Recent changes in policy and social norms related to marijuana use have increased its use and concern about how/where marijuana should be used. We aimed to characterize rules regarding marijuana and its use in homes. We recruited 1,567 US adults aged 18–34 years through Facebook advertisements to complete an online survey assessing marijuana use, social factors, perceptions of marijuana, and rules regarding marijuana and its use in the home, targeting tobacco and marijuana users to ensure the relevance of this topic. Overall, 648 (41.6%) were current marijuana users; 46.0% of participants reported that “marijuana of any type is not allowed in their home or on their property.” Of those allowing marijuana on their property, 6.4% prohibited
Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the US, particularly among young adults, with marijuana use prevalence increasing in recent years [
Marijuana smoke includes nitric oxide, nitrogen oxide, hydrogen cyanide, and aromatic amine (which is responsible for the mutagenic and carcinogenic activity of cigarette condensates) and includes more chemicals than tobacco smoke [
Recent efforts regarding legalization and decriminalization of marijuana use in the US [
Given the importance of this emerging and complex public health issue, our research aims were to (1) characterize rules regarding marijuana and its use in households among young adult population recruited via an online social networking site and (2) document correlates of having less restrictive rules including sociodemographic factors, personal marijuana use, social factors, and perceptions of marijuana risk.
The Emory University Institutional Review Board approved this study, IRB# 00073636. We recruited participants aged 18–34 years via advertisements on Facebook, a social networking website, targeting tobacco and marijuana users and nonusers. Recruitment occurred over a three-week period in August 2014. We advertised to Facebook users who “liked” certain tobacco- or marijuana-related pages (e.g., major cigarette brands and magazines focusing on marijuana) or had identified related interests (e.g., “legalize marijuana”). Advertisements included images of tobacco products, marijuana-related images, and other benign images intended to recruit nonusers. Our recruitment was modeled after other published research methods [
Individuals who clicked on the advertisement were directed to a page describing the survey and the consent statement. Consenting individuals were screened for eligibility (i.e., age); those eligible were forwarded to the online survey, administered via
Of the 4510 individuals who started the survey, 2251 did not complete the entire survey (52.6% of whom did not move past the information and consent); 699 were disqualified, including 482 who were outside the age range, 77 who declined consent, and 140 who provided invalid responses. Thus, 1,567 had complete and valid responses. In our sample, 648 (41.6%) were current marijuana users. The average number of days of use in the past 30 days was 17.86 (SD = 11.29; not shown in Table
Participant characteristics and bivariate analyses demonstrating associations with HMR index scores.
Variable | Total |
Association with HMR |
|
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
Age (SD) | 25.18 (5.09) |
|
.006 |
Gender (%) | .029 | ||
Male | 766 (49.1) | 26.94 (7.41) | |
Female | 776 (49.7) | 27.73 (6.89) | |
Race (%) | .151 | ||
White | 1356 (86.9) | 27.22 (7.22) | |
Other | 204 (13.1) | 28.00 (6.72) | |
Ethnicity (%) | .785 | ||
Hispanic/Latino | 201 (13.0) | 27.44 (7.23) | |
Other | 1341 (87.0) | 27.29 (7.17) | |
Education (%) | .083 | ||
≤High school | 508 (32.6) | 27.89 (6.99) | |
Some college | 795 (51.0) | 26.99 (7.34) | |
≥Bachelor’s degree | 257 (16.5) | 27.24 (6.90) | |
Parental education (%) | .002 | ||
≤High school | 437 (28.0) | 28.34 (6.68) | |
Some college | 489 (31.4) | 27.04 (7.14) | |
≥Bachelor’s degree | 633 (40.6) | 26.83 (7.44) | |
Employment status (%) | .393 | ||
Employed full or part time | 788 (50.5) | 27.11 (7.34) | |
Full or part time student | 334 (21.4) | 27.36 (6.78) | |
Unemployed/other | 438 (28.1) | 27.69 (7.11) | |
Sexual orientation (%) | .035 | ||
Heterosexual | 1222 (78.6) | 27.53 (7.00) | |
Other | 333 (21.4) | 26.59 (7.68) | |
Community type (%) | .133 | ||
Rural | 400 (25.6) | 27.68 (6.82) | |
Urban | 491 (31.5) | 26.80 (7.49) | |
Suburban | 669 (42.9) | 27.49 (7.10) | |
|
|||
Relationship status (%) | .748 | ||
Married/living with partner | 659 (42.3) | 27.27 (7.17) | |
Other | 900 (57.7) | 27.83 (7.15) | |
Living situation (%) | .001 | ||
Live alone | 133 (8.5) | 27.29 (6.68) | |
Live with spouse/partner | 600 (38.5) | 27.14 (7.16) | |
Live with friends/relatives | 364 (23.3) | 26.13 (8.07) | |
Live with parents | 347 (22.2) | 28.47 (6.47) | |
Live on campus | 81 (5.2) | 28.64 (6.31) | |
Other | 35 (2.2) | 28.69 (4.99) | |
Have children (%) | .426 | ||
No | 1112 (71.3) | 27.23 (7.22) | |
Yes | 448 (28.7) | 27.55 (7.02) | |
Parental figure uses marijuana | <.001 | ||
No | 1290 (82.7) | 28.02 (6.64) | |
Yes | 270 (17.3) | 23.99 (8.51) | |
People who live with you use marijuana | <.001 | ||
No | 1121 (71.9) | 28.82 (6.10) | |
Yes | 270 (17.3) | 23.51 (8.20) | |
Partner uses marijuana | <.001 | ||
No partner/no use | 1265 (81.1) | 28.15 (6.52) | |
Yes | 294 (18.9) | 23.76 (8.60) | |
Number of 5 closest friends using marijuana | 2.43 (1.90) |
|
<.001 |
Social acceptability of marijuana use | 5.08 (2.15) |
|
<.001 |
|
|||
Harm to health of marijuana use | 2.99 (2.08) | 0.22 | <.001 |
Harm to health of marijuana byproducts | 3.14 (2.16) | 0.22 | <.001 |
Addictiveness of marijuana | 3.04 (2.17) | 0.10 | <.001 |
The survey assessed standard sociodemographic factors and health-related factors; health-related factors included in the current analyses are detailed below.
Participants were asked, “In the past 30 days, on how many days did you use marijuana (pot, weed, hashish, hash oil)?” [
Participants were asked if any parental figures, anyone living in their home, or their significant other uses marijuana and, out of his/her five closest friends, the number who use marijuana [
Participants were asked to rate on a scale of 1 = “not at all” to 7 = “extremely” the extent to which they perceived marijuana to be socially acceptable among peers, harmful to health, addictive, and harmful to those exposed to its byproducts. These measures were adapted from prior research [
Participants were asked about rules about marijuana use in their current household. They indicated whether the statements listed in Table
Household marijuana rules (HMR) index items.
Variable | Never true |
Sometimes true |
Always true |
Does not apply |
---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
(1) Marijuana of any type is not allowed in your home or on your property. ( |
379 (24.3) | 218 (14.0) | 718 (46.0) | 245 (24.3) |
(2) The |
338 (56.7) | 200 (33.6) | 38 (6.4) | 20 (3.4) |
|
||||
(3) Smoking marijuana is not allowed anywhere inside your home. | 240 (44.7) | 135 (25.1) | 157 (29.2) | 5 (0.9) |
(4) Vaping, eating, or drinking marijuana products is not allowed anywhere inside your home. | 332 (61.9) | 118 (22.0) | 59 (11.0) | 27 (5.0) |
|
||||
(5) The use of any type of marijuana is not allowed in outdoor areas on your property, such as decks, garages, or porches. ( |
320 (59.5) | 151 (28.1) | 45 (8.4) | 22 (4.1) |
(6) Smoking marijuana is not allowed in outdoor areas on your property, such as decks, garages, or porches. | 291 (63.7) | 161 (35.2) | 3 (0.7) | 2 (0.4) |
(7) Vaping, eating, or drinking marijuana products is not allowed in outdoor areas on your property, such as decks, garages, or porches. | 328 (70.5) | 117 (25.2) | 5 (1.1) | 15 (3.2) |
|
||||
(8) The use of any type of marijuana is not allowed in shared areas with neighbors, such as hallways, lobbies, or courtyards. (Note: If you do not share areas with neighbors, select “does not apply.” |
60 (11.2) | 62 (11.6) | 134 (25.0) | 279 (52.1) |
(9) Smoking marijuana is not allowed in shared areas with neighbors, such as hallways, lobbies, or courtyards. | 47 (40.5) | 61 (52.6) | 3 (2.6) | 5 (4.3) |
(10) Vaping, eating, or drinking products marijuana is not allowed in shared areas with neighbors, such as hallways, lobbies, or courtyards. | 60 (49.6) | 49 (40.5) | 4 (3.3) | 8 (6.6) |
|
||||
(11) The use of any type of marijuana is not allowed in your home (indoors and outdoors) when children are present. ( |
30 (5.6) | 73 (13.6) | 372 (69.5) | 60 (11.2) |
(12) Smoking marijuana is not allowed in your home when children are present. | 22 (22.0) | 56 (56.0) | 22 (22.0) | — |
(13) Vaping, eating, or drinking marijuana products is not allowed in your home when children are present. | 38 (37.6) | 43 (42.6) | 13 (12.9) | 7 (6.9) |
|
||||
(14) The growing of marijuana on your property is not allowed. | 69 (11.9) | 55 (9.5) | 395 (67.9) | 63 (10.8) |
(15) The storage of marijuana in your home is not allowed. ( |
249 (42.1) | 121 (20.4) | 197 (33.3) | 25 (4.2) |
(16) In your home, marijuana is stored in locked containers/areas or in a location out of the reach of children. | 23 (9.1) | 23 (9.1) | 176 (69.3) | 32 (12.6) |
Participant characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Bivariate analyses were conducted comparing marijuana users versus nonusers and associations with HMR index scores. A multivariable regression model was then developed to identify correlates of HMR, employing backwards stepwise entry at
Table
Overall, 46.0% (24.8% of users; 61.1% of nonusers) reported that marijuana of any type is not allowed on their property (Table
Marijuana users versus nonusers had higher HMR index scores (
Prior to constructing the multivariable model predicting HMR index scores, we explored collinearity among the predictors of interest. We found that number of friends who smoke was collinear with perceived social acceptability and personal use and that perceptions of harm of marijuana byproducts was collinear with perceived harm of marijuana. Thus, we excluded these two variables and entered all other factors associated with HMR index scores at the
This study is the first to characterize voluntary restrictions on marijuana in home environments. As expected, the newly developed index correlated with theoretical factors per the TPB [
In this sample of young adults, nearly half (46.0%) prohibited marijuana on their property, the majority of whom were nonusers. Additionally, a quarter of users prohibited marijuana on their property, implying use outside of the home. There were also some differences in the restriction of smoked marijuana versus noncombustible marijuana in the home, which might suggest that some young adults feel that covert (i.e., noncombustible) use is more acceptable. In addition, a small percentage had rules about use in outdoor areas, which might impact neighbors, be observable by individuals off the property (i.e., on sidewalks), and be subject to legal restrictions, particularly in multiunit housing. Finally, marijuana use in the presence of children was rarely allowed. This is favorable, as substance use by parents and other adults may normalize use and encourage youth initiation.
These findings have implications for research and practice. This index might inform research regarding risks related to marijuana in residential environments, which is critical in a rapidly evolving context of marijuana regulations [
Furthermore, more research is needed to inform the appropriate public health outcome, particularly given the limited research regarding the impact of secondhand marijuana smoke exposure. Specifically, should the objective be a full household ban? If so, where should use be allowed, since use in public is precluded by legalization policies and may have other public health consequences? Alternatively, is the objective to ban smoked forms of marijuana in the home or prevent use in the presence of youth? If so, should noncombustible marijuana use and/or proper storage be encouraged? Even in a time of uncertainty regarding desired outcomes, surveillance regarding how people approach household marijuana rules can inform future efforts to address marijuana use in the home.
Limitations include limited generalizability given that the sample was focused on young adults and specifically targeted marijuana and tobacco users in order to ensure that the phenomenon of interest was relevant to the sample obtained. Also, this sample was mainly drawn from North America and thus is unlikely to represent the attitudes and values of people worldwide. We also had a relatively low response rate, which is open to selection bias. Future research should examine these and other related phenomena among a more representative national sample. Specifically, research might explore other dimensions of how people regulate marijuana use in other settings (e.g., cars). Additionally, the online survey format does not allow us to explore the reasons why individuals might have reported “does not apply” for certain items. Finally, the cross-sectional nature of this study limits the ability to make causal attributions.
Attitudes about marijuana use and subjective norms related to use are important correlates of allowing marijuana and its use in residential settings. Marijuana users versus nonusers had fewer household marijuana rules. Moreover, use in the presence of children was rare. These findings have implications for future research aimed at objectively examining areas of risk regarding household marijuana rules and informing intervention efforts aimed at reducing exposure to marijuana byproducts and youth exposure to marijuana use.
The Emory University Institutional Review Board approved this study, IRB# 00073636.
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
This work was conducted at Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute (1K07CA139114-01A1; PI: Berg) and the Georgia Cancer Coalition (PI: Berg).