a period prior to major public scrutiny about default privacy settings for location sharing on Twitter . Finally, this study is an ecological study and should therefore be considered hypothesis generating and not generalizable to individuals on college campuses until further studies among individuals confirm these correlational findings.The study of personality has a long and rich history, and has been studied in across the lifespan, from temperament in early infants to coping ability at the end of life . How personality during adolescence, a period of dramatic physical, emotional and psychosocial development , relates to behaviors in later life, is of particular interest. While there are likely numerous moderating and mediating factors, individual differences in adolescent personality have been shown to be important predictors of adult life outcomes, including social competence, academic and professional achievement, and physical and mental health and longevity . From a clinical perspective, understanding individual differences in personality development is important for informing mental health treatment efforts and preventing substance misuse in adolescents , as personality may be modifiable by clinical intervention . Although debated , the five-factor model is one of the most widely accepted and utilized hierarchical structures for measuring personality, as it strikes a balance between specificity and generalizability that is more difficult to achieve using lower-order constructs .

The five-factor model consists of extraversion, emotional stability , conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness. While this factor structure has been well-described in adults, the stability of, or change in, these personality constructs during childhood and adolescence is still debated . First, a meta-analysis of early longitudinal research found all Big Five personality factors increased substantially during adolescence and young adulthood . This pattern, referred to as the “maturity principle,” suggests that an increase in these personality traits across adolescence and early adulthood reflects adaptations to newly evolving social roles . More recently, several large-scale studies show declines in at least one, and up to all Big Five personality factors early in adolescence, with subsequent increases in late adolescence and early adulthood . This pattern has been referred to as the “disruption hypothesis,” and suggests that adolescence is a key period for personality development . However, there are inconsistencies between these reports in regards to which of the Big Five personality factors support the disruption hypothesis. For example, Borghuis, Denissen et al. found emotional stability and extraversion declined in early adolescence , before increasing, while agreeableness increased throughout . Conversely, Van den Akker, Deković et al. found continued declines in emotional stability and extraversion into young adulthood , but found agreeableness decreased , before increasing.How personality development varies between male and female youth also remains unclear. While the degree and practical significance of sex differences in personality are still debated, they continue to be supported by large multi-national studies . Given significant sex differences in the timing of neurobiological development during adolescence, it could be expected that sex differences in personality may also emerge during this developmental period , and understanding these effects may provide insight into the emergence of psychiatric disorders in youth . Past findings in adolescents and young adults largely suggest that female youth report greater extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, and less emotional stability, compared to male youth . However, the timing of these sex-specific effects is less clear. For example, Soto, John et al. found the biggest differences in emotional stability between male and female youth emerged between the ages of 10 to 15, and then persisted well into adulthood; however, Göllner, Roberts et al. reported no sex-differences in emotional stability in early adolescence . Similarly, while several studies support the notion that sex differences in extraversion emerge during adolescence and persist in young adulthood , others found no sex differences in extraversion in mid-to-late adolescence . While these are not the only studies to investigate personality development, or sex differences therein, they highlight two major inconsistencies in past studies: 1) it is unclear which if any personality traits support the “disruption hypothesis”, and 2) there are discrepancies regarding the timing, or developmental course, of sex differences in personality. One important factor that could contribute to this effect is researchers’ choice of analytic modeling strategy. For example, vertical grow rack system two previous studies used polynomial growth parameters and reported that extraversion either decreased linearly from 9 to 20 years of age , or showed quadratic growth, with early decreases and subsequent increases from ages 12 to 22 . However, another study found that changes in personality with age could not be adequately fit with traditional growth parameters ; when reporting mean level changes, they found extraversion decreased between ages 10 to 15 before largely leveling off into young adulthood .

In the current study, we seek to address past discrepancies in the sex specific development of personality by using data-driven non-linear modeling strategies, and comparing them to more traditional growth models, to test our hypothesis that analytic strategy plays a role in the conclusions draw from developmental studies. Another area of research the current dataset is well-suited to investigate is the association between personality and substance use. Alcohol and marijuana are the most commonly used substances by youth and are associated with a myriad of cognitive and neural alterations . A recent review and meta-analytic work suggests that alcohol use is associated with low conscientiousness, agreeableness,and emotional stability, and high extraversion , with longitudinal work confirming that increases in conscientiousness and emotional stability with age are associated with decreases in problematic alcohol use . Similarly, in adolescents, higher extraversion and lower conscientiousness, openness and agreeableness are associated with alcohol use , and high adolescent extraversion, in particular, may be a common predictor of future alcohol use . Marijuana use is also associated with lower emotional stability, agreeableness and conscientiousness in adolescents and young adults . However, when combining alcohol with other illicit substance use , greater openness has been shown to be associated with heavy substance use in young adulthood . Meanwhile, when simultaneously examined in a sample of young adults concurrently using alcohol and marijuana, marijuana use was associated with greater openness, but alcohol use with lower openness . Similarly, extraversion has been shown to be differentially related to substance use, with higher extraversion associated with more alcohol use but less marijuana use . Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of simultaneous modeling of both alcohol and marijuana use in the same sample. Work looking at sex differences in the association between substance use and personality in adolescents and young adults is limited. Cross-sectional studies have found that the association between reduced emotional stability and marijuana use was greater in female adolescents than male adolescents , and that the negative association between alcohol use and emotional stability and conscientiousness in young adults is more predominant in women . However, robust longitudinal studies that allow for the assessment of substance use alongside potential non-linear developmental changes in personality are needed. Using seven waves of longitudinal data from the National Consortium on Alcohol and Neurodevelopment in Adolescence dataset, the current study sought to examine personality changes across adolescence and young adulthood. In addition to replicating previous literature on personality development in a robust, longitudinal, multi-site national cohort, the study had the following five goals: First, we aimed to use generalized additive mixed effect models to empirically assess non-linear change in personality across age and compare these effects to more traditional linear mixed effects models with polynomial growth trajectories . We hypothesized added model flexibility would yield findings that better coalesce past literature, and choice of modeling strategy would partially explain past discrepant reporting.Second, we examined sex differences in personality development. In addition to replicating previous reports of greater extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, and less emotional stability, in female youth , we expected our non-linear modeling strategy would again help provide clarity in regards to the timing of sex differences in personality development. Third, we examined the association between substance use and personality. While previous studies generally suggest greater alcohol and marijuana use is associated with lower agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability , associations with extraversion and openness may vary based on substance . Therefore, we simultaneously modeled both alcohol and marijuana use, and hypothesized they would be differentially related to reported extraversion and openness. Fourth, we examined the sex-specific association between substance use and personality. Based on limited past literature, we hypothesized that the association between substance use and lower emotional stability and conscientiousness would be more prominent in female youth . Finally, while previous reports highlight the importance of comprehensively assessing personality , this is not always feasible in large multi-site studies, such as NCANDA. Thus, here, we demonstrate the ability of an abbreviated measure, the Ten-Item Personality Inventory , to obtain robust results largely consistent with prior literature.Data were analyzed from participants of the NCANDA study. Youth between 12 and 21 years of age were recruited at five sites across the United States: Duke University, Oregon Health & Science University , University of Pittsburgh, SRI International, and University of California San Diego . Adults provided informed consent, while adolescents and their parents provided informed assent and consent, respectively, and all study procedures were approved by the respective institutional review board for each site.

Young adults remain the age group most likely to use the internet , and they are less likely, compared to other age groups, to present to traditional research settings for studies of health behavior . Our prior research has demonstrated the reliability and validity of anonymous online surveys of young adult tobacco and cannabis use. Analyzing data from an anonymous online survey of young adult smokers with national coverage, the present study examined the prevalence of past-month marijuana use, frequency among past-month marijuana users, and the frequency of co-using tobacco and marijuana. The large sample permitted analyses by gender, age, ethnicity, geographic region, urban/rural designation, student status, household income, daily smoking status, and by whether or not respondents resided in a state where marijuana is legal for medicinal use.Data for the present study were taken from a national cross-sectional survey using a convenience sample of young adult smokers. Briefly, young adults between the ages of 18 and 25, who reported smoking at least one cigarette in the past 30 days, were recruited online between 4/1/09 and 12/31/10. Three recruitment methods were used: 1) a paid advertisement campaign on Facebook; 2) a free campaign on Craigslist; and 3) a paid email advertising campaign through a survey sampling company. Participant entries could be tracked to which advertisement type they viewed . Only entries from advertisements targeting tobacco use were used in the present study so as not to inflate the prevalence of marijuana use in this population. Advertisements invited young adults to participate in a 20-minute online survey on tobacco use with a chance to win a prize in a drawing worth either US $25 or $400.

Advertisements contained a hyperlink directing potential participants to the study’s institutional review board -approved consent form, which mentioned assessment of marijuana use; to a screener for eligibility criteria; and to a secure online survey with data encryption for added security. Computer IP addresses were tracked, and only one entry was allowed from a single computer to prevent duplicate entries from the same person; however, multiple entries were allowed from the same internet connection .During the recruitment period, the online survey received more than 6423 hits, and 6176 people gave online consent to determine eligibility; of these, 3512 were eligible and deemed to be valid cases. Of eligible and valid cases, 2998 completed information about demographic and tobacco use only, and 1808 completed the entire 20–30 minute survey. Those who completed the survey differed from those who didn’t on some demographic variables, but the differences were small . The majority of the sample was male , Caucasian , living in an urban area , not currently a student , and smoked marijuana daily . Among current smokers, the overall prevalence of marijuana use was 53%. There was a significantly higher prevalence of marijuana use among males compared with females; among those aged 18 to 20 compared with those aged 21 to 25; among those with higher household income; among those living in urban versus rural areas; and among non-daily versus daily smokers.

There were no differences in prevalence of recent cannabis use by ethnicity, census region, residence in a medical marijuana state, or student status. Among past-month marijuana users, the median number of days using marijuana was 18.0 in the past 30 days . Non-students used marijuana on significantly more days than students, and daily smokers used on significantly more days than non-daily smokers. There were no differences in the number of days using marijuana in the past month by gender, age, ethnicity, household income, region, urban versus rural residence, or residence in a medical marijuana state. The proportion of days using both substances out of all past-month using days was a median of 45.5% . There was a higher proportion of tobacco and marijuana co-use among Caucasian respondents compared with those of other ethnic groups, among those residing in the Northeast compared to other census regions, among those residing in rural versus urban areas, among non-students, and among daily versus non-daily smokers . There were no differences in percentage of days with co-use by gender, age, household income, or residence in a medical marijuana state. The findings from this online anonymous survey of young adult smokers with national coverage indicate a greater prevalence of marijuana use than has been reported in epidemiological studies using household interviews. For example, in 2009, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that 34.6% of past-month smokers age 18 to 25 used marijuana, compared with 53.1% reported in the present study. The present sample was recruited online, primarily through social media, and the survey was completely anonymously, potentially allowing for reduced bias in reporting of illegal substance use . High prevalence of use was observed across demographic groups and regions, suggesting the issue of marijuana and tobacco co-use is of national relevance. The highest prevalence of marijuana use was observed among males, younger people, those with a higher household income and living in urban areas, and non-daily tobacco smokers. Consistent with previous epidemiological studies, young adult males tended to use marijuana at higher levels than young adult females, and young adults tended to reduce substance use as they reached developmental milestones of emerging adulthood, including leaving home, obtaining stable employment, cannabis drying kit and starting a family. Greater use among those in urban areas and from wealthier households reflects factors related to availability and is also consistent with national trends from household survey data. Notably, although daily tobacco smokers were slightly less likely to use marijuana than non-daily smokers, when they did use, they used it more frequently. There was a two-fold greater frequency of use among daily smokers compared with non-daily smokers and elevated frequency of use among non-students. Non-students and daily smokers also had greater co-use. Given the potential for detrimental effects of co-use among daily smokers, these findings support the broadening of interventions for daily tobacco smokers to consider use of both substances. Future research should examine the potential for substitution or compensatory effects during attempts to quit either substance. Study limitations include convenience sampling and self-reported data; however, face-to-face surveys often similarly rely on self-reported drug use, and we have previously demonstrated strong reliability and validity of tobacco and marijuana online surveys with young adults. The survey completion rate in this study was comparable to online survey studies with young adults but lower than that typically seen in nationally representative surveys. For example, weighted response rates for the 2010 SAMHSA-sponsored National Survey on Drug Use and Health were 88.8% for household screening and 74.7% for household interviewing.

Our respondents could leave the survey at any time; methods considered to encourage completion would have compromised participant anonymity. Sampling procedures and online data collection could have led to higher prevalence of marijuana use and co-use than is typical of representative surveys that have procedures to increase response rates .Marijuana is the most widely used illicit intoxicant and a significant public health concern for adolescents. Almost half of 12th graders have tried marijuana, with 5% reporting daily use . Early marijuana involvement can be particularly problematic, as use before age 15 is associated with a seven fold increased risk of developing a substance use disorder in the future . Concomitant alcohol and marijuana use is common, as 58% of adolescent drinkers also use marijuana . Animal studies have demonstrated cellular changes associated with chronic cannabis exposure, especially in prefrontal, hippocampal, and cerebellar regions among mice , rats , and primates . Two studies reported both gray and white matter abnormalities in several brain regions among young adult marijuana users , although findings reported by Aasly and colleagues may have been attributable to alcohol use. In contrast, Block and colleagues, in a study excluding individuals with histories of heavy drinking, did not find structural brain abnormalities among cannabis users . Recent functional neuroimaging studies on adults have found prefrontal, hippocampal, and cerebellar functioning abnormalities among marijuana users . However, the long term effects of chronic cannabis use, as opposed to acute effects, are less characterized. In a meta-analysis examining 11 studies, Grant and colleagues found that chronic cannabis use was associated with persistent but subtle deficits in learning and memory, but not in other cognitive domains. Other studies have demonstrated persisting deficits in processing speed, attention, working memory, visuospatial skills, and executive functioning . However, some studies found no persisting cognitive deficits among adults with histories of heavy marijuana use , and one study found that observed neurocognitive deficits normalized within a month of abstinence . Because neuromaturation continues through adolescence , results based on adults cannot necessarily generalize to adolescent marijuana users. White matter develops into the late 20s . Concurrently, gray matter volume peaks around ages 12–14 then decreases, due largely to synaptic pruning in the striatum and frontal lobe anterior to the motor strip , frontal poles, and lastly in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex , which also is late to myelinate . Furthermore, adolescence may be a period of vulnerability to the neurocognitive effects of drug and alcohol use . For example, CB1 cannabinoid receptor levels in animals peak in early adolescence , cannabis-exposed adolescent rats are more vulnerable to learning impairments compared with exposed adult rats , and early adolescent onset of use is associated with increased morphometric and cognitive abnormalities in adult marijuana users . Despite the high prevalence of marijuana use, few studies have examined neurocognitive functioning in heavy marijuana using adolescents . Recently, we examined hippocampal volume and asymmetry and verbal memory among 63 adolescents . Similar to Tzilos and colleagues , we found that marijuana and alcohol using adolescents did not significantly differ from controls in hippocampal volume. However, we did find that the correlations between hippocampal asymmetry and verbal learning were abnormal among the marijuana users compared with the non-drug using controls. More specifically, increased right greater than left hippocampal asymmetry was associated with improved verbal learning among the controls, while no significant correlations between structure and function were found among marijuana users. Consistent with the adult literature , functional neuroimaging studies have found abnormal frontal, temporal, and parietal activation patterns among adolescent marijuana users compared with controls in response to verbal working memory and spatial working memory tasks. With few exceptions , neuropsychological studies focusing on adolescent substance abusers have found persisting cognitive deficits associated with heavy marijuana use. In an inpatient treatment study, marijuana-dependent adolescents demonstrated short-term memory decrements after 6 weeks of abstinence compared with polydrug users and controls . Marijuana using adolescents have also demonstrated increased perseverative responding on a problem solving task compared with control adolescents . A longitudinal investigation by Tapert and colleagues followed 47 polysubstance users and 26 normal controls over 8 years, from ages 16 to 24.

Only a small portion of this imported high-quality rice is released into the domestic Japanese market . Turkey is reportedly attempting to severely restrict imports of transgenic crops through health regulations, despite importing corn and soybeans from the United States , while Japan requires labeling of 44 crop products that contain more than 5 percent transgenic material as one of the top three ingredients . Currently, several varieties of HT and viral resistant rice have entered the Japanese regulatory system for testing but have not yet been approved for food or feed use . As an illustration of potential market resistance, Monsanto suffered setbacks in Japan in December 2002 when local prefecture authorities withdrew from a collaborative study to develop a transgenicrice cultivar after being presented with a petition from 580,000 Japanese citizens . In 2002, China imposed additional restrictions on transgenic crops, including safety tests and import labeling . However, this action may be nothing more than a trade barrier to reduce soybean imports from the United States. In addition, China is worried that introducing biotech food crops may jeopardize trade with the EU. Nevertheless, China is not taking a back seat in transgenic crop research, as it has a major ongoing research program on biotech rice and other crops and is predicted to be an early adopter . There is also some skepticism in the United States with regard to GM crops. Aventis was sued in 2000 over accidental contamination of taco shells by transgenic corn that was not approved for human consumption, resulting in an expensive food recall. The company subsequently decided to destroy its 2001 LibertyLink® rice crop rather than risk its potential export to hostilenations . Kellogg Company and Coors Brewing Company have publicly stated that they have no plans to use transgenic rice in their products due to fears of consumer rejection, and several consumer and environmental groups favor labeling of foods made from transgenic crops . For most food and beverage products manufactured by these companies, however, rice accounts for a small input cost share, resulting in little financial incentive to support GM crop technology.

In May 2004, Monsanto announced that it was pulling out of GM wheat research in North America, partly due to consumer resistance. This has important implications for commercialization of GM rice because both grains are predominantly food crops. Many California rice farmers are concerned over the confusion regarding GM crops and do not want to jeopardize export market sales. This fear has been exacerbated by Measure D on the November 2004 ballot in a major rice-producing county that would have prohibited farmers from growing GM crops.13 A 2001 survey of California growers performed by the University of California Cooperative Extension showed that, of the respondents, 24 percent planned to use transgenic varieties, 37 percent would not, and the remainder were undecided . Of those growers who answered “no,” 78 percent responded that market concerns were a reason. Nevertheless, if profitability at the farm level increases, it is likely that a subset of California producers will adopt the technology . Presumably, those with the most significant weed problems and hence the highest costs would be the first to adopt.UCCE produces detailed cost and return studies for a wide variety of crops produced in California, including “Rice Only” and “Rice in Rotation.” The studies are specific to the Sacramento Valley region where virtually all California rice is produced. Figures on herbicide applications are based on actual use data as reported by DPR and UC Integrated Pest Management Guidelines . The most recent study completed for rice is by Williams et al. and is used as the basis for this study. As the potential adoption of transgenic rice is unlikely to significantly change farm overhead expenses on average, we focus on returns and operating costs per acre as reported in the sample-costs document. However, given weed-resistance evolution, changing regulations from DPR, and changes in the 2002 Farm Bill, the baseline cost scenario is adjusted here to account for changes in herbicide-use patterns, prices of herbicides and rice, and projected government payments. Using information from the 1999 pesticide use report compiled by DPR, the 2001 sample costs assume applications of bensulfuron and triclopyr, both broadleaf herbicides, on 25 and 30 percent of the acreage, respectively, and applications of the grass herbicides molinate and methyl parathion on 75 and 45 percent, respectively, of the acreage.

These figures are updated using data from Rice Pesticide Use and Surface Water Monitoring, a 2002 report by DPR, as interpreted by the authors. We maintain the assumption of two applications of grass herbicides, although we increase the treated acreage to 80 and 60 percent with one application composed of 40 percent molinate and 40 percent thiobencarb and the other composed of propanil on 60 percent of the acreage. Broadleaf control was adjusted to one application of triclopyr on 45 percent of the total rice acreage. Finally, vertical cannabis all cash operations are assumed to be financed at a nominal interest rate of 10.51 percent in accordance with the UCCE sample-costs document . As such, any change in the cost structure directly affects interest on operating capital, though the magnitude tends to be small. Overall, these updates result in a per-acre cost increase of $17.69 over the 2001 cost study. Estimated farm-level revenues are adjusted as well. To more accurately represent the current world rice market , we assume the market price per cwt at harvest is the average price from 1986 through 2002 of $6.50 with average yields at 80 cwt per planted acre. Government payments are divided into two components: direct payments and countercyclical income-support payments as described by USDA, ERS . In accordance with the 2002 Farm Bill, direct payments are calculated at 85 percent of average yields at $2.35 per cwt. Williams et al. estimate that growers of approximately 95 percent of planted acres have received this payment in the past, so the total direct payments are multipliedby 0.95. Countercyclical income-support payments are calculated using the ERS formula, which we can summarize as 85 percent of average yields at $1.65 per cwt. Incorporation of these changes results in a $28.01 increase in gross revenue per acre over the 2001 UCCE sample-costs study. The original and adjusted costs and returns per acre are reported in Table 2. Given the public nature of experimental data on LibertyLink® rice grown in California and the full cooperation of Bayer CropScience through phone interviews and email correspondence, we use this transgenic variety as the basis for our analysis . We assume a price for Liberty® herbicide of $60 per gallon16 and an application rate of 0.446 pounds of AI per acre [500 grams AI per hectare ] in accordance with the company’s projected label recommendations . To fully represent the fact that weed infestations will differ across plots, scenarios for transgenic cultivation are presented for both one and two applications of the herbicide on 100 percent of the acreage.The latter result is a direct consequence of the cost differential between ground and air applications of herbicides; ground applications of glufosinate cost approximately $12 per acre while air applications range from $6 to $7.25 per acre . The savings in chemical costs, however, drive the overall cost savings associated with transgenic rice and are explained using the information provided in Table 3. While the price of glufosinate per pound of AI is greater than all of the chemicals under consideration with the exception of triclopyr, the application rate per pound of AI is only 6 to 13 percent of the average herbicide control system. This decreases the cost of herbicide materials per acre by almost 62 percent as shown in the last column Table 2. When these results are combined, net returns over operating costs increase in the range of $45.89 to $74.90 per acre depending on the herbicide application rate, or $0.57 to $0.94 per cwt. Thus, this baseline scenario, which assumes perfect substitutability between medium-grain transgenic LibertyLink® rice and conventional varieties in terms of market acceptance and yields, predicts considerable economic incentives for rice growers to adopt transgenic varieties with similar characteristics due to their increased profitability. It is important to recognize, however, that these results are based on average costs over the entire Sacramento Valley rice growing region and utilize aggregate data to estimate the conventional herbicide weed-management regime. Individual growers, of course, will most likely differ in regime from these averages depending on the characteristics of the specific operation. Those growers with “superior” land, as defined by lower aggregate weed-management costs, would benefit the least from adoption of transgenic rice while those with marginal land or serious weed-resistance problems tend to benefit more from the herbicide-management cost savings offered by the transgenic system and are hence most likely to adopt. To further investigate these issues, the assumption of perfect chemical substitutability, which essentially drives the assumption of identical yields, can be relaxed. A severely infested plot with a large, resistant seed bank of watergrass or some other weed would likely experience yield increases with adoption of a transgenic control system. Such yield gains have been observed in practice for HT soybeans and HT canola in the range of 0 to 20 percent . However, yields are not necessarily guaranteed to increase for all plots. Under generally ideal conditions, a yield drag of between 5 and 10 percent for medium-grain cultivars of LibertyLink® rice relative to conventional varieties has been observed in California rice field trials. This is consistent with similar field trials of HT soybeans. Such losses would decrease revenues and would thus reduce the increased profitability of adoption of this new technology. Yield drag should not be an issue with most growers given the advanced, widespread state of weed resistance to currently licensed chemicals for rice weed control in the Sacramento Valley. However, it is important to note that, in the short run, a few producers could actually experience a slight yield drag if the new technology was adopted; this is not expected to persist in the long run.17 A fall in demand for California rice due to consumer concerns, coupled with increased supply as a result of productivity gains, could cause rice prices to decline over time and decreasing net returns in the presence of yield changes. Similarly, a price premium for non-transgenic rice varieties could erode net-returns differences between traditional and HT cultivars but benefit conventional rice producers.