The Implications of Marijuana Decriminalization and Legalization On Crime in The United States

Article
Contemporary Drug Problems

2017, Vol. 44(2) 125-146
ª The Author(s) 2017
The Implications of Marijuana Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Decriminalization and DOI: 10.1177/0091450917708790
journals.sagepub.com/home/cdx
Legalization on Crime
in the United States
Shana L. Maier1, Suzanne Mannes1, and Emily L. Koppenhofer2
Abstract
Through 2014 Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data for all 50 U.S. states, this research explores the
relationship between decriminalization and recreational and medical marijuana legalization and crime
rates and arrests for drug abuse violations. When comparing states that changed their marijuana laws
between 2010 and 2014 to states without any change, results indicate that any decrease in crime rate
was not dependent upon changes in laws. Results indicate that while the trend is for property and
violent crime rates to be higher in states where marijuana remains illegal, the difference is not sta-
tistically significant. When comparing states where marijuana has been decriminalized and states where
medical marijuana has been legalized to states where it has not, the trend is that property and violent
crime rates appear to be lower in both decriminalized and medically legalized states, but the difference
is not statistically significant. Analysis also reveals that there are no significant differences in 2014 crime
rates based on the degree to which the state has legalized/decriminalized marijuana (completely illegal,
decriminalized or medically legal, decriminalized and medically legal). Even when controlling for factors
that may lead to crime, the legal status of marijuana in states failed to significantly predict property or
violent crime rates in 2014. States may turn to this research when considering their marijuana laws.
Keywords
marijuana, marijuana legalization, drug policy, crime rates
Introduction
The legalization of marijuana for recreational use in the United States continues to be a hotly debated
issue as more states legalize marijuana for recreational use and medical purposes. Not only do laws
1
College of Arts and Sciences, Widener University, Chester, PA, USA
2
Bureau of Autism Services, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Received November 03, 2016. Accepted for publication April 09, 2017.
Corresponding Author:
Shana L. Maier, College of Arts and Sciences, Widener University, One University Place, Chester, PA 19013, USA.
Email: slmaier@widener.edu
126 Contemporary Drug Problems 44(2)
continue to rapidly change, so do societal attitudes on legalization. According to Gallup, in 1969, only
12% of Americans favored marijuana legalization, while more recently over half (53%) of Americans
are in favor of the legal use of marijuana (Pew Research Center, 2015). Despite changing public
opinion, many proponents of both legalization and continued criminalization remain steadfast in their
positions.
As will be discussed further in the literature review, arguments that support the legalization of
marijuana focus on a potential decrease in crime due to the reduction in the underground market and
criminal activity associated with it. If legalized, users may not have to buy marijuana illegally and thus
“coming into contact with criminal networks” (Pedersen & Skardhamar, 2010, p. 116). Proponents of
legalization also point to increased tax revenue and reduced costs associated with enforcing marijuana
laws, processing offenders through the courts, and housing convicted drug offenders or supervise them
on probation. It is estimated that the cost of enforcing marijuana possession laws is between US$3.6
billion (American Civil Liberties Union, 2013) and US$7.7 billion (includes policing, adjudicating,
and sentencing) (Miron, 2005). If marijuana is legalized or even decriminalized, it is argued that law
enforcement will spend less time and resources enforcing laws (Caulkins & Kilmer, 2016). Proponents
of medical marijuana legalization also focus on the health benefits for those with certain illnesses and
medical conditions (Eddy, 2010). Those who suffer from chronic pain may also turn to marijuana
rather than possibly addictive pain medication (opioids). For example, researchers found that states
with medical marijuana dispensaries had fewer opioid addictions and opioid overdose deaths in
comparison to states without medical marijuana dispensaries (Powell, Pacula, & Jacobson, 2015).
Conclusions were drawn from data from four sources: state reported data on admissions to treatment
facilities receiving public funding, opioid-related deaths in the U.S. (reported in the National Vital
Statistics System), the legal distribution of opioids to states from producers (data from Drug Enforce-
ment Administration), and self-reported nonmedical pain reliever use (data from National Survey on
Drug Use and Health; Powell et al., 2015).
Those who support continued prohibition of marijuana view it as an addictive drug that could cause
health problems (Joffe & Yancy, 2004) and could be a precursor to more serious patterned drug use or
could increase use (Kandel, 2002; Kandel, Yamaguchi, & Klein, 2006). Supporters of continued
prohibition argue that use could increase, as marijuana becomes more socially acceptable. Recent
research on the assumption that legalization will increase use has provided contradictory findings.
Maxwell and Mendelson (2016) concluded that in Denver and Seattle, marijuana use increased for
adults but not for youth, and increased use started prior to legalization. Cerda, Wall, and Feng (2016)
found that legalization increased use for some adolescents in Washington, but not for others, and there
was no increased use in the sample of adolescents in Colorado. Research has found that decriminaliza-
tion (Single, 1989; Suggs, 1981; Thies & Register, 1993) and medical marijuana legalization do not
increase use (Anderson, Hansen, & Rees, 2012; Choo et al., 2014; Harper, Strumpf, & Kaufman, 2012;
Hasin et al., 2015; Khatapoush & Hallfors, 2004). On the contrary, research has also supported that
legalizing medical marijuana increases use (Cerda, Wall, Keyes, Galea, & Hasin, 2012; Chu, 2014;
Stolzenberg, D’Alessio, & Dariano, 2016; Wen, Hockenberry, & Cummings, 2015; Wong & Lin,
2016). A negative outcome of medical legalization could be an increase in young children accidentally
ingesting marijuana, given that some of its forms (baked goods, candy) could attract children. Research
supports that accidental ingestion by children increased in Colorado after the legalization of medical
marijuana (Wang, Roosevelt, & Heard, 2013).
Marijuana has been decriminalized in several other countries, such as Argentina, Belgium, the
Netherlands, Portugal, Chile, and parts of Australia. It has also been medically legalized in a few other
countries, such as Canada and Italy, and in December 2013, Uruguay became the first country in the
world to completely legalize marijuana. Even though there have been legalization and decriminaliza-
tion efforts in other countries, analyzing the crime rates of other countries that have decriminalized or
legalized marijuana is beyond the purview of this paper. We focus on the United States because there
Maier et al. 127
have been many legal changes regarding marijuana decriminalization/legalization in recent years.
Also, comparisons made across U.S. states rather than comparisons made across countries may be
more appropriate, given that there are more similarities in terms of drug culture, policing practices, and
drug markets.
The article begins with a brief overview of the legislative changes made by states to legalize mar-
ijuana use for medical or recreational purposes. The purpose of our data analysis is not to explore
whether there is a relationship between marijuana legalization and decriminalization and use, but rather
to look at the relationship, if any, between marijuana laws and crime rates and arrest rates for drug
abuse.1 While research has examined the relationship between drug use and crime, it is also important to
look at the relationship between changes to laws and crime, because use is certainly not the only
connection to crime. Marijuana legalization/decriminalization continues to be debated by lawmakers,
as more states change their laws over a relatively short period of time. As the details of recreational
legalization become normalized to citizens living in Colorado and Washington, and decriminalization
and medical marijuana legalization becomes normalized in other states, the question remains whether
decriminalization and legalization effect crime rates and arrests for drug abuse violations.
Literature Review
It is important to distinguish between decriminalization and legalization for medical or recreational use.
Decriminalization describes laws that reduce or eliminate penalties for sale, purchase, or possession of
marijuana, although marijuana remains illegal (Caulkins & Kilmer, 2016). When marijuana is decri-
minalized, penalties usually are fines or no sanction at all for first-time possession of a small amount for
personal consumption (Marijuana Policy Project, 2017; NORML (National Organization for the Reform
of Marijuana Laws), 2015f). When marijuana has been recreationally legalized, there is no penalty or
criminal record for private possession or consumption of a small amount of marijuana by those aged 21
and older (NORML, 2015f). When medically legalized, patients with qualifying conditions can pur-
chase marijuana from a dispensary, and in some states, individuals are permitted to grow limited
amounts of marijuana for medical use. Laws in states where marijuana has been medically or recrea-
tionally legalized vary in terms of the quantity of marijuana that can be legally possessed or grown. The
qualifying medical conditions also vary by state (see Barcott & Scherer, 2015; Joffe & Yancy, 2004).
Laws on legalization and decriminalization of marijuana

In 1996, California became the first state in the United States to allow the sale and medical use of
marijuana for patients with some serious and painful diseases when voters passed Proposition 215, the
Compassionate Use Act. As of December 2015, 23 states and the District of Columbia have legalized
medical marijuana.2 Four states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana. In
2012, Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize the producing, processing, and
selling by those with a producer’s license, and consuming marijuana recreationally for adults aged 21
and older, although Colorado was first to adopt rules and regulations regarding its sale (Ferner, 2013).
Both states allow possession of 1 oz and Colorado allows the cultivation for personal use of up to six
plants without penalty, but Washington prohibits cultivation for personal use (NORML, 2015a,
2015e). Retail stores opened in Colorado and Washington during 2014 (Drug Policy Alliance,
2016; Marijuana Policy Project, 2016).
In November 2014, Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, DC, followed Colorado and Washington
when voters voted to legalize recreational marijuana. Legalization in Alaska and Oregon went into
effect in 2015. Legal recreational marijuana use took effect in February 2015 in Washington, DC
(Cummings, 2015), but in June 2015, the House of Representatives ruled that marijuana cannot be
legally sold or bought in Washington, DC, until 2017 (Mindock, 2015), thus this law was not yet
operationalized. The amount of marijuana adults (age 21 and older) are able to legally possess or
cultivate varies by state (Chokshi, 2015; State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development, 2015; NORML, 2015b, 2015c). As of December 2015, 18 states (and the
District of Columbia) have decriminalized marijuana, although the amount of marijuana allowable for
possession and cultivation, as well as penalties, varies widely (NORML, 2016). Because laws vary
widely by state, this paper will not detail each state’s decriminalization laws.
The federal government has fought to assert its power over state laws on recreational legalization
(Council on Foreign Relations, 2014). In October 2011, federal prosecutors sought to close down
dispensaries and growers (Lyman, 2014). However, in April 2013, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
announced that it will not sue to block laws legalizing marijuana in states and the District of Columbia,
a move that proponents claim is an important step toward ending the prohibition of the drug. In 2015,
the federal government took steps to reduce penalties for drug arrests, including putting in place
retroactive sentencing guidelines. Since November 2015, federal inmates can attempt to get their
sentences reduced based on these changes (Dickinson, 2015).
Research on the effects of legalization and decriminalization and crime

The relationship between legalization and crime can be explained through Goldstein’s (1985) tripartite
conceptual framework, which suggests three potential ways drugs and crime are linked: the psychophar-
macological, the economically compulsive, and the systemic. The psychopharmacological model
focuses on how drug use changes behavior (i.e., irrational behavior). Marijuana use could result in
violent or irrational responses to conflict due to the inhibition of cognitive functions or paranoia (Miron
& Zweibel, 1995; Moore & Stuart, 2005). Also, when routine marijuana users go through withdrawal,
they could be angry or irritable, contributing to violent reactions or aggressive behavior (Budney &
Hughes, 2006; Vandrey, Budney, Kamon, & Stanger, 2005). Despite these assertions, there is a lack of
empirical findings showing the pharmacological effects of marijuana that contribute to violence (Moore
& Stuart, 2005). In general, it is important to recognize that there is lack of evidence that drug use causes
crime (Pacula et al., 2013), and research often does not reveal whether those committing crimes were
under the influence of marijuana at the time of the crime or that being high was the direct cause of the
criminal act (Caulkins et al., 2015; Green, Doherty, Stuart, & Ensminger, 2010).
The economically compulsive model suggests that drug users may resort to property crimes or
crimes that result in economic gain in order to support their drug habit (Goldstein, 1985). For example,
research has found a relationship between marijuana use and shoplifting (Bennett & Holloway, 2009),
and shoplifting and burglary (Simpson, 2003). However, research also points to the connection
between prohibition and crime. Shepard and Blackley (2007) examined crime between 1990 and
2001 and concluded that marijuana arrests are associated with an increase in burglary, larceny, motor
vehicle theft, and homicide. Larceny and motor vehicle theft may increase with marijuana possession
arrests because arrests may affect one’s ability to gain lawful employment. When illegal, marijuana not
only is more costly to produce (undetected and in small quantities to avoid detection) but also due to
the mark-up dealers justify based on their risk of apprehension and punishment by the criminal justice
system (Kilmer, 2014). Therefore, the price of marijuana may contribute to the need for users to turn to
economic crimes in order to afford it (Shepard & Blackley, 2007).
Of the three components of the framework, systemic violence is best applied to the connection
between marijuana and crime (Belenko & Spohn, 2015). Violence can occur within the drug market
and victims include sellers and users (i.e., fights between dealers, disputes when buyers do not pay,
retaliation when buyers are dissatisfied with the quality of the purchase, robbery of dealer or user who
has drugs or cash). Research shows the relationship between drug dealing and violence (Seffrin &
Domahidi, 2014) as well as drug use and violence (Copes, Hochstetler, & Sandberg, 2014). Yang,
German, Webster, and Latkin (2011) found that there was a relationship between violent victimization
and drug use. Even though the research included former crack, heroin, and cocaine users, as explained
Maier et al. 129
by Belenko and Spohn (2015), “The drug distribution network is inherently violent, with even mar-
ijuana dealing associated with high level of murder and other violence” (p. 79). Despite Goldstein’s
attempted explanation of the relationship between the drug market and crime, research has also
examined and supported the influence that the complete prohibition of marijuana has on crime. In a
review of 15 studies that examined the relationship between enforcing drug laws and drug market
violence, Werb et al. (2011) revealed that the disruption of drug markets through law enforcement is
related to violence. When drugs are prohibited, those involved in the illegal drug market cannot turn to
the criminal justice or legal system to help resolve disputes and may instead resort to violence (Gold-
stein, 1985; Miron, 1999; Miron & Zwiebel, 1995; Werb et al., 2011).
Since the legalization of recreational marijuana is very recent (stores opened in Colorado and
Washington in 2014), there is little research or data showing the relationship between legalization
and crime (Ferner, 2014). Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data show a decrease in violent crime (1%)
and property crime (8%) in the city and county of Denver in 2014 when compared to 2013 (Part 1
crime in the city, 2015). Other research supports that property and violent crime rates in Denver and
Seattle remain consistent after legalization (Dills, Goffard, & Miron, 2016). However, Ferner (2014)
cautions that while crime did not increase as some warned it would due to marijuana legalization, data
do not show that legalization caused the decrease in crime.
Morris, TenEyck, Barnes, and Kovandzic (2014) specifically looked at the legalization of medical
marijuana and concluded that the availability of medical marijuana was associated with lower rates of
rape, robbery, burglary, and larceny between 1990 and 2006, to a nonsignificant degree, and signif-
icantly lower rates of homicide and assault. There is almost a 2.5% reduction in both of these crimes
for each additional year medical marijuana legalization is in effect (Morris, TenEyck, Barnes, &
Kovandzic, 2014). Even though states that legalized medical marijuana saw a greater reduction in
homicide, robbery, and aggravated assault compared to states that had not legalized medical mari-
juana, the authors explain that they cannot establish or provide definitive evidence that medical
marijuana legalization is the cause of reduced crime rates; the reduction could be due to other vari-
ables. Shepard and Blackley (2016) examined changes in violent and property crime rates associated
with medical marijuana legalization in 11 states. They concluded that the states with legalized medical
marijuana experienced a reduction in violent crime rates.
Some question whether medical marijuana dispensaries could be a target for criminals, due to the
presence of quality marijuana and customers carrying large sums of cash. Routine activities theory can be
applied to this assumption. According to routine activities theory, for a crime to occur, there must be the
convergence of a motivated offender, suitable target, and lack of capable guardians (residents, police,
security guards, cameras, and locks; Cohen & Felson, 1979). Dispensaries and those going to the
dispensary may draw motivated offenders because of the presence of large amounts of cash as well as
marijuana which could be stolen and sold illegally (Freisthler, Ponicki, Gaidus, & Gruenewald, 2016).
However, there has been limited research examining the link between medical marijuana dispen-
saries and crime (Freisthler et al., 2016). Recent research in California concluded there was no
relationship between the density of medical marijuana dispensaries and violent or property crime rates
(Freisthler et al., 2016; Kepple & Freisthler, 2012).3 However, the density of dispensaries did increase
crime in surrounding residential neighborhoods (Freisthler et al., 2016). Morris et al. (2014) also
conclude that medical marijuana legalization did not affect robbery and burglary rates between
1990 and 2006; so it seems that dispensaries may not be a target for criminals searching for drugs
or cash. It is important to recognize, however, the likelihood that medical marijuana dispensaries, like
marijuana retail stores, have a great deal of security measures such as guards, motion detectors, and
cameras (Freisthler, Kepple, Sims, & Martin, 2013; Freisthler et al., 2016; Pagliery, 2013) and strict
identification requirements to enter the dispensary (Campbell, 2016). These measures act as capable
guardians and could certainly deter criminals. In fact, research conducted in Sacramento by Freisthler,
Kepple, Sims, and Martin (2013) found that there was significantly less violence within 100 and 250
feet of dispensaries with cameras and signs indicating that a prescription card is needed to enter. The
fact that crime may increase in surrounding residential neighborhoods may be because these neighbor-
hoods lack the security measures found at the dispensary and as those regularly traveling through the
neighborhoods to get to dispensaries become aware of residents’ routines and the ideal time to commit
property crimes (when no capable guardians; Freishthler et al., 2016). Research including individuals
purchasing medical marijuana from a dispensary also reveals it is safer than purchasing marijuana
from other sources. As explained by O’Brien (2013), “ . . . the dispensary system reduced the harm and
the problems associated with unregulated transactions” (p. 430).
The present research examines whether marijuana decriminalization or legalization for medical
or recreational purposes is related to the rate of violent crimes, property crimes, murder, aggra-
vated assault, rape, robbery, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, or arrests for drug use viola-
tions. Even though research cannot establish or verify in an absolute sense that legalization or
decriminalization is the sole contributing factor to lower or higher crime rates, if crime rates
change after legalization or decriminalization or if crime rates or drug use violation arrests are
higher or lower in states where marijuana has been decriminalized or legalized, then jurisdictional
authorities may take this into consideration when examining their recreational, medical mari-
juana, or decriminalization laws.
Method
Crime data were gathered from the UCR (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2015a, 2015b). The
District of Columbia was not included in any of the analysis because crime rates are disproportio-
nately high and therefore would skew results. Crime rates and drug abuse violation arrests were
analyzed for each state for 2014. It should be noted that the identification of states that have laws
allowing recreational and medical marijuana use decriminalization was current as of December
2015. It is important that in these states, laws were not only changed but also put into effect or
operationalized. Therefore, if laws regarding marijuana’s legal status changed, but the law did not
yet take effect, we could not expect the legislative change to have any effect on crime rates or drug
abuse violation arrests.
While a few states have legalized recreational marijuana use, only Colorado and Washington had
both legalized and put into effect their recreational marijuana laws when the 2014 crime data were
reported.4 Of the 23 states (and the District of Columbia) which have legalized medical marijuana, 6
states were not counted as such because legalization had not been operationalized by 2014, or home
cultivation is not permitted and dispensaries were not open as of 2014 (Darnell, 2015; see Table 1).5
As of December 2015, 18 states had decriminalized marijuana. Of the 18 states, 2 states (Delaware
and Missouri) were not counted as states where marijuana had been decriminalized because decrimi-
nalization was not put into effect by 2014. As of December 2015, marijuana remained illegal (recrea-
tionally, medically, not decriminalized) in 22 states. However, for the purposes of this research, four
additional states will be counted as states where marijuana remains illegal because medical legaliza-
tion had not been operationalized (Illinois and New Hampshire), medical legalization and decrimina-
lization was not put into effect until 2015 (Delaware), or decriminalization has not yet gone into effect
(Missouri) as of 2014. Therefore, a total of 26 states were counted as states where marijuana remains
illegal. Table 1 shows the classifications that were used for all 50 states.
The data analysis section had four parts. The first part, Change in Uniform Crime Report Part 1
Offenses, uses a longitudinal research design. This part of data analysis begins by using paired-samples
t tests to investigate the change in property crime and violent crime rates in the United States between
2010 and 2014. These years were selected because several states enacted changes to their marijuana
laws during this short time period. During this time period, laws changed and were operationalized in
11 states: Washington, Colorado (became recreationally legalized), Arizona, Massachusetts, New
Maier et al. 131
Table 1. State Information on Legalization and Decriminalization as of December 2015.
Medical Marijuana Legalized

(When Law Signed. All States
Have Made Operational Decriminalized
Legalized (4 States, DC) Unless Noted.) (18 States, DC) Illegal (22 States)
Alaska (2014; possession and Alaska (1998) California Alabama

cultivation legal February Arizona (2011) Colorado Arkansas
2015, licenses for California (1996) Connecticut Florida
commercialized facilities Colorado (2001) Delaware Georgia
issued in May 2016) Connecticut (2012) (2015)a Idaho
Colorado (2012, retail Delaware (2011)a Maine Indiana
stores opened in 2014) Hawaii (2000) Maryland Iowa
Oregon (2014; medical Illinois (2013, not Massachusetts Kansas
marijuana dispensaries began operationalized)b Minnesota Kentucky
to sell marijuana for Maine (1999) Mississippi Louisiana
recreational use in October Maryland (2014, not Missouri (goes North
2015) operationalized) in effect in Dakota
Washington (2012, retail Massachusetts (2013) 2017)a Oklahoma
stores opened in 2014) Michigan (2008) Nebraska Pennsylvaniac
Washington, DC (2014, sale Minnesota (2014)a Nevada South
will become legal in 2017) Montana (2004) New York Carolina
Nevada (2001) North South
New Hampshire Carolina Dakota
(2013, not Ohio Tennessee
operationalized) Oregon Texas
New Jersey (2010) Rhode Island Utah
New Mexico (2007) Vermont Virginia
New York (2014, not District of West
operationalized) Columbia Virginia
Oregon (1998) Wisconsin
Rhode Island (2005) Wyoming
Vermont (2004)
Washington (1998)
District of Columbia
(2010)
Source. NORML (2015d).
a
In the analysis, this state was counted as “illegal” because decriminalization or medical legalization was not put into effect by
2014. bIf not operational, the state has legalized medical marijuana, but programs are not yet available. cPennsylvania legalized
medical marijuana in April 2016 while final revisions to this paper were being made. The medical marijuana program will not
begin for 18–24 months (Stone, 2016).
Jersey (became medically legalized), California, Maryland, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Vermont
(became decriminalized), and Connecticut (became medically legalized and decriminalized;
see Table 1). Mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVAs; with year as a within-state variable
and change in marijuana laws as a between-state variable) were conducted to investigate
whether or not changes in specific types of crimes between 2010 and 2014 were related to
state changes in marijuana laws. States were placed into one of the two categories: those in
which the marijuana laws had changed and been operationalized between 2010 and 2014 and
those in which they had not.
Drug abuse violation arrests over this time period were not compared, due to the number of agencies
submitting arrest data varies from year to year, and the FBI (2015a) cautions users about making direct
comparisons between years. Drug abuse violations include the sale/manufacturing or possession of
heroin or cocaine and their derivatives, marijuana, synthetic or manufactured drugs, and other dan-
gerous nonnarcotic drugs.
The second part, Crime Rate and Restrictiveness of States’ Laws, uses a cross-sectional design
(data collected at one point in time) and a series of one-way ANOVAs (with state legalization
classification as the factor and various crime rates as the dependent measure) to focus on rates of
property crime, violent crime, murder, rape (revised definition),6 aggravated assault, robbery,
burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft (UCR Part 1 offenses) in all 50 states in 2014
to determine whether crime rates varied by the legal status of marijuana. Additionally, differences
in 2014 drug abuse violation arrests and arrests for possession of opium or cocaine and deriva-
tives, synthetic narcotics, and other drugs for 44 states as a function of state marijuana laws were
examined. Since the reporting of arrest data for Part 2 offenses, which includes drug abuse
violations, is not mandated by the FBI, states that had reporting rates more than 2 standard
deviations (SDs) below the mean reporting rate were not included in these analyses. These states
were Alabama, Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, Oregon, and New York.7 Each state was classified
into one of the four categories depending on the degree to which marijuana was legalized and
operationalized or decriminalized and operationalized in 2014. The four categories states were
placed in include completely illegal, one of the three possibilities (decriminalized, medically
legal, recreationally legal), two of the three possibilities, or three of the three possibilities. Based
on their laws, states received a code of 0 (completely illegal) to 3 (decriminalized, medically
legal, and recreationally legal). Twenty-six states were coded as 0 (completely illegal), and 14
states were coded 1. In seven of those states, marijuana was only medically legal, and in seven of
those states marijuana was only decriminalized. Nine states were coded as 2 (medically legalized
and decriminalized in eight of those states and medically and recreationally legalized in one
state). One state, Colorado, should have been coded as 3 because marijuana was recreationally
and medically legalized and decriminalized. However, a cell size of one prohibits inferential
statistics, so Colorado was included in the next least restrictive category and was therefore
recoded as 2.
While the results of the analyses described above provide evidence on the relationship between
crime rates and the restrictiveness of laws, literature looks at the relationship between crime and
medical legalization, decriminalization, and complete prohibition. In the third section, Crime
Rates and States’ Laws on Decriminalization, Medical Legalization, and Complete Prohibition,
we used a series of independent samples t tests to assess relationships between medical legaliza-
tion, decriminalization, and complete prohibition and crime rates. Each state was dummy coded
as either yes (1) or no (0) for separate variables representing whether or not marijuana is
recreationally legalized, medically legalized, decriminalized, or remained prohibited, and analyses
were conducted to compare crime rates based on the specific types of legalization. In these
analyses, the dummy code(s) for legal status was used as the independent variable and the various
crime rates served as dependent measures.
It is known that there are other state-level factors that could influence crime rates such as states’
percentage of population age 16þ in civilian labor force 2010–2014 (employment), state unemploy-
ment rate, percentage of persons in poverty, median household income 2010–2014 (in 2014 dollars),
percentage of persons who are high school graduates or higher age 25þ for 2010–2014, and percentage
of persons with bachelor’s degree or higher age 25þ for 2010–2014. In part 4, Crime Rates and
Factors that Influence Crime, analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) examined the relationship between
the various categories of legalization, and crime rates were assessed while controlling for the state-
level variables mentioned above by using them as covariates. Most data were retrieved for each state
from the U.S. Census Bureau (2015). Data on state unemployment rates were retrieved from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016).
Maier et al. 133
Table 2. Changes in Crime Rates, 2010–2014, as a Function of Marijuana Law Changes.
States With No States With a F and p Value for F and p Value for Decrease by
Crime Law Change Law Change Decrease Law Change Interaction
Property 300.64 317.67 69.61, <.001 0.05, .819

Violent 13.31 37.49 15.29, <.001 3.57, .065
Murder 0.01* 0.36 1.67, .202 1.88, .177
Robbery 8.56 15.72 20.91, <.001 1.82, .183
Aggravated 14.61 27.89 18.94, <.001 1.85, .180
assault
Burglary 139.07 132.50 84.99, <.001 0.05, .824
Larceny 152.19 152.84 35.50, <.001 0.00, .990
MV theft 9.34 32.34 10.31, .002 3.14, .083
Note. MV ¼ motor vehicle.
Table 3. Mean Crime Rates in Recreationally Legalized States as a Function of Type of Crime, Year, and State.
Crime Type and Year
State Property 2010 Property 2014 Violent 2010 Violent 2014
Colorado 2,684 2,530 321 309

Washington 3,707 3,706 314 285
Note. Rate is per 100,000 residents.
Results
Change in UCR Part 1 Offenses
An initial interest was to examine how property and violent crime rates in the United States had
changed from 2010 to 2014 in all states. As previously stated, these years were selected because
several states made changes to their marijuana laws during this short time period. Paired samples t tests
showed that there was a significant reduction in both types of crimes from 2010 to 2014, t(49) ¼ 10.01,
p < .05, and t(49) ¼ 3.36, p < .05, respectively (M2010 ¼ 2,856, SD ¼ 588 vs. M2014 ¼ 2,552, SD ¼ 576;
M2010 ¼ 366, SD ¼ 143 vs. M2014 ¼ 347, SD ¼ 129, for property and violent crimes, respectively).
Given that property and violent crime rates decreased in the U.S. between 2010 and 2014, a second set
of analyses was conducted to investigate whether or not changes in specific types of crimes between
2010 and 2014 were related to state changes in marijuana laws. Mixed-model ANOVAs were conducted
on crime rates for property crime, violent crime, murder, robbery, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle
theft with year (2010 vs. 2014) as a within-state variable and law change (yes vs. no) as a between-state
variable. While states saw a significant reduction in all crimes except murder over these years, in no
instance was the decrease dependent upon law change (i.e., none of the decreases interacted with the law
change variable). Table 2 contains the results from these analyses. (Note that an analysis for rape could
not be completed because the FBI’s UCR redefined rape during this time period.)
While it is not reasonable to conduct inferential statistics with a sample of two, a change in crime in
Colorado and Washington is of particular interest, because they are the only two states that legalized
and operationalized recreational marijuana between 2010 and 2014. It is notable that in both Colorado
and Washington, property crime rates and violent crime rates have decreased between 2010 and 2014.
Table 3 contains the means and SDs for these states.
Table 4. Mean Crime Rates for States in the Three Classification Categories (Completely Illegal, Either
Decriminalized or Medically Legal, Decriminalized and Medically Legal Including CO and WA With
Recreationally Legal).
Either Decriminalized or Decriminalized and F and p Value for

Crime Completely Illegal Medically Legal Medically Legala ANOVA
Property 2,596 2,602 2,364 0.66, .524

Violent 357 367 293 1.11, .337
Murder 4.4 4.4 2.8 3.11, .054
Robbery 76 90 79 0.52, .598
Aggravated assault 238 228 177 1.52, .230
Burglary 541 534 481 0.39, .679
Larceny 1,877 1,872 1,661 1.33, .273
MV theft 179 196 222 1.01, .373
Rape 39 45 35 1.36, .266
Note. MV ¼ motor vehicle; ANOVA ¼ analysis of variance.
a
This category also includes Washington where marijuana was medically and recreationally legalized and Colorado where
marijuana was decriminalized, medically legalized, and recreationally legalized. Refer to Table 1 in Method section.
Crime Rates and Restrictiveness of States’ Laws

Having established that changes in crime rates were unrelated to changes in laws from 2010 to 2014,
we sought to determine whether state crime rates in 2014 would vary as a function of the legal status of
marijuana (completely illegal, decriminalized, or medically legal, decriminalized and medically legal
or medically and recreationally legal; refer to Method section for how states were classified). (One
state, Colorado, has recreationally and medically legalized marijuana as well as decriminalized it.
However, a cell size of one prohibits inferential statistics, so Colorado was included in the next least
restrictive category where two of the three types of legalization were present). One-way ANOVA
results indicated no statistically significant differences in 2014 violent or property crime rates, murder,
rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft, or motor vehicle theft rates based on the
various state classification categories. Table 4 shows the mean crime rates for the three classifications
of states as well as the F and p values from the ANOVAs.
A one-way ANOVA on drug arrest rates using state classification (explained in Method) as a factor
showed there were significant differences between the various state classification categories, F(2, 41)
¼ 8.037, p ¼ .001. Tukey post hoc tests showed the only significant difference in drug arrest rates to be
between states where marijuana is completely illegal and those with least restrictive laws (Category 2).
Note that the analysis in which Colorado is combined with Category 2 yields equivalent statistical
results to an analysis in which Colorado is omitted. One-way ANOVAs on the arrest rates for posses-
sion of opiates, synthetic drugs, or other drugs failed to reveal any differences based on state classi-
fication (all p values > .24).
Crime Rates and States’ Laws on Decriminalization, Medical Legalization,

and Complete Prohibition
While the above analysis provides results on the relationship between crime rates and the restrictive-
ness of laws, the following analysis separately explores any relationship between crime rates and
medical legalization, decriminalization, and complete prohibition. There were no significant differ-
ences in 2014 rates of property crime, violent crime, murder, robbery, rape, burglary, motor vehicle
Maier et al. 135
theft, or drug abuse arrests in states where marijuana is decriminalized compared to states where it has
not been decriminalized. However, the trend is for drug use arrests and these crimes, with the exception
of robbery, to be lower in the decriminalized states. There are significantly lower aggravated assault
(M ¼ 243, SD ¼ 97 vs. M ¼ 181, SD ¼ 80) and larceny theft (M ¼ 1,906, SD ¼ 391 vs. M ¼ 1,675, SD
¼ 284) rates in states where marijuana has been decriminalized, t(48) ¼ 2.248, p ¼ .029, and t(39.44)
¼ 2.36, p ¼ .023.
There are no significant differences in 2014 rates of property crime, violent crime, murder, robbery,
aggravated assault, rape (revised definition), burglary, larceny, or motor vehicle theft rates in states
where medical marijuana has been legalized and put into effect compared to states where medical
marijuana has not been legalized. However, 2014 drug arrest rates were lower in states where medical
marijuana has been legalized and operationalized (M ¼ 327.08, SD ¼ 155.63) than in states where it
has not (M ¼ 584.77, SD ¼ 199.72), t(17) ¼ 2.79, p ¼ .013. Note that two of the states where medical
marijuana had been legalized also legalized recreationally (Colorado and Washington).
There were no significant differences in 2014 rates of property crime, violent crime, murder, rape,
robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft rates in states where
marijuana is completely illegal compared to states where it is not completely illegal. Even though
there are no statistically significant differences, the mean rates for the following crimes were slightly
higher in the states where marijuana remains illegal compared to other states: violent crime, property
crime, murder, aggravated assault, burglary, and larceny.
However, drug arrest rates were significantly higher in states where marijuana is completely illegal
(M ¼ 517.09, SD ¼ 106.49) than in states where it is not (M ¼ 377.68, SD ¼ 189.56), t(28.67) ¼ 2.93,
p ¼ .007. The obvious point that can be made is that drug use arrest rates will be higher in states where
marijuana remains illegal simply because it is illegal. However, it is important to recognize that even in
states where marijuana is recreationally or medically legalized, arrests do continue due to restrictions
(i.e., public consumption, possession of more than allowable quantity, possession of marijuana by
someone under the age of 21) and, of course, possession or sale/manufacturing of other drugs.
Crime Rates and Factors That Influence Crime

To limit the possibility that the relationship between state classification crime rates was affected by
confounding variables related to crime, other data were gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau:
percentage of persons aged 25 and older who are high school graduates, percentage of persons aged
25 and older in the state earning a bachelor’s degree, percentage of state population aged 16 and
older in the civilian labor force, median household income, and percentage of persons in poverty.
Since past research links crime to factors, such as poverty levels and income, education, and
employment (see Cantor & Land, 1985; Hsieh & Pugh, 1993; Lochner & Moretti, 2004; Vieraitis,
2000), confirmation through 2014 data on the relationship between crime and state-level character-
istics was sought.
In 2014, property crime rates for all states were correlated significantly, with percentage of persons
who are high school graduates, r(49) ¼ 0.434, p ¼ .002; percentage of persons in the state earning a
bachelor’s degree, r(49) ¼ 0.393, p ¼ .005; percentage of state population in the civilian workforce,
r(49) ¼ 0.478, p < .001; median household income, r(49) ¼ 0.350, p ¼ .013; and percentage of
persons in poverty, r(49) ¼ 0.539, p < .001. Violent crime rate was also correlated with percentage of
persons who are high school graduates, r(49) ¼ 0.456, p ¼ .001; percentage of persons in the state
earning a bachelor’s degree, r(49) ¼ 0.324, p ¼ .022; percentage of state population in the civilian
workforce, r(49) ¼ 0.327, p ¼ .021; and percentage of persons in poverty, r(49) ¼ 0.414, p ¼ .003.
The correlation between the violent crime rate for 2014 and median household income was not
significant.
These variables fell into two categories: educational variables (percentage of persons who are high
school graduates and percentage of persons receiving a bachelor’s degree) and economic variables
(percentage of persons in the workforce, median household income, and percentage of persons in
poverty). We sought as covariates variables which would account for as much variance as possible, so
that small differences based on state classification might emerge as significant. Thus, percentage of
persons who are high school graduates and percentage of persons in poverty were selected as covari-
ates. Using an ANCOVA, once percentage of persons who are high school graduates and percentage of
persons in poverty were controlled, there was no difference in property crime rate for 2014 based on
state classification, F(2, 45) ¼ 0.146, p ¼ .865. Even when all five covariates were entered into the
model, marijuana law classification failed to significantly predict property crime rates in 2014. Two
covariates, poverty and income, were significant (p ¼ .014 and .038, respectively). Table 5 contains
the p values for state classification for all of the models just described.
Using an ANCOVA, once percentage of persons who are high school graduates and percentage of
persons in poverty were controlled, there was no difference in violent crime rate for 2014 based on
state classification, F(2, 45) ¼ 0.963, p ¼ .389. Violent crime rates in 2014 were statistically equiv-
alent for states regardless of their marijuana legalization and decriminalization status. Even when all
five covariates were entered into the model, marijuana classification failed to significantly predict
violent crime rates. Only income predicts this, F(1, 42) ¼ 4.413, p ¼ .042.
Concern has been expressed that the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana will lead to
increases in other types of drug use. ANCOVAs of 2014 arrest rates for the possession of opiates,
synthetics, and other drugs failed to find a relationship between these arrest rates and state classifi-
cation in models that included only high school graduation and percentage in poverty as covariates as
well as in models that included the larger list of covariates (i.e., percentage earning a bachelor’s
degree, percentage in the workforce, and median income).
Recognizing that unemployment is significantly but not perfectly correlated with the covariates that
were used as well as with crime, another set of analyses was run including unemployment rates as an
additional covariate. State classification still failed to reach statistical significance with respect to
arrest rates for possession of other types of drugs or property or violent crime rates in 2014. ANCOVAs
using only unemployment rates as a covariate yielded equivalent results.
Discussion
The data analyses reveal a lack of relationships between crime rates and the legal status of recreational
and medical marijuana. While states experienced a significant reduction in all crimes (except murder)
between 2010 and 2014, in no instance was the decrease dependent upon law changes. There was also
no statistically significant difference in 2014 violent crime, property crime, murder, rape, robbery,
aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft, or motor vehicle theft rates based on the restrictiveness of
states’ marijuana laws.
When comparing states where marijuana has been decriminalized and put into effect to states where
it has not, there was no statistically significant difference in property crime rates, violent crime rates, or
murder, rape, robbery, burglary, motor vehicle theft rates, although rates appear lower in states where
marijuana has been decriminalized for all of these crimes with the exception of robbery. However,
aggravated assault and larceny rates were significantly lower in states where marijuana has been
decriminalized compared to other states. The possibility that drug use could decrease inhibitions that
could be tied to increased aggression (Shepard & Blackley, 2005), increase in aggressive response to
conflict, increase paranoia leading to violent reactions (Moore & Stuart, 2005), or a that a person
experiencing frustration due to withdrawal from drugs could react violently (Budney & Hughes, 2006;
Vandrey et al., 2005) was not supported by this research, since aggravated assault rates were signif-
icantly lower in states where marijuana has been decriminalized.
Maier et al. 137
Table 5. p Values for State Classification for Models With Various Covariates.a
Dependent Measure Covariates p Value for State Classification
Property crime rate (2014) Percentage high school graduates .865

Percentage of persons in poverty
Percentage high school graduates .656
Percentage with bachelor’s
Household income
Percentage in workforce
Household income
Unemployment rate
Violent crime rate (2014) Percentage high school graduates .389
Household income
Household income
Unemployment rate
Arrest (2014) for opiate possession Percentage high school graduates .057
Household income
Household income
Unemployment rate
Arrest (2014) for synthetics possession Percentage high school graduates .461
Household income
Household income
Unemployment rate
(continued)
Table 5. (continued)
Dependent Measure Covariates p Value for State Classification
Arrests (2014) for other drug possession Percentage high school graduates .192
Household income
Household income
Unemployment rate
a
Covariates in boldface are newly added to the model. Property and violent crime rate change analyses include all states. Drug
possession analyses include only those states with adequate drug arrest reporting percentages.
When comparing states where medical marijuana has been legalized and put into effect to states
where it has not, there was no statistically significant difference in all crime rates (property, violent,
murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft), although rates of
violent crime, property crime, murder, aggravated assault, burglary, and larceny appear lower in states
where medical marijuana has been legalized and put into effect. Therefore, this research supports
previous research that found medical marijuana legalization was associated with lower rates of bur-
glary and larceny, but to a nonsignificant degree (Morris et al., 2014), and research concluded that
there is no significant positive relationship between medical marijuana legalization and property and
violent crime rates (Shepard & Blackley, 2016). Since there was no statistically significant difference
in robbery, burglary, and larceny, this research does not support the argument that dispensaries will be
a target for criminals and will result in increased robbery, burglary, and larceny. Instead, this research
supports others’ conclusions that no relationship exists between the presence of dispensaries and
violent or property crime rates (Freisthler et al., 2016; Kepple & Freisthler, 2012). As previously
stated, however, we must consider the likelihood that medical marijuana dispensaries have high levels
of security (i.e., security guards, motion detectors, cameras; Freisthler et al., 2013, 2016; Pagliery,
2013) and identification requirements to enter the dispensary (Campbell, 2016).
While there was no statistically significant difference in property crime rates or violent crime rates,
or of the rates of seven other crimes examined, the rates for property crime, violent crime, murder,
aggravated assault, burglary, and larceny appear to be higher in states where marijuana is completely
prohibited. The results from this research are supported by data that show violent and property crime
decreased in Denver after marijuana was recreationally legalized (Part 1 crime in the city, 2015).
Violent crime may be lower in states where marijuana is not completely prohibited because when
drugs are not prohibited, individuals can turn to the criminal justice or legal system for help rather than
addressing disputes with violence (see Belenko & Spohn, 2015; Werb et al., 2011). Property crime
may be lower in states where marijuana is not completely prohibited because of the reduced effect on
employability; when arrested, someone may resort to economically motivated crime because the arrest
hinders his or her employability (Shepard & Blackley, 2007).
Current findings are contrary to the argument that legalization and decriminalization results in
higher crime rates and increased drug abuse arrests. The economic-compulsive explanation for the
correlation between drug use and crime bases its rationale on the idea that drug users will engage in
Maier et al. 139
crime to fuel addictions (Goldstein, 1985). Research has shown that a high proportion of people
supporting drug habits report committing property offenses and that a high proportion of known
property offenders report offending to support their drug addiction (Hughes, Payne, Macgregor, &
Pockley, 2014). While crime can persist despite legalization due to the strict laws surrounding drug use
and taxation on the product, legalization can still have the potential to drive down black market
demand.
There is no significant difference in drug abuse arrest violations in states where marijuana has been
decriminalized compared to states where it has not, and drug arrest rates were significantly lower in
states where medical marijuana has been legalized and operationalized. Results also show the arrest
rates for possession of opiates, synthetic drugs, or other drugs were not different based on state
classification of marijuana laws. This contradicts the assumption that legalizing or decriminalizing
marijuana will lead to increased arrest for other drugs (presumably due to increased use). Finally, there
appears to be no relationship between state classification of marijuana laws and property crime rate,
violet crime rate, arrests for opiate, synthetics, or other drug possession even when controlling for six
state-level variables that are related to crime.
The relationship (or lack thereof) between legalization policies and crime has a significant effect on
which government and police policies are most and least likely to be effective. Any relationship may
be extremely complex, and researchers must ensure that the link does not boil down to, or over-
emphasize, one simple factor (Hughes et al., 2014). It is also not specifically determinable as to “what
caused what,” in the case of changes in states’ marijuana laws and crime, so by discussing all possible
factors, policy makers and voters will be able to best determine if legalization or decriminalization is
the best choice not only for their constituents but also for the financial stability of their state.
Studies also support the contention that crime leads to drug use, more so than drug use leads to
crime. For example, Makkai and Payne (2003) found that career and minor offenders who commit both
violent and property crimes started engaging in illegal acts at least 2 years before experimenting with a
drug and 3 years before regularly using the drug. It is also possible that no causal relationship exists
between drug use and crime or arrests—at least not a connection significant enough to justify gov-
ernment implemented policies (Hughes et al., 2014).
Because only two states have recreationally legalized and operationalized marijuana, little is known
about the economic impact of such changes (see Johns, 2015). Colorado and Washington’s tax revenue
from legalizing recreational marijuana has come to US$200 million in less than 2 years (Ferner, 2015).
Washington collected taxes of about US$90 million from marijuana sales in less than a year and a half
(Camden, 2015). In fiscal year 2014–2015, Colorado raised almost US$70 million from marijuana
taxes (Gillentine, 2015). Colorado’s Department of Education has used money from marijuana taxes to
fund Building Excellent Schools Today grants, which fund capital projects (Robles, 2014), and tax
revenue has been dedicated to construction of public schools and public education campaigns (Blake &
Finlaw, 2014). Voters in one county in Colorado voted for a tax increase for marijuana growers, and
some of that money will be put toward college scholarships, so that graduates of the county can attend
local colleges (Ahuja, 2015). This is of particular importance, given the significant correlation between
2014 property and violent crime rates and percentage of persons who are high school graduates and
percentage of persons earning a bachelor’s degree.
Limitations
One limitation of this research is that identifying a causal relationship between marijuana legalization
and decriminalization and crime and arrest rates is not possible (see also Darnell, 2015; Morris et al.,
2014). As previously stated, Morris and colleagues (2014) explain that while their research indicates
that medical marijuana legalization does not worsen crime rates, they cannot establish that medical
marijuana legalization is the cause of reduced crime rates; the reduction may be due to other variables.
For example, myriad other factors, such as unemployment and the school dropout rate, are uncontrol-
lable influences that could affect the increase or decrease in crime in a particular state outside the realm
of marijuana legalization. Our ANCOVA results show income and percentage of persons in poverty to
be significant covariates in property crime rates and income to be a significant covariate in violent
crime rates in 2014 supporting this idea.
Second, it may be more accurate to look specifically at crime occurrence or offenses known to law
enforcement. The number of arrests for drug abuse violations and possession of opiates, synthetics, and
other drugs is used in this research simply because the UCR only reports offenses known to law
enforcement for the eight Part 1 offenses and the categories of property and violent crimes. The use
of arrest data as an outcome measure for legislative change or as an indicator of criminal activity is
problematic. There could be other factors that influence number of arrests for any crime, including
drug abuse violations, such as number of law enforcement officers in a jurisdiction or diligence and
effort of law enforcement. Arrests are not a perfect measure of any crime since crime certainly occurs
without arrests being made. The data available for drug abuse violations should also be accepted with
some skepticism because not all police departments report arrest data to the FBI, therefore resulting in
arrest numbers reported being lower than their occurrence. Further, arrest figures may vary widely
from state to state because some Part II crimes are not considered crimes in some states (FBI, 2015a).
Since it provides more detailed data, we considered using data from the National Incident–Based
Reporting System (NIBRS), but only approximately one third of law enforcement agencies that
participate in the UCR program submit data via NIBRS (Uniform Crime Reporting Program, NIBRS,
2015b). Based on data submissions for 2014, 33 states have been certified to report data via NIBRS,
but only 16 of those 33 states submit all of their crime data via NIBRS (Uniform Crime Reporting
Program, NIBRS, 2015a). We considered making comparisons for these 16 states, but there was not
enough variability; only 4 of the states legalized medical marijuana and 2 of the states decriminalized
marijuana. A third limitation is the possibility that there is no relationship between legalization/
decriminalization and crime, particularly violent crime, because marijuana is not a criminogenic drug
like other drugs, such as crack cocaine and opiates (see Bennett, Holloway, & Farrington, 2008). As
stated by Caulkins, Hawken, Kilmer, and Kleinman (2012), “One does not read about many drive-by
shootings between rival marijuana gangs” (p. 131).
Despite limitations, this research contributes to the literature on decriminalization and legalization
of medical and recreational marijuana in the United States and its relationship to recent crime rates.
Unlike previous research (Morris et al., 2014; Shepard & Blackley, 2016), this research includes all
states and considers decriminalization and recreational legalization rather than only medical legaliza-
tion. Analysis of recent crime data is always necessary, given that legal changes surrounding decri-
minalization and medical and recreational legalization are rapidly changing and marijuana legalization
and decriminalization continue to be controversial and multifaceted issues. As more states modify their
marijuana laws, researchers will be able to use a larger sample of states with legalized marijuana
legislation, and potentially group states according to similar policing practices, geography, and pop-
ulation size, to make the conclusion as reliable as possible. Additionally, as the trend of marijuana
legalization and decriminalization continues, future studies will also have the ability to not only study
marijuana’s effects on arrests and crime rates but also other arenas, such as industrial use, legal system
impacts, medicinal endorsements, environmental influences, and tax issues. Marijuana legalization
and decriminalization have many far-reaching effects that should be studied by future research so as to
advise future policy making and state government decisions.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Maier et al. 141
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Notes
1. Drug abuse violations are defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, 2015c) as: “The violation of
laws prohibiting the production, distribution, and/or use of certain controlled substances. The unlawful culti-
vation, manufacture, distribution, sale, purchase, use, possession, transportation, or importation of any con-
trolled drug or narcotic substance. Arrests for violations of state and local laws, specifically those relating to
the unlawful possession, sale, use, growing, manufacturing, and making of narcotic drugs. The following drug
categories are specified: opium or cocaine and their derivatives (morphine, heroin, codeine); marijuana;
synthetic narcotics—manufactured narcotics that can cause true addiction (Demerol, methadone); and dan-
gerous non-narcotic drugs (barbiturates, Benzedrine).” When specifically referring to arrest data from the
Uniform Crime Report, the authors use the terms “drug abuse” and “drug abuse violations” to stay consistent
with the language used by the FBI.
2. Pennsylvania legalized medical marijuana in April 2016. However, the program will not be in effect for 18
months to 2 years after the law was signed (Stone, 2016).
3. Research conducted in Denver also concluded that there is no relationship between robbery and the density of
recreational marijuana dispensaries (Hughes, Schaible, & Jimmerson, 2016).
4. Although two additional states (Oregon and Alaska) and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational
marijuana, these jurisdictions will not be counted as legalized states. Since laws went into effect recently
(February 2015 in Alaska and July 2015 in Oregon), 1 year of complete arrest data after legalization will not be
published by the UCR until fall of 2017. Although the District of Columbia is not included in any of the
analysis, voters there approved legalization in 2014, but Congress prohibited the creation of a system where
people could lawfully buy marijuana.
5. In Delaware and Minnesota, home cultivation is not permitted and dispensaries opened in June 2015. Illinois,
Maryland, New Hampshire, and New York have legalized but not operationalized medical marijuana. Home
cultivation is not permitted in those four states and dispensaries are not open. Of the 17 states where medical
marijuana has been legalized and operationalized, 15 states allow for home cultivation (home cultivation not
permitted in Connecticut and New Jersey) and state dispensaries are open in 11 states.
6. Effective January 2013, the FBI revised the definition of rape to be gender-neutral and to include penetration of
the vagina or anus with body parts or objects and oral penetration by a sex organ. Refer to https://www.fbi.gov/
about-us/cjis/ucr/recent-program-updates/new-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions
7. Not all police departments report arrest data to the FBI therefore resulting in arrest numbers reported being
lower than their occurrence. The UCR reports the number of agencies that report for each state and the
population included in the state (see https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-
the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-69). The population included was compared to the total population for the state
according to the 2014 U.S. Census. In order to systematically eliminate states with low reporting of drug
abuse arrest violations, the mean percentage reporting (83.67) and the standard deviation (SD; 23.22) were
calculated. We eliminated from analysis the states with more than 1 SD lower than the mean (60.45). This
resulted in the elimination of six states from this portion of the analysis.
References
Ahuja, M. (2015). College paid for by marijuana. CNN. Retrieved February 25, 2016, from http://www.cnn.com/
2015/11/06/us/colorado-marijuana-college-scholarship/
American Civil Liberties Union. (2013). The war on marijuana in black and white. Retrieved January 26, 2017,
from https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/1114413-mj-report-rfs-rel1.pdf#77
Anderson, D. M., Hansen, B., & Rees, D. I. (2012). Medical marijuana laws and teen marijuana use (Working
paper). Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University. Retrieved February
1, 2017, from http://ftp.iza.org/dp6592.pdf
Barcott, B., & Scherer, M. (2015). The great pot experiment. Time, 189, 38–45.
Belenko, S., & Spohn, C. (2015). Drugs, crime, and justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bennett, T., & Holloway, K. (2009). The causal connection between drug misuse and crime. British Journal of
Criminology, 49, 513–531.
Bennett, T. H., Holloway, K., & Farrington, D. (2008). The statistical association between drug misuse and crime:
A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 107–118.
Blake, D., & Finlaw, J. (2014). Marijuana legalization in Colorado: Learned lessons. Harvard Law & Policy
Review, 8, 359–380.
Budney, A. J., & Hughes, J. R. (2006). The cannabis withdrawal syndrome. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 19,
233–238.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Unemployment rate for states, annual average rankings: 2014. Retrieved
August 20, 2016, from http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastrk14.htm
Camden, J. (2015). Washington marijuana sales amount to $357 million in 15 months. The Spokesman-Review.
Retrieved February 11, 2016, from http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/sep/16/washington-marijuana-
sales-amount-to-357-million/
Campbell, K. (2016). Security is tight at Modern Cannabis, Logan Square’s first medical marijuana dispensary.
The Chicago Reader. Retrieved May 17, 2017, from http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2016/
02/23/security-is-tight-at-modern-cannabis-logan-squares-first-medical-marijuana-dispensary
Cantor, D., & Land, K. (1985). Unemployment and crime rates in the post World War II United States: A
theoretical and empirical analysis. American Sociological Review, 50, 317–332.
Caulkins, J. P., Hawken, A., Kilmer, B., & Kleinman, M. A. R. (2012). Marijuana legalization: What everyone
needs to know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Caulkins, J. P., & Kilmer, B. (2016). Considering marijuana legalization carefully: Insights for other jurisdictions
from analysis for Vermont. Addiction, 111, 2082–2089.
Caulkins, J. P., Kilmer, B., Kleinman, M. A. R., MacCoun, R. J., Midgette, R., Oglesby, P. . . . Reuter, P. H.
(2015). Considering marijuana legalization: Insights for Vermont and other jurisdictions. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation.
Cerda, M., Wall, M., & Feng, T. (2016). Association of state recreational marijuana laws with adolescent
marijuana use. JAMA Pediatrics. Available online. Retrieved from http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamape
diatrics/article-abstract/2593707
Cerda, M., Wall, M., Keyes, K. M., Galea, S., & Hasin, D. (2012). Medical marijuana laws in 50 states:
Investigating the relationship between state legalization of medical marijuana and marijuana use, abuse and
dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 120, 22–27.
Chokshi, N. (2015). “With great marijuana laws comes great responsibility”—Pot is legal in Alaska today. The
Washington Post. Retrieved May 20, 2015, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/02/
24/with-great-marijuana-laws-comes-great-responsibility-pot-is-legal-in-alaska-today/
Choo, E. K., Benz, M., Zaller, N., Warren, O., Rising, K. L., & McConnell, K. J. (2014). The impact of state
medical marijuana legislation on adolescent marijuana use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 160–166.
Chu, Y. W. L. (2014). The effects of medical marijuana laws on illegal marijuana use. Journal of Health
Economics, 38, 43–61.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American
Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
Copes, H., Hochstetler, A., & Sandberg, S. (2014). Using a narrative framework to understand the drugs and
violence nexus. Criminal Justice Review, 40, 32–46.
Council on Foreign Relations. (2014). Mexico’s drug war. Retrieved April 18, 2015, from http://www.cfr.org/
mexico/mexicos-drug-war/p13689
Maier et al. 143
Cummings, W. (2015). Pot now legal in D.C. despite threats from Congress. USA Today. Retrieved January
14, 2016, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/25/dc-marijuana-legalization/
24033803/
Darnell, A. J. (2015). I-502 evaluation plan and preliminary report on implementation (Document Number 15-09-
3201). Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Dickinson, T. (2015). The war on drugs is burning out. Rolling Stone, pp. 33–37.
Dills, A., Goffards, S., & Miron, J. (2016). Dose of reality: The effect of state marijuana legalizations. Policy
analysis. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
Drug Policy Alliance. (2016). Status Report: Marijuana legalization in Colorado after one year of retail sales and
two years of decriminalization. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/
files/Colorado_Marijuana_Legalization_One_Year_Status_Report.pdf
Eddy, M. (2010). Medical marijuana: Review and analysis of federal and state policies. Congressional Research
Services. Retrieved January, 26, 2017, from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33211.pdf
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015a). Arrests by state, 2014. Retrieved January 14, 2016, from https://www.
fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-69
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015b). Crime in the United States by state, 2014. Retrieved October 20, 2015,
from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-5
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015c). Offense definitions. Retrieved May 15, 2015, fromhttps://www.fbi.gov/
about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offense-definitions
Ferner, M. (2013). Colorado first state to adopt rules for legal, recreational marijuana. Huffington Post. Retrieved
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/colorado-first-state-rules-marijuana_n_3902602.html
Ferner, M. (2014). If legalizing marijuana was supposed to cause more crime, it’s not doing a very good job. The
Huffington Post. Retrieved January 26, 2017, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/marijuana-
crime-denver_n_5595742.html
Ferner, M. (2015). Pioneer pot states have collected more than $200 million in marijuana taxes. The Huffington
Post. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/washington-colorado-mari
juana-taxes_us_55d6133be4b07addcb45e65d
Freisthler, B., Kepple, N. J., Sims, R., & Martin, S. E. (2013). Evaluating medical marijuana dispensary policies:
Spatial methods for the study of environmentally-based interventions. American Journal of Community Psy-
chology, 51, 278–288.
Freisthler, B., Ponicki, W. R., Gaidus, A., & Gruenewald, P. J. (2016). A micro-temporal geospatial analysis of
medical marijuana dispensaries and crime in Long Beach, California. Addiction, 111, 1027–1035.
Gillentine, A. (2015). Marijuana brings more tax dollars than alcohol. The Colorado Springs Business Journal.
Retrieved February 11, 2016, from http://www.csbj.com/2015/09/15/marijuana-brings-more-tax-dollars-than-
alcohol/
Goldstein, P. (1985). The drug/violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues, 14,
493–506.
Green, K. M., Doherty, E. E., Stuart, E. A., & Ensminger, M. E. (2010). Does heavy adolescent marijuana use lead
to criminal involvement in adulthood? Evidence from a multiwave longitudinal study of urban African
Americans. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 112, 117–125.
Harper, S., Strumpf, E. C., & Kaufman, J. S. (2012). Do medical marijuana laws increase marijuana use?
Replication study and extension. Annals of Epidemiology, 22, 207–212.
Hasin, D. S., Wall, M., Keyes, K. M., Cerda, M., Schulenberg, J., O’Malley, P. M., . . . Feng, T. (2015).
Medical marijuana laws and adolescent marijuana use in the USA from 1991 to 2014: Results from annual,
repeated cross-sectional surveys. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2, 601–608.
Hsieh, C., & Pugh, M. D. (1993). Poverty, income inequality, and violent crime: A meta-analysis of recent
aggregate data studies. Criminal Justice Review, 18, 182–202.
Hughes, C., Payne, J., Macgregor, S., & Pockley, K. (2014). A beginner’s guide to drugs and crime: Does one always
lead to the other? Of Substance: The National Magazine on Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, pp. 26–32.
Hughes, L., Schaible, L. M., & Jimmerson, K. (2016, November). Up in smoke? The effects of marijuana
dispensaries on neighborhood crime. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of
Criminology, New Orleans, LA.
Joffe, A., & Yancy, W. S. (2004). Legalization of marijuana: Potential impact on youth. Pediatrics, 113,
e632–e638.
Johns, T. L. (2015). Managing a policy experiment: Adopting and implementing recreational marijuana policies in
Colorado. State and Local Government Review, 47, 193–204.
Kandel, D. (2002). Stages and pathways of drug involvement: Examining the gateway hypothesis. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Kandel, D. B., Yamaguchi, K., & Klein, L. C. (2006). Testing the gateway hypothesis. Addiction, 101,
470–472.
Kepple, N. J., & Freisthler, B. (2012). Exploring the ecological association between crime and medical marijuana
dispensaries. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73, 523–530.
Khatapoush, S., & Hallfors, D. (2004). “Sending the wrong message”: Did medical marijuana legalization in
California change attitudes about and use of marijuana? Journal of Drug Issues, 35, 751–770.
Kilmer, B. (2014). Policy designs for cannabis legalization: Starting with the eight Ps. The American Journal of
Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 40, 259–261.
Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2004). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and
self-reports. American Economic Review, 94, 155–189.
Lyman, M. (2014). Drugs in society: Causes, concepts, and control. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.
Makkai, T., & Payne, J. (2003). Drugs and crime: A study of incarcerated male offenders (Research and public
policy series No. 1-8). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Marijuana Policy Project. (2016). Retail marijuana sales begin in Washington. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from
https://www.mpp.org/states/washington/
Marijuana Policy Project. (2017). Decriminalization. Retrieved January 26, 2017, from https://www.mpp.org/
issues/decriminalization/
Maxwell, J. C., & Mendelson, B. (2016). What do we know now about the impact of the laws related to marijuana.
Journal of Addictions Medicine, 10, 3–12.
Mindock, C. (2015). Marijuana legalization 2015: DC can’t sell legal pot for 2 more years under House budget
bill. International Business Times. Retrieved January 7, 2016, from http://www.ibtimes.com/marijuana-
legalization-2015-dc-cant-sell-legal-pot-2-more-years-under-house-budget-1963399
Miron, J. A. (1999). Violence and the U.S. prohibitions of drugs and alcohol. American Law and Economics
Review, 1, 78–114.
Miron, J. A. (2005). The budgetary implications of marijuana prohibition. Boston, MA: Department of Economics
Manuscript, Boston University. Retrieved January 30, 2017, from http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
mironreport/
Miron, J. A., & Zweibel, J. (1995). The economic case against drug prohibition. Journal of Economic Perspec-
tives, 9, 175–192.
Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2005). A review of the literature on marijuana and interpersonal violence.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 171–192.
Morris, R. G., TenEyck, M., Barnes, J. C., & Kovandzic, T. V. (2014). The effect of medical marijuana laws on
crime: Evidence from state panel data, 1990-2006. PLoS One, 9, e92816.
NORML. (2015a). Colorado laws and penalties. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://norml.org/laws/item/
colorado-penalties
NORML. (2015b). District of Columbia laws and penalties. Retrieved October 1, 2015, http://norml.org/laws/
item/district-of-columbia-penalties
NORML. (2015c). Oregon legalization. Retrieved May 20, 2015, from http://norml.org/legal/item/oregon-legali
zation?category_id¼1582
NORML. (2015d). United States. Retrieved June 30, 2015, from http://norml.org/states
Maier et al. 145
NORML. (2015e). Washington laws and penalties. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://norml.org/laws/item/
washington-penalties-2
NORML. (2015f). Working to reform marijuana laws. Retrieved April 19, 2015, from http://norml.org/states
NORML. (2016). States that have decriminalized. Retrieved September 29, 2016, from http://norml.org/about
marijuana/item/states-that-have-decriminalized
O’Brien, P. K. (2013). Medical marijuana and social control: Escaping criminalization and embracing medica-
lization. Deviant Behavior, 34, 423–443.
Pacula, R. L., Lundberg, R., Caulkins, J. P., Kilmer, B., Greathouse, S., Fain, T., & Steinberg, P. (2013).
Improving the measurement of drug-related crime. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, Office
of National Drug Control Policy. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-
and-research/drug_crime_report_final.pdf
Pagliery, J. (2013). Legal marijuana’s need for high security. CNN Money. Retrieved May 17, 2016, from http://
money.cnn.com/2013/04/29/smallbusiness/marijuana-security/
Part 1 crime in the city and county of Denver based on UCR standards. (2015). Retrieved January 26, 2017, from
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/720/documents/statistics/2014/UCR_Citywide_
Reported%20_Offenses_2014.pdf
Pedersen, W., & Skardhamar, T. (2010). Cannabis and crime: Findings from a longitudinal study. Addiction, 105,
109–118.
Pew Research Center. (2015). In debate over legalizing marijuana, disagreement over drug’s dangers.
Retrieved February 12, 2016, from http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/04/04-14-15-Marijuana-
release.pdf
Powell, D., Pacula, R. L., & Jacobson, M. (2015). Do medical marijuana laws reduce addictions and deaths
related to pain killers? (NBER working paper 211345). Cambridge, MA: The National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Robles, V. (2014). Pot revenues starting to help select schools on pricey projects. The Denver Post. Retrieved
February 26, 2016, from http://www.denerpost.com/marijuana/ci_26247743/pot-revenues-starting-help-
select-schools-pricey-projects
Seffrin, P. M., & Domahidi, B. I. (2014). The drugs-violence nexus: A systematic comparison of adolescent drug
dealers and drug users. Journal of Drug Issues, 44, 394–413.
Shepard, E. M., & Blackley, P. R. (2005). Drug enforcement and crime: Recent evidence from New York. Social
Science Quarterly, 86, 323–342.
Shepard, E. M., & Blackley, P. R. (2007). The impact of marijuana law enforcement in an economic model of
crime. Journal of Drug Issues, 37, 403–424.
Shepard, E. M., & Blackley, P. R. (2016). Medical marijuana and crime: Further evidence from the Western states.
Journal of Drug Issues, 46, 122–134.
Simpson, M. (2003). The relationship between drug use and crime: A puzzle inside an enigma. International
Journal of Drug Policy, 14, 307–319.
Single, E. (1989). The impact of marijuana decriminalization: An update. Journal of Public Health Policy, 10, 456–466.
State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development. (2015). Retrieved Sep-
tember 28, 2015, from https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/abc/marijuanainitiativefaqs.aspx
Stolzenberg, L., D’Alessio, S. J., & Dariano, D. (2016). The effect of medical cannabis laws on juvenile cannabis
use. International Journal of Drug Policy, 27, 82–88.
Stone, S. (2016). What you need to know about medical marijuana in Pennsylvania. Retrieved September 14,
2016, from https://www.governor.pa.gov/blog-what-you-need-to-know-about-medical-marijuana-in-
pennsylvania/
Suggs, D. L. (1981). A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the impact of Nebraska’s decriminalization of
marijuana. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 45–71.
Thies, C. F., & Register, C. A. (1993). Decriminalization of marijuana and the demand for alcohol, marijuana and
cocaine. Social Science Journal, 30, 385–399.
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, National Incident-Based Reporting System. (2015a). Data declaration,
participation by state, 2014. Retrieved February 25, 2016, from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/
2014/downloads/nibrs2014datadeclarationsmethodologyzip-u7en6ujsqp4x.zip
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, National Incident-Based Reporting System. (2015b). Frequently asked ques-
tions about individual agency NIBRS data. Retrieved February 11, 2016, from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/
cjis/ucr/nibrs/2014/resource-pages/frequently_asked_questions_about_nibrs_individual_agency_data_f.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Quick Facts, United States. Retrieved October 20, 2015, from http://www.census.
gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
Vandrey, R., Budney, A. J., Kamon, J. L., & Stanger, C. (2005). Cannabis withdrawal in adolescent treatment
seekers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 78, 205–210.
Vieraitis, L. M. (2000). Income inequality, poverty, and violent crime: A review of the empirical evidence. Social
Pathology, 6, 24–45.
Wang, G. S., Roosevelt, G., & Heard, K. (2013). Pediatric marijuana exposures in a medical marijuana state.
JAMA Pediatrics, 167, 630–633.
Wen, H., Hockenberry, J. M., & Cummings, J. R. (2015). The effect of medical marijuana laws on adolescent and
adult use of marijuana, alcohol, and other substances. Journal of Health Economics, 42, 64–80.
Werb, D., Rowell, G., Guyatt, G., Kerr, T., Montaner, J., & Wood, E. (2011). Effect of the drug law enforcement
on drug market violence: A systematic review. The International Journal of Drug Policy, 22, 87–94.
Wong, S., & Lin, H. (2016). Effects of medical marijuana legalization on marijuana use among adolescents and
adults in the United States. The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes
Research, 19, A527–A528.
Yang, C., German, D., Webster, D., & Latkin, C. (2011). Experiencing violence as a predictor of drug use relapse
among former drug users in Baltimore, Maryland. Journal of Urban Health, 88, 1044–1051.
Author Biographies
Shana L. Maier is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Widener University, Chester,
PA. Her research interests include violence against women, the treatment of rape victims by the criminal justice
system, the experiences and struggles of rape victim advocates and Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners, and mar-
ijuana legalization. She is the author of the book Rape, Victims, and Investigations (Routledge) and articles
appearing in Violence Against Women, Women & Criminal Justice, Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice,
Feminist Criminology, Journal of Forensic Nursing, and Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Suzanne Mannes is an assistant professor of psychology at Widener University teaching courses in statistics,
research methods, and forensic psychology. She researches the effects of pretrial publicity, defendant race, and
judge’s instructions on mock juror decision making. She has been qualified to testify as an expert on eyewitness
identification in the Court of Common Pleas and the Federal District Courthouse of Philadelphia.
Emily L. Koppenhofer received her BA degree from Ursinus College (Collegeville, PA) where her majors were
philosophy and politics. She received her MA in criminal justice in 2015 from Widener University (Chester, PA).
She is currently employed by the Bureau of Autism Services in Philadelphia, PA.
Reproduced with permission of copyright
owner. Further reproduction prohibited
without permission.

The Implications of Marijuana Decriminalization and Legalization On Crime in The United States

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Implications of Marijuana Decriminalization and Legalization On Crime in The United States

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

Contemporary Drug Problems

Shana L. Maier1, Suzanne Mannes1, and Emily L. Koppenhofer2

Laws on legalization and decriminalization of marijuana

Research on the effects of legalization and decriminalization and crime

Table 1. State Information on Legalization and Decriminalization as of December 2015.

Medical Marijuana Legalized

Alaska (2014; possession and Alaska (1998) California Alabama

Table 2. Changes in Crime Rates, 2010–2014, as a Function of Marijuana Law Changes.

Property 300.64 317.67 69.61, <.001 0.05, .819

Crime Type and Year

State Property 2010 Property 2014 Violent 2010 Violent 2014

Colorado 2,684 2,530 321 309

Either Decriminalized or Decriminalized and F and p Value for

Property 2,596 2,602 2,364 0.66, .524

Crime Rates and Restrictiveness of States’ Laws

Crime Rates and States’ Laws on Decriminalization, Medical Legalization,

Crime Rates and Factors That Influence Crime

Dependent Measure Covariates p Value for State Classification

Property crime rate (2014) Percentage high school graduates .865

Dependent Measure Covariates p Value for State Classification

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

You might also like