Marijuana medicalization and motor vehicle fatalities: a synthetic control group approach

Abstract

Objectives

This paper reports a quasi-experimental evaluation of California’s 1996 medical marijuana law (MML), known as Proposition 215, on statewide motor vehicle fatalities between 1996 and 2015.

Methods

To infer the causal impact of California’s MML enactment on statewide motor vehicle fatalities, we construct a synthetic control group for California (i.e., California had it NOT enacted MMLs) as a weighted sum of annual traffic fatality time series from a donor pool of untreated (no MML) states. The post-MML difference between California and its constructed counterfactual reflects the net effect of MMLs on statewide traffic fatalities. The synthetic control group design avoids the problematic homogeneity assumptions intrinsic to panel regression models, which have been employed in prominent studies of this topic.

Results

California’s 1996 MML appears to have produced a large, sustained decrease in statewide motor vehicle fatalities amounting to an annual reduction between 588 and 900 vehicle fatalities. This finding is consistent across a wide range of model specifications and donor pool restrictions. In-sample placebo test results suggest that the estimated intervention effect is unlikely to be a spurious artifact and the “leave-one-out” sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the effect is not being driven by an individual or ensemble of influential donor pool states.

Conclusions

Our focus on California as a case study limits our ability to generalize our estimate of the MML intervention on motor vehicle fatalities in California to other MML states; however, state-level MML interventions have major differences in their policy dimensions that seem unlikely to “average out” through aggregation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. Journal of the American statistical Association, 105(490), 493–505.

  2. Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2011). Synth: an r package for synthetic control methods in comparative case studies. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(13).

  3. Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2015). Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 495–510.

  4. Abadie, A., & Gardeazabal, J. (2003). The economic costs of conflict: a case study of the Basque Country. American Economic Review, 113–132.

  5. Anderson, D. M., Hansen, B., & Rees, D. I. (2013). Medical marijuana laws, traffic fatalities, and alcohol consumption. Journal of Law and Economics, 56, 333–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Asbridge, M., Hayden, J., & Cartwright, J. (2012). Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: Systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 344, e536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bates, M. N., & Blakely, T. A. (1999). Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes. Epidemiologic Reviews, 21, 222–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Braun, B. L., Tekawa, I. S., Gerberich, S. G., & Sidney, S. (1998). Marijuana use and medically attended injury events. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 32, 353–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Busby, A.M. (2010) Seeking a second opinion: how to cure Maryland’s medical marijuana law. University of Baltimore Law Review, 139–181.

  10. Chaloupka, F. J., & Laixuthai, A. (1997). Do youths substitute alcohol and marijuana? Some econometric evidence. Eastern Economic Journal, 23, 253–276.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Crost, B., & Guerrero, S. (2012). The effect of alcohol availability on marijuana use: evidence from the minimum legal drinking age. Journal of Health Economics, 31, 112–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. DiNardo, J., & Lemieux, T. (2001). Alcohol, marijuana, and American youth: the unintended consequences of government regulation. Journal of Health Economics, 20, 991–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fairman, B. J. (2016). Trends in registered medical marijuana participation across 13 US states and District of Columbia. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 159, 72–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Farrelly, M. C., Bray, J. W., Zarkin, G. A., Wendling, B. W., & Pacula, R. L. (1999). The effects of prices and policies on the demand for marijuana: evidence from the National Household Surveys on drug abuse. working paper 6940. National Bureau of Economic Research.

  15. Gerberich, S. G., Sidney, S., Braun, B. L., Tekawa, I. S., Tolan, K. K., & Quesenberry, C. P. (2003). Marijuana use and injury events resulting in hospitalization. Annals of Epidemiology, 13, 230–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. E. (1997). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme. The Review of Economic Studies, 64, 605–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American statistical Association, 81(396), 945–960.

  19. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kann, L., Warren, C. W., Harris, W. A., Collins, J. L., Williams, B. I., Ross, J. G., & Kolbe, L. J. (1996). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 1995. Journal of School Health, 66, 365–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology: the science of the living world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. McCleary, R., McDowall, D., & Bartos, B. (2017). Design and analysis of time series experiments. Oxford University Press.

  23. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2014). FARS analytic reference guide 1975 to 2014. Washington, DC: Department of Transportation.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pacula, R. L. (1998). Does increasing the beer tax reduce marijuana consumption? Journal of Health Economics, 17, 557–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pacula, R. L., Powell, D., Heaton, P., & Sevigny, E. L. (2015). Assessing the effects of medical marijuana laws on marijuana use: the devil is in the details. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(1), 7–31.

  26. Powell, D., Pacula, R. L., & Jacobson, M. (2015). Do medical marijuana laws reduce addictions and deaths related to pain killers? Working Paper 21345, National Bureau of Economic Research. July, 2015.

  27. Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rubin, D. B. (2005). Causal inference using potential outcomes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100, 322–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Saffer, H., & Chaloupka, F. J. (1999). The demand for illicit drugs. Economic Inquiry, 37, 401–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vitiello, M. (1998). Proposition 215: de facto legalization of pot and the shortcomings of direct democracy. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 31, 707–776.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Williams, J., Pacula, R. L., Chaloupka, F. J., & Wechsler, H. (2004). Alcohol and marijuana use among college students: Economic complements or substitutes? Health Economics, 13, 825–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Windelband, W. (1894). Geschichte der alten Philosophie: Nebst einem anhang: abriss der Geschichte der Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften. In Altertum von Siegmund Gunter. Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted using publicly available data and did not receive any external support or funding.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available in the Harvard Dataverse repository, [URL temporarily censored to avoid compromising blind review].

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bradley J. Bartos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Synthetic control group algebra

Suppose that \( {Y}_{it}^M \) is given by a factor model,

$$ {Y}_{it}^M={\delta}_t+{0}_t{Z}_{i+}{\lambda}_t{\mu}_t+{\varepsilon}_{it} $$
(1)

where δt is an unknown common factor with constant factor loadings across units, Zi is a (r × 1) vector of observed covariates that are unaffected by the intervention, θt is a (1 × r) vector of unknown parameters, λt is a (1 × F) vector of unobserved common factors, μt is an (F × 1) vector of unknown factor loadings, and the error terms εit are unobserved transitory shocks at the region level with zero mean.

Let W = (w2, …, wJ + 1) be a (J × 1) vector of donor pool unit weights, selected via a constrained quadratic programming optimization routine, to minimize (X1-X0W)V(X1-X0W). Where X1 is a (K × 1) vector of pre-intervention values of K predictive factors of outcome Y for the treated unit, X0 is a (K × J) matrix of the same K predictive factors for the untreated units, and V is a (K × K) positive definite matrix whose diagonal elements are weights reflecting the relative importance of the factors in X1 and X0. Each value of the vector W represents a potential synthetic control (i.e., a weighted combination of control units). The value of the outcome variable Y for each synthetic control indexed by W is

$$ \sum \limits_{j=2}^{J+1}{w}_j{Y}_{jt}={\delta}_t+{\uptheta}_t\sum \limits_{j=2}^{J+1}{w}_j{Z}_j+{\lambda}_t\sum \limits_{j=2}^{J+1}{w}_j{\mu}_j+\sum \limits_{j=2}^{J+1}{w}_j{\upvarepsilon}_{jt} $$

Therefore,

$$ {Y}_{it}^N-\sum \limits_{j=2}^{J+1}{w}_j{Y}_{jt}^N={\uptheta}_t\left({Z}_{1^{-}}\sum \limits_{j=2}^{J+1}{w}_j{Z}_j\right)+{\lambda}_t\left(\mu -\sum \limits_{j=2}^{J+1}{w}_j{\mu}_j\right)+\sum \limits_{j=2}^{J+1}{w}_j\left({\varepsilon}_{1t}-{\varepsilon}_{jt}\right) $$
(2)

As Abadie, Diamond, and Hainmueller (2010) note, we assume that the error terms εit are independent across units and time. However, the unobserved residual uit = λtμt + εit may be correlated across units and time regardless of the assumed independence of εit because of the presence of the term λtμt. If the term λt is assumed to be constant for all times t, then Eq. (1) produces the traditional fixed-effects difference-in-differences model. Since the model presented in Abadie, Diamond, and Hainmueller (2010) allows the effect of unobserved confounders to vary over time, taking time differences does not eliminate the potential bias of unobserved confounders μt. Suppose that there are \( \left({w}_2^{\ast },\dots, {w}_{J+1}^{\ast}\right) \) such that

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{cc}\sum \limits_{j=2}^{J+1}{w}_j^{\ast }{Y}_{j1}={Y}_{11},& \sum \limits_{j=2}^{J+1}{w}_j^{\ast }{Y}_{j2}={Y}_{12},\dots, \\ {}\sum \limits_{j=2}^{J+1}{w}_j^{\ast }{Y}_{j{T}_0=}{Y}_{1{T}_0},\mathrm{and}& \sum \limits_{j=2}^{J+1}{w}_j^{\ast }{Z}_j={Z}_1\end{array}} $$
(3)

then the effect of the intervention can be estimated as the difference between the observed outcome variable \( {Y}_{it}^M \)and the estimated outcome for the synthetic control unit:

$$ {\widehat{\alpha}}_{1t}={Y}_{1t}+\sum \limits_{j=2}^{J+1}\left({w}_j^{\ast }{Y}_{jt}\right) $$
(4)

Equation (3) can hold exactly only if (Y11,...,Y1T0,\( {\boldsymbol{Z}}_1^{\acute{\mkern6mu}} \)) belongs to the convex hull of {(Y21,...,Y2T0, \( {\boldsymbol{Z}}_2^{\acute{\mkern6mu}} \)), ..., (YJ + 11,...,YJ + 1T0,\( {\boldsymbol{Z}}_{J+1}^{\acute{\mkern6mu}} \))}. Often, no set of weights exists that would allow for Eq. (3) to hold exactly. When that is the case, weights are selected so that Eq. (3) holds approximately.

Appendix 2.

Table 3 Synthetic control group composition
Table 4 Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis composition comparison

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bartos, B.J., Newark, C. & McCleary, R. Marijuana medicalization and motor vehicle fatalities: a synthetic control group approach. J Exp Criminol 16, 247–264 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9345-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Medical marijuana
  • Traffic fatalities
  • Synthetic control
  • Policy evaluation
  • Time series
  • Drug policy