These college students lost access to legal pot — and started getting better grades

Authored by washingtonpost.com and submitted by asbruckman

A new study provides credible evidence that marijuana legalization will lead to decreased academic success. (Elaine Thompson/AP)

The most rigorous study yet of the effects of marijuana legalization has identified a disturbing result: College students with access to recreational cannabis on average earn worse grades and fail classes at a higher rate.

Economists Olivier Marie and Ulf Zölitz took advantage of a decision by Maastricht, a city in the Netherlands, to change the rules for “cannabis cafes,” which legally sell recreational marijuana. Because Maastricht is very close to the border of multiple European countries (Belgium, France and Germany), drug tourism was posing difficulties for the city. Hoping to address this, the city barred noncitizens of the Netherlands from buying from the cafes.

This policy change created an intriguing natural experiment at Maastricht University, because students there from neighboring countries suddenly were unable to access legal pot, while students from the Netherlands continued.

The research on more than 4,000 students, published in the Review of Economic Studies, found that those who lost access to legal marijuana showed substantial improvement in their grades. Specifically, those banned from cannabis cafes had a more than 5 percent increase in their odds of passing their courses. Low performing students benefited even more, which the researchers noted is particularly important because these students are at high-risk of dropping out. The researchers attribute their results to the students who were denied legal access to marijuana being less likely to use it and to suffer cognitive impairments (e.g., in concentration and memory) as a result.

Other studies have tried to estimate the impact of marijuana legalization by studying those U.S. states that legalized medicinal or recreational marijuana. But marijuana policy researcher Rosalie Pacula of RAND Corporation noted that the Maastricht study provide evidence that “is much better than anything done so far in the United States.”

States differ in countless ways that are hard for researchers to adjust for in their data analysis, but the Maastricht study examined similar people in the same location — some of them even side by side in the same classrooms — making it easier to isolate the effect of marijuana legalization. Also, Pacula pointed out that since voters in U.S. states are the ones who approve marijuana legalization, it creates a chicken and egg problem for researchers (i.e. does legalization make people smoke more pot, or do pot smokers tend to vote for legalization?). This methodological problem was resolved in the Maastricht study because the marijuana policy change was imposed without input from those whom it affected.

Although this is the strongest study to date on how people are affected by marijuana legalization, no research can ultimately tell us whether legalization is a good or bad decision: That’s a political question and not a scientific one. But what the Maastricht study can do is provides highly credible evidence that marijuana legalization will lead to decreased academic success — perhaps particularly so for struggling students — and that is a concern that both proponents and opponents of legalization should keep in mind.

Keith Humphreys is a professor of psychiatry at Stanford University and is an affiliated faculty member at Stanford Law School and the Stanford Neurosciences Institute.

_Panda on July 27th, 2017 at 00:17 UTC »

In case people are interested, the published paper is available here, but requires institutional access. A pre-print version of the paper (from 2016) is freely available here or here. An even earlier discussion paper version from 2015 is available here.

To summarize, they applied a difference-in-differences analysis, which is basically an ANOVA if you are familiar with that method. Originally all students at a school were permitted to legally purchase marijuana. At some point this was changed so that foreign students were not allowed, but local ones were. This allows the researchers to compare the difference in grades from before and after for local students against the difference in grades for foreign ones (hence, difference-in-differences).

Note that this means that this is explicitly NOT a result saying that people who smoke weed do worse. The population for each group is (hopefully) roughly the same before and after the intervention. This is instead evidence that, on average, when college students' legal access to marijuana is cut off, they do better in school. Because of the natural experiment setup, this is not just a correlational result; it actually does provide causal evidence for its conclusion, though how strong you think that evidence is depends on how compelling you find the paper.

Remember that when using this kind of non-experimental data there are always criticisms that can be made against the setup and experiment. But without knowing all the details, this seems to be about as good as natural experiment studies ever get and they found pretty strong results.

sedatemenow on July 27th, 2017 at 00:09 UTC »

It's interesting to me that whenever there is a study that shows positive effects of marijuana, the comments are usually supportive and accepting. When the results of a study on marijuana are negative, a large majority of the comments are skeptical and critical of the study.

staples16 on July 27th, 2017 at 00:04 UTC »

This a really fun thread to read. Everyone is very upset that weed could possibly in any way be negative. Over and under analyzing the study that said when a drug was easily available students did the drug and didn't do well in school. Everything in moderation, even if this drug was coke or adderol I bet the results would be about the same