The first was coded and therefore allowed examination of the impact of effects on change in the outcome variable from baseline to the first followup, the second was coded to model the impact of effects on change in the outcome variable from baseline to the second follow-up , and the third was coded in order to estimate the impact of effects on change in the outcome variable from the first to the third follow-up . In the context of these three dummy codes, effects on the intercept represent effects when all time effects are equal to 0 . Of note, as all participants received a BA session in the interim between the true baseline and 6-week assessment, marijuana user status at the 6-week assessment was used as the baseline for these analyses .To address hypothesis 2 , Level 2 effects for marijuana user status, treatment condition, and the interaction between marijuana user status and treatment condition were regressed on the three time components. Following recommendations of Aiken and West , prior to forming interactions, marijuana user status and treatment condition were recoded using effects coding , to remove collinearity with interaction terms so that all main effects of time could be evaluated in the context of models including interactions. To control for potential baseline group differences, we also regressed marijuana user status and treatment condition on the intercept. To address hypothesis 3 [i.e., whether treatment group impacts marijuana use frequency at any of the three follow-up time points, among those who reported marijuana use at 6-week pre-BMI assessment], at Level 2, treatment condition was regressed on the Level 1 intercept and all three time effects of marijuana use frequency. In models for both hypotheses 2 and 3, at Level 2,vertical rack grow gender also was included as a covariate.Results of the HLM models predicting three alcohol outcomes at each follow-up by marijuana user status, treatment condition, and marijuana user status by condition interactions are displayed in Table 4.
In the prediction of HED frequency, marijuana user status was associated with higher baseline HED frequency; however, being a marijuana user was not associated with more or less change in HED frequency between the pre-BMI assessment and any of the three follow-ups. There were no interactions between marijuana user status and treatment condition at any follow-up, suggesting that the BMI was not more or less effective for marijuana users. In the prediction of pBAC, marijuana user status was associated with higher pre-BMI pBAC. Additionally, those in the BMI condition had significantly lower pre-BMI pBACs. Controlling for these pre-BMI differences, being a marijuana user, treatment condition, and their interaction were all non-significantly associated with change in pBAC from pre-BMI to each of the follow-ups. In the prediction of alcohol consequences, being a marijuana user was associated with higher pre-BMI levels of consequences. There were no significant effects of marijuana user status, treatment condition, or their interaction on change in consequences between baseline and either the 3- or the 6- month follow-ups. At the 9-month follow-up, those in the BMI reported fewer alcohol consequences1 ; however, this was not moderated by marijuana user status. Overall, these findings suggest that collapsing across treatment condition, marijuana users had heavier alcohol consumption and consequences compared to non-users at the pre-BMI assessment, but they did not increase or decrease their consumption or consequences between pre-BMI and any of the follow-ups. Additionally, marijuana users responded to the BMI similarly to non-marijuana users at each time point .The purpose of the current study was to examine whether heavy drinking marijuana users demonstrate poorer response to two different alcohol-focused interventions compared to non-users and to examine the efficacy of an alcohol-focused BMI on marijuana use frequency among marijuana users receiving stepped care for alcohol use. Our findings indicated that marijuana users and nonusers evidenced equivalent treatment responses to the alcohol-focused BA session and reported similar alcohol-related outcomes following the BMI. Consistent with prior research , the alcohol-focused BMI did not significantly reduce marijuana use frequency in comparison to the assessment-only group.
In our sample, marijuana users did report higher alcohol consumption and problems at baseline/pre-BMI regardless of condition, and these differences between users and nonusers persisted over time. The findings of the current study are somewhat consistent with studies indicating that marijuana use does not decrease the efficacy of alcohol interventions . Although marijuana use did not necessarily lessen the efficacy of the BA and BMI sessions on alcohol use and consequences, regardless of condition, marijuana users reported higher levels of alcohol consumption and consequences at baseline and the pre-BMI assessment. These patterns suggest that heavy drinking marijuana users may still benefit from alcohol use interventions. This is especially noteworthy because dual users typically report increased consequences related to their alcohol use and may have a higher likelihood of being referred to alcohol-focused treatment or mandated to receive intervention for alcohol-related sanctions. Although heavy drinking marijuana users may demonstrate reductions in alcohol consequences following an alcohol-focused intervention , their frequency of marijuana use did not change as a result of receiving a BMI. We can posit several reasons for the participants’ continued use of marijuana, despite a decrease in alcohol-related consequences. First, the parent study found a reduction in alcohol consequences following the alcohol-focused BMI, but not a decrease in alcohol consumption. Prior research examining secondary effects of alcohol BMIs have noted a decrease in marijuana use when there was also a decrease in alcohol consumption . It could be that factors that result in students’ experiencing fewer alcohol-related consequences without changing their drinking differ from ones that would lead to reductions in alcohol or marijuana use. Although our study did not include a measure of marijuana-related consequences, future research should examine changes in marijuana consequences to investigate whether changes in alcohol-related consequences correspond with changes in marijuana consequences following alcohol-focused BMIs. Second, a lack of effects may be due to the fact that our BMI was focused solely on changing alcohol-related behaviors and did not discuss the participant’s marijuana use. Future research should examine process coding in BMIs that do discuss marijuana use to explore possible in-session processes that may be related to changes in marijuana use and can be targeted in future interventions3 .
Similarly, although alcohol and marijuana use share similar predictors , they may differ in their mechanisms of change. For example, the underlying motives that drive these two behaviors may vary so changing one will not ultimately lead to changes in the other and existing BMIs may not be targeting or altering both. Third, the referral incident in this study may not have been severe enough to warrant an overall re-evaluation of substance use, as may have been the case for those who required a visit to the ED as a result of their alcohol use . Marijuana users may require a more focused intervention or a supplemental session that targets alternative substance free activities to facilitate changes in marijuana use . Finally, with growing trends in decriminalization and legalization of marijuana in the US,growing cannabis vertically the perceived risk of marijuana has decreased among college students . Marijuana use may be more entrenched in the college social environment and more difficult to change without a targeted marijuana specific intervention. The results of this study should be interpreted within the context of its limitations. First, our study is restricted by our measure of marijuana use, which was limited to frequency and did not assess for marijuana-related consequences. Future studies may include assessments of quantity, days smoked, and consequences to get a better of understanding of the severity of participants’ marijuana use. Although daily marijuana use is on the rise, with almost 6% of college students reporting daily use , marijuana users in our study were using about 13.7 times in the past month. This is fairly low compared to those seeking treatment for marijuana use or being seen in an emergency department. For example, Metrik et al. found that compared to lighter users, those who reported weekly marijuana use demonstrated a significant decrease in use following treatment. Furthermore, our measure of pBAC was derived from participants’ reported heaviest drinking event and may not be the best way to capture peak BAC levels. Additionally, the study sample was predominantly white which may limit our ability to generalize findings to other populations of interest. Finally, we relied on self-reported data collection that did not include corroborating measures. Research using collateral informants indicated that mandated students may under-report alcohol use . Despite these limitations, this study adds to the existing literature on the secondary effects of alcohol-focused BMIs. To our knowledge it is the first study to examine the influence of two different alcohol interventions on marijuana use in the context of stepped care. Furthermore, findings indicate that heavy drinking college students who also use marijuana may still benefit from alcohol treatment especially in reducing their alcohol related consequences. From a theoretical perspective, our results suggest that changing one behavior does not necessarily mean changes in another will occur, at least with respect to marijuana. However, future work should examine other health behaviors that might change as a result of reducing alcohol consequences. For example, it may be that increases in substance free activities like exercising, volunteering, or academic related behaviors occur alongside changes in alcohol-related behaviors .
Future research examining marijuana focused interventions of different intensity implemented in a stepped care approach may enhance our understanding of which interventions are most effective for college students with varying levels of involvement with marijuana.Marijuana has been criminalized since the late 1920’s due to a plan orchestrated by the Bureau of Narcotics , which aimed to restrict its importation, consumption, and sale. This focused effort resulted in the plant fading from the spotlight until the early 1960’s, when its popularity began to soar. Today, four states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana use and nineteen additional states have passed laws that permit the use of medical marijuana. Although permitted in some form in these twenty three states, it is still a violation of Federal law to possess marijuana, due to its classification as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. Despite its classification, marijuana’s increasing popularity, combined with an increasing demand for legalization, calls for an examination of why the plant is illegal in the first place. The purpose of this paper is to examine the validity of these arguments, as well as provide possible solutions to the complex issue of legalization. Many anti-marijuana groups, such as American Society of Addiction Medicine , National Association of Drug Court Professionals , Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana , Smart Approaches to Marijuana , Parents Opposed to Pot , and National Families in Action , and many more, argue that the legalization of recreational marijuana will lead to easier access and increased use among minors. A study published in October 2014 in the Journal of Adolescent health found that marijuana use does not increase. The study was conducted by Choo, Benz, Zaller, Warren, Rising, and McConnel who looked at a population sample of 11,703,100 students between 1991 and 2011; the students were varying ages, but they all resided in states that had medical marijuana legalization laws. They found past-month marijuana consumption was common , but there was no significant statistical differences in use before and after marijuana policy changes for any state. Choo et. al. also did not find any overall increased probability of marijuana consumption related to the policy change in the regression analysis. Even though this study examines medical marijuana, the concern of minors having access to the plant is very limited. In a state where getting a medical marijuana card is fairly easy for anyone twenty-one and older, minors will turn to previous connections for the drug instead of asking from older siblings, relatives, etc. The real concern comes from the mentality among youth that marijuana is a safe drug to consume, which is not the case for developing minds . A study conducted by Loyola Medicine says that early use can lead to lifelong addiction and damaging developmental changes such as impaired thinking, increased likelihood of dropping out of school, and poor educational outcomes . Whether it is medical or recreational marijuana, there is a solution to youth consumption.