Association Between the Use of Cannabis and Physical Violence in Youths: A Meta-Analytical Investigation
Publication: American Journal of Psychiatry
Abstract
Objective:
The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the extent to which cannabis use among youths is associated with the risk of perpetrating physical violence.
Methods:
Searches were conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for articles published from the inception of each database to July 2019. All studies that examined both cannabis use and the perpetration of physical violence in a sample of youths and young adults <30 years old were included. The meta-analysis was performed with a random-effects model. Risk of publication bias was assessed with Egger’s test. Guidelines from the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology were followed.
Results:
After screening 11,348 potential studies, 30 study arms were included, yielding a total of 296,815 adolescents and young adults. The odds ratio for the pooled studies was 2.11 (95% CI=1.64, 2.72). The pooled odds ratios were 2.15 (95% CI=1.58, 2.94) and 2.02 (95% CI=1.26, 3.23) for the cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, respectively. Preliminary evidence suggests that the risk of violence was higher for persistent heavy users (odds ratio=2.81, 95% CI=1.68, 4.74) compared with past-year users (odds ratio=2.05, 95% CI=1.5, 2.8) and lifetime users (odds ratio=1.94, 95% CI=1.29, 2.93). The odds ratio for unadjusted studies was 2.62 (95% CI=1.89, 3.62), and for studies using odds ratios adjusted for potential confounding factors, 2.01 (95% CI=1.57, 2.56).
Conclusions:
These results demonstrate a moderate association between cannabis use and physical violence, which remained significant regardless of study design and adjustment for confounding factors (i.e., socioeconomic factors, other substance use). Cannabis use in this population is a risk factor for violence.
Cannabis is the most commonly consumed illicit drug in several countries around the world, including the United States and the United Kingdom, and approximately 3.8% of the world’s population are recreational users (1). In the past few decades, there has been a marked increase in the use of cannabis by young individuals in most developed societies, with occasional use becoming a more common experience (1–3). The use of cannabis typically commences before age 20, with onset peaking between ages 16 and 18 (4). In 2017, 12.4% of adolescents over age 12 and 34.9% of young adults ages 18–25 consumed cannabis in the United States (5). These high rates of cannabis use are a matter of concern, given evidence showing unfavorable cognitive, behavioral, and mental health issues attributed to cannabis use, mainly with frequent and heavy use, among youths (6–8). In fact, a range of adverse outcomes, such as poor social and academic functioning, cognitive impairment, and mental health problems such as psychosis, cannabis dependence, depression, and suicidality, have been shown to be significant among young people (9–15). In addition, these adverse effects often continue throughout the lifespan, leading to enduring physical and psychological difficulties, other substance misuse, and involvement with the criminal justice system (16, 17).
Among the possible consequences of cannabis use for adolescents and young adults, the literature has shown that cannabis use may lead to violent behaviors and aggression; however, this association has been inconsistent in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (18–21). Several studies found a statistically significant association between cannabis use and violence in youths (22–25), and preliminary evidence suggests a dose-response relationship (19, 26–28). For example, in a systematic review and meta-analysis of dating violence among youths ages 11–21, Johnson et al. (29) found that the odds of perpetration of violence were 45% higher among cannabis users compared with non-users (odds ratio=1.45, 95% CI=1.20, 1.76). Conversely, a negative association or no association at all was reported in other studies (21, 30, 31). Additionally, some authors have questioned the directionality of the cannabis-violence association—whether the use of cannabis may lead to involvement in violence or vice versa—and a possible bidirectional relationship has been examined (19, 32, 33). Different mechanisms by which the use of cannabis may be associated with violence have been put forth in the literature (e.g., symptoms related to intoxication and withdrawal or an interaction with a developmental predisposition for aggression [i.e., type of temperament, antisocial traits]) (18). Hence, considering the limitations of recent studies, they leave a somewhat fragmented and unclear picture of the association between cannabis use and violence. For this reason, we chose to conduct a meta-analysis to further clarify the association between cannabis use and violence, and, more specifically, the perpetration of any type of physical violence by adolescents and young adults.
Methods
Study Selection Procedure
Search strategy.
The literature search was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify all relevant research reporting on the cannabis–violence relationship in adolescents and young adults. The search period encompassed the dates from inception of each database up to July 2019. We used text words and indexing terms (MeSH) with keywords that were inclusive for violence (e.g., agress*, fight*) and cannabis use (e.g., marijuana, cannabis, or synonyms). The search syntax tailored for each database is presented in the online supplement . No setting, date, or geographical restrictions were applied, and searches were limited to English- and French-language sources and to samples of adolescents and young adults (<30 years old). The results were compiled, and duplicates were removed using EndNote X9 (EndNote, Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia). Additional records identified through cross-referencing were reviewed to identify other studies. Throughout the screening procedure, two independent researchers (S.P. and A.D.) closely supervised a doctoral student (L.D.) and a medical student (B.Y.D.), who independently assessed all titles and abstracts, along with full texts, of potentially relevant articles.
Study selection.
Peer-reviewed studies were included if they met the following criteria: the sample included adolescents and young adults with a mean age ≤30 years old (maximum mean age of 30 at the follow-up if the study had a longitudinal design); cannabis use or cannabis use disorder was assessed independently of other substances (if many substances were measured, they could not be combined together); perpetration of physical violence was measured; the statistical associations were calculated or could be calculated using odds ratios; and the study was retrospective, cross-sectional, or longitudinal. To obtain a more unified view of physical violence, we included studies if the behaviors being reported comprised acts of physical violence, such as aggravated assault, sexual aggression, fighting, and robbery. If the definition was unclear or included any other type of behavior, such as delinquency, verbal aggression, victimization, or suicidality, the study was excluded. Other studies were excluded from final evaluation if they contained methodological issues (i.e., inadequate statistical analyses, missing data, inadequate data to compute any effect size) that could not be resolved even after contacting the study authors. Studies reporting correlations and linear regressions were also excluded. For multiple studies reporting on the same population with the same study design, we selected either the study with the largest sample size or the one with the most detailed assessment of the frequency of cannabis use. When many types of statistical adjustments for confounding factors were conducted, the value with the most adjustments was chosen. Disagreements on the inclusion of studies were resolved by group discussions with two authors (S.P. and A.D.) to obtain a final consensus.
Data extraction.
A standardized form was used to extract the following data: year of publication, study design (cross-sectional or longitudinal, based on how the measures of cannabis and violence were analyzed), sample size at baseline, mean age of participants at baseline (and at follow-up for longitudinal studies), sex distribution, methods of defining cannabis use (in terms of frequency of use, if provided), methods of defining physical violence, and control variables when statistical adjustments were performed. Reported effect sizes (e.g., odds ratios) with 95% confidence intervals were recorded. For longitudinal studies with many follow-up periods, we chose the most recent time period or the one that encompassed all time periods for our analyses. For cannabis use, all types of frequency measures were extracted to examine a potential dose-response relationship in our subanalyses. Most studies reported lifetime, past-year, or past-month use, and some studies distinguished between occasional users and heavy users or users with cannabis use disorder. We defined persistent heavy users as individuals who were in a persistent cannabis use trajectory or had a cannabis use disorder. For our pooled primary analysis, only the odds ratio for the highest frequency of use or the most recent use of cannabis was included. When different types of categories of physical violence were evaluated separately, the most severe one was extracted. Data extraction was double-checked by the authors to ensure consistency. Quality assessment was independently undertaken by two authors (L.D. and S.P.) in accordance with a set of criteria based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations Checklist for observational studies (34). Studies were classified as being of high, moderate, low, or very low quality (see the online supplement ). To achieve a high standard of reporting, the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines (35) were followed (see the online supplement ).
Statistical Analysis
Data were entered into an electronic database and analyzed with a quantitative meta-analytical approach using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software package, version 2.0 (36). This software employs the same computational algorithms used by the Cochrane collaborators to weigh studies by the inverse variance method. The following qualitative descriptions of the strength of reported odds ratios were used (37): small (range, 1.0–1.5), moderate (range, 1.6–2.5), strong (range, 2.6–9.9), and very strong (≥10.0). Heterogeneity among study point estimates was assessed with the Q statistic (38) and quantified with the I2 index (39). Because substantial heterogeneity was observed, we employed random-effects models that were more conservative than fixed-effects models and appeared to better address heterogeneity between studies and study samples (40). The possibility of publication bias was examined using Egger’s test (41). To determine whether categorical factors modified the effect size, subgroup analyses were performed for study design (cross-sectional compared with longitudinal), type of cannabis use (lifetime and past-year use compared with persistent heavy use), and statistical adjustment for confounders compared with no adjustment. When studies reported both adjusted and unadjusted odds ratios, we used the unadjusted value for the primary analysis and subanalyses, because the adjustment factors were variable between studies. As a secondary analysis, we considered solely studies reporting adjusted odds ratios and conducted the same subanalyses (i.e., study design and type of cannabis use) for this subset of studies.
Results
Study Characteristics
The literature search identified 11,348 articles for potential inclusion that were screened for eligibility after removing duplicates. Three additional studies were identified by cross-referencing and a Google Scholar search. Among these articles, 435 full texts were assessed, and 405 were excluded. After assessment, 30 final study arms were included in this meta-analysis, yielding a total of 296,815 adolescents and young adults (20–23, 26, 27, 31, 42–62). Regarding the study design for the measures extracted, 21 studies were cross-sectional, and nine were longitudinal. The quality of the studies ranged from moderate to high. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flowchart for the inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis is presented in Figure 1. The details of the retrieved studies are summarized in the online supplement .
Cannabis-Violence Association
The odds ratio for the cannabis-violence association from the 30 pooled study arms was 2.11 (95% CI=1.64, 2.72, p=0.0001) (Figure 2). The database used for the primary analysis was characterized by a high level of heterogeneity (Q=2005.9, p=0.0001, I2=98.6%). Egger’s test (t=0.69, p=0.05) suggested that there was no publication bias (see the online supplement ).
FIGURE 2. Forest plot of the association between cannabis use and physical violence in adolescents and young adults
a Young adults were <30 years old. One study (53) estimated the effect for boys and girls separately. Favors A=favors non-perpetration of violence, favors B=favors perpetration of violence.
Subanalyses
First, regarding study design, the pooled odds ratios were 2.15 (95% CI=1.58, 2.94, p=0.0001) and 2.02 (95% CI=1.26, 3.23, p=0.004) for cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, respectively. Second, the risk of violence was higher for persistent heavy users (odds ratio=2.81, 95% CI=1.68, 4.72, p=0.0001) compared with past-year users (odds ratio=2.05, 95% CI=1.5, 2.8, p=0.0001). Lifetime users had an odds ratio of 1.94 (95% CI=1.29, 2.93, p=0.002). Third, the odds ratio for unadjusted studies was 2.62 (95% CI=1.89, 3.62, p=0.0001).
When considering only studies reporting statistics adjusted for confounding factors as a secondary analysis, the odds ratio was 2.01 (95% CI=1.57, 2.56, p=0.0001). Among these studies using adjusted statistics, the odds ratio for cross-sectional studies was 2.17 (95% CI=1.59, 2.98, p=0.0001), and the odds ratio for longitudinal studies was 1.66 (95% CI=1.03, 2.69, p=0.037). Lastly, regarding the frequency of use, persistent use (odds ratio=2.55, 95% CI=1.59, 4.11, p=0.0001) was once again slightly higher than past-year use (odds ratio=2.02, 95% CI=1.51, 2.71, p=0.0001) and lifetime use (odds ratio=1.78, 95% CI=1.22, 2.59, p=0.003). All primary and secondary analyses and subanalyses were characterized by high levels of heterogeneity (Table 1).
| Subanalysis | Study Arms (N) | Effect Size (Odds Ratio) | 95% CI | p | Heterogeneity (I2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary analysis | |||||
| Design | |||||
| Cross-sectional | 21 | 2.15 | 1.58, 2.94 | 0.0001 | 98.9 |
| Longitudinal | 9 | 2.02 | 1.26, 3.23 | 0.0040 | 90.6 |
| Type of cannabis use | |||||
| Persistent heavy use | 7 | 2.81 | 1.68, 4.72 | 0.0001 | 80.6 |
| Past-year use | 19 | 2.05 | 1.50, 2.80 | 0.0001 | 99.0 |
| Lifetime use | 11 | 1.94 | 1.29, 2.93 | 0.0020 | 93.7 |
| Adjustment for confounding factors | |||||
| No adjustment | 11 | 2.62 | 1.89, 3.62 | 0.0001 | 84.6 |
| Secondary analysis | |||||
| Adjustments | 23 | 2.01 | 1.57, 2.56 | 0.0001 | 96.5 |
| Design | |||||
| Cross-sectional | 16 | 2.17 | 1.59, 2.98 | 0.0001 | 97.4 |
| Longitudinal | 7 | 1.66 | 1.03, 2.69 | 0.0370 | 84.5 |
| Type of cannabis use | |||||
| Persistent heavy use | 6 | 2.55 | 1.59, 4.11 | 0.0001 | 70.8 |
| Past-year use | 15 | 2.02 | 1.51, 2.71 | 0.0001 | 97.5 |
| Lifetime use | 9 | 1.78 | 1.22, 2.59 | 0.0030 | 94.3 |
Discussion
Violence has severe health and social consequences, mostly in younger populations. According to the World Health Organization (63), roughly 1.6 million deaths worldwide are attributed to violence, with 10–40 times as many physical injuries requiring medical attention. In this regard, the effects of cannabis on violence have sparked a variety of debates. Our meta-analytical investigation contributes to the body of research by elucidating the association of cannabis use with physical violence in adolescents and young adults. Based on a meta-analysis of 30 study arms, with a considerable sample of 296,815 participants, we found a moderate association between cannabis use and the perpetration of physical violence. The observed relationship remained unchanged regardless of study design and adjustments for confounding factors (i.e., socioeconomic factors, other substance use).
Violence is complex and multifactorial. Nevertheless, this study suggests that cannabis use appears to be a contributing factor in the perpetration of violence. Results of this meta-analysis indicate that cannabis use among youths is moderately associated with physical violence; this finding is derived from studies not only yielding a large sample size of adolescents and young adults but also showing no publication bias. Moreover, these results are consistent with those of a previous review (29). With available data specifically from longitudinal studies included in our meta-analysis, our findings show that cannabis use may indeed lead to perpetration of physical violence later on among adolescents and young adults. Even when considering studies that additionally adjusted for several covariates, the effect remained significant. Although the effect is at best modest, it remains essential given the elevated proportion of youths who used cannabis, both occasionally and frequently (5). Thus, the consumption of cannabis may have short- and long-term consequences, which should be considered in this context. Several potential mechanisms have been established to help explain the observed association. One explanation is that cannabis may affect users’ physiological and psychological states (i.e., it impairs the ability to tamp down aggressive impulses; induces feelings of paranoia, anxiety, and panic; and increases physiological arousal) (18, 20). Particularly in dependent users, abstinence and withdrawal may contribute to irritability and lead to the likelihood of emotional outbursts (18, 64). Another explanation relates to the interaction with interpersonal and contextual factors, which are rarely considered (18). Therefore, the behavioral characteristics of cannabis users may include a higher tolerance for delinquency, more engagement in risk-taking, and more inclination to use other substances that are associated with violence (18, 65, 66).
In addition, our preliminary findings also indicate a slightly larger effect size for persistent heavy users compared with past-year and lifetime users, which suggests an effect for frequency and highlights a potential dose-response relationship. Indeed, heavy persistent users and long-term users (i.e., early-onset cannabis users) have been shown to experience more mental health problems and behavioral problems, such as aggression and delinquency (19, 26, 67, 68). Consistent with findings by Schoeler et al. (19), the adverse effects of cannabis use on subsequent violent behavior throughout the lifespan were driven by continued use, thus suggesting a dose-response relationship. Cannabis use remained an independent significant predictor, although its strength diminished, when we controlled for the presence of antisocial traits at age 10, which had a significant effect on violent behavior. This suggests that the effect of persistency of cannabis use is not fully explained by early antisocial personality traits and further emphasizes the moderate effect of cannabis use only on violent behavior. Such a dose-response relationship is also consistent with the literature on cannabis use and violence among youths (26, 27). Yet, although research has found that youths with frequent, early-onset cannabis use appear to exhibit more adjustment difficulties, those with less frequent, occasional use may nonetheless experience problems (69, 70). It is noteworthy that approximately 10% of users will likely become daily users (71).
Cannabis users, particularly those who are persistent high-frequency users, may be predisposed to cannabis use disorder and other psychiatric disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder (72). The literature on the neurobiological effects of chronic cannabis use may enable us to clarify this relationship, and several reviews of studies of adolescents and adults have sought to explain the neural, cognitive, and behavioral consequences of cannabis use (73–81). Cannabis use, mainly in association with an earlier age at chronic onset (i.e., <16 years old, before brain maturation), may cause disruption of the normal brain maturation processes that occur during the developmental period of young adolescence and may therefore cause deterioration of neural structures associated with inhibition and sensation-seeking, which will likely have long-term consequences for users (73–76, 80–84). For example, a meta-analysis on functional neuroimaging studies of the effects of cannabis use on cognitive control and reward processing found significant cannabis-related decreased activation in the anterior cingulate cortex and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, as well as increased activation in the striatum (81). As suggested by the authors, these functional alterations may represent a systems-level neurobiological mechanism through which problematic, and potentially addictive, cannabis use patterns develop (81). Moreover, these regions are involved in inhibition and therefore have the capacity to regulate problematic behaviors. Such neural deficits are expected to limit one’s ability to suppress the urge to act out violently and heighten the risk of developing antisocial behaviors in adulthood (80, 82–86).
Limitations
Several limitations must be considered when interpreting these findings. First, while no publication bias was detected, the level of heterogeneity between studies was rather large. This may be because the included studies used heterogeneous methods to measure physical violence and had heterogeneous definitions. Second, while many studies included in this meta-analysis did statistically account for confounding factors, few controlled for important confounding factors such as other substance use (i.e., alcohol and stimulant use), conduct problems, psychopathic traits, and history of violence, which are associated with cannabis use and may have better explained the relationship (87). Third, our classification of cannabis use for our dose-response subanalysis was based on frequency of use rather than on actual dose. The included studies were therefore limited by the lack of detailed assessment of cannabis exposure or usage patterns (i.e., type of cannabis, number of joints, dosage, cannabis potency), because these patterns may differentially be linked to violence (88). Fourth, the data suggest a dose-response relationship in which persistent heavy users were at an elevated risk of perpetrating violence (22, 26). This effect was, however, mostly driven by two studies reporting high odds ratios. Studies that target dose-response analyses are accordingly needed. There is a need for more longitudinal studies that have large sample sizes and that distinguish between different types of consumers by quantity of cannabis used. Because most studies examine youths from the community, identifying distinct trajectories of cannabis use among a heterogeneous sample may have some advantages, such as identifying developmental periods during which certain groups of individuals are particularly vulnerable to onset or escalation of cannabis use and identifying subgroups who are at a particularly high risk of experiencing negative consequences related to cannabis use (89). For example, youths with conduct problems who are already at increased risk for both substance use and perpetration of physical violence and have a predisposition to development of violent characteristics may be at increased risk of experiencing negative effects of cannabis use. Finally, a major challenge in the interpretation of findings on the cannabis-violence relationship is to rule out alternative explanations of the association itself and its direction. Whereas our results from longitudinal studies demonstrate that cannabis use may lead to physical violence, results from longitudinal studies may still be attributed to reverse causality (i.e., physical violence increasing or leading to the use of cannabis). Potentially because of our inclusion criteria, insufficient data were available for us to analyze reverse causality (90, 91). Nonetheless, several studies have reported findings consistent with reverse causality, which proposes that physical violence in adolescents and young adults may also augment the risk of initiating cannabis use later on (19, 90–92). Hence, given the limited number of studies analyzed, our findings should be considered with caution.
Conclusions
The studies included in this meta-analysis of a large sample of adolescents and young adults collectively suggest that cannabis use is a moderate risk factor for the perpetration of violence. With ongoing trends toward cannabis legalization in Western countries, youths should be educated about the risks associated with use of cannabis, including the risk of future violence. This meta-analysis suggests that it is crucial to better investigate effective strategies to limit these effects. Hence, large, high-quality studies that take into account important confounding factors, such as other substance use, should be conducted to clarify the directionality and possible dose-response relationship in the cannabis-violence association among youths.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ajp.2019.19101008.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 215.84 KB
References
1.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC): Cannabis and hallucinogens. World Drug Rep 2019; 2019:1–71
2.
Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ: Cannabis use and dependence in a New Zealand birth cohort. N Z Med J 2000; 113:156–158
3.
Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Swain-Campbell N: Cannabis use and psychosocial adjustment in adolescence and young adulthood. Addiction 2002; 97:1123–1135
4.
Chen K, Kandel DB: The natural history of drug use from adolescence to the mid-thirties in a general population sample. Am J Public Health 1995; 85:41–47
5.
Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality: 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables. Rockville, Md, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2018
6.
Fergusson DM, Poulton R, Smith PF, et al: Cannabis and psychosis. BMJ 2006; 332(7534):172–175
7.
Georgiades K, Boyle MH: Adolescent tobacco and cannabis use: young adult outcomes from the Ontario Child Health Study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2007; 48:724–731
8.
Hall WD: Cannabis use and the mental health of young people. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2006; 40:105–113
9.
Di Forti M, Morrison PD, Butt A, et al: Cannabis use and psychiatric and cognitive disorders: the chicken or the egg? Curr Opin Psychiatry 2007; 20:228–234
10.
Gobbi G, Atkin T, Zytynski T, et al: Association of cannabis use in adolescence and risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidality in young adulthood: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 2019; 76:426–434
11.
Grant I, Gonzalez R, Carey CL, et al: Non-acute (residual) neurocognitive effects of cannabis use: a meta-analytic study. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2003; 9:679–689
12.
Copeland J, Rooke S, Swift W: Changes in cannabis use among young people: impact on mental health. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2013; 26:325–329
13.
Hall W: What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational cannabis use? Addiction 2015; 110:19–35
14.
Lynskey M, Hall W: The effects of adolescent cannabis use on educational attainment: a review. Addiction 2000; 95:1621–1630
15.
Macleod J, Oakes R, Copello A, et al: Psychological and social sequelae of cannabis and other illicit drug use by young people: a systematic review of longitudinal, general population studies. Lancet 2004; 363:1579–1588
16.
Wittchen HU, Fröhlich C, Behrendt S, et al: Cannabis use and cannabis use disorders and their relationship to mental disorders: a 10-year prospective-longitudinal community study in adolescents. Drug Alcohol Depend 2007; 88(Suppl 1):S60–S70
17.
Patton GC, Coffey C, Lynskey MT, et al: Trajectories of adolescent alcohol and cannabis use into young adulthood. Addiction 2007; 102:607–615
18.
Moore TM, Stuart GL: A review of the literature on marijuana and interpersonal violence. Aggress Violent Behav 2005; 10:171–192
19.
Schoeler T, Theobald D, Pingault JB, et al: Continuity of cannabis use and violent offending over the life course. Psychol Med 2016; 46:1663–1677
20.
Temple JR, Shorey RC, Fite P, et al: Substance use as a longitudinal predictor of the perpetration of teen dating violence. J Youth Adolesc 2013; 42:596–606
21.
Liakoni E, Gartwyl F, Ricklin M, et al: Psychoactive substances and violent offences: a retrospective analysis of presentations to an urban emergency department in Switzerland. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0195234
22.
Arseneault L, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, et al: Mental disorders and violence in a total birth cohort: results from the Dunedin Study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2000; 57:979–986
23.
Mercado-Crespo MC, Mbah AK: Race and ethnicity, substance use, and physical aggression among US high school students. J Interpers Violence 2013; 28:1367–1384
24.
White HR, Hansell S: Acute and long-term effects of drug use on aggression from adolescence into adulthood. J Drug Issues 1998; 28:837–858
25.
Brook JS, Balka EB, Whiteman M: The risks for late adolescence of early adolescent marijuana use. Am J Public Health 1999; 89:1549–1554
26.
Brook JS, Lee JY, Finch SJ, et al: Developmental trajectories of marijuana use from adolescence to adulthood: relationship with using weapons including guns. Aggress Behav 2014; 40:229–237
27.
Reingle JM, Staras SA, Jennings WG, et al: The relationship between marijuana use and intimate partner violence in a nationally representative, longitudinal sample. J Interpers Violence 2012; 27:1562–1578
28.
Norström T, Rossow I: Cannabis use and violence: Is there a link? Scand J Public Health 2014; 42:358–363
29.
Johnson RM, LaValley M, Schneider KE, et al: Marijuana use and physical dating violence among adolescents and emerging adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend 2017; 174:47–57
30.
Stoddard SA, Epstein-Ngo Q, Walton MA, et al: Substance use and violence among youth: a daily calendar analysis. Subst Use Misuse 2015; 50:328–339
31.
Malik S, Sorenson SB, Aneshensel CS: Community and dating violence among adolescents: perpetration and victimization. J Adolesc Health 1997; 21:291–302
32.
Lim JY, Lui CK: Longitudinal associations between substance use and violence in adolescence through adulthood. J Soc Work Pract Addict 2016; 16:72–92
33.
White HR, Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M, et al: Developmental associations between substance use and violence. Dev Psychopathol 1999; 11:785–803
34.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al: GRADE guidelines: 4. rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64(4):407–415
35.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting: Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283:2008–2012
36.
Borenstein M: Software for publication bias, in Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Edited by Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M. Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley and Sons, 2005, pp 193–220
37.
Rosenthal R, DiMatteo MR: Meta-analysis: recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annu Rev Psychol 2001; 52(1):59–82
38.
Paulson JF, Bazemore SD: Prenatal and postpartum depression in fathers and its association with maternal depression: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2010; 303(19):1961–1969
39.
Lipsey MW, Wilson DB: Practical Meta-Analysis. New York, Sage Publications, 2001
40.
Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC: The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 2009
41.
Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, et al: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315(7109):629–634
42.
Dukarm CP, Byrd RS, Auinger P, et al: Illicit substance use, gender, and the risk of violent behavior among adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1996; 150:797–801
43.
Epstein-Ngo QM, Cunningham RM, Whiteside LK, et al: A daily calendar analysis of substance use and dating violence among high risk urban youth. Drug Alcohol Depend 2013; 130:194–200
44.
Salas-Wright CP, Vaughn MG, Reingle Gonzalez JM, et al: Attacks intended to seriously harm and co-occurring drug use among youth in the united states. Subst Use Misuse 2016; 51:1681–1692
45.
Shorey RC, Stuart GL, McNulty JK, et al: Acute alcohol use temporally increases the odds of male perpetrated dating violence: a 90-day diary analysis. Addict Behav 2014; 39:365–368
46.
Tinklenberg JR, Murphy P, Murphy PL, et al: Drugs and criminal assaults by adolescents: a replication study. J Psychoactive Drugs 1981; 13:277–287
47.
Scholes-Balog KE, Hemphill SA, Evans-Whipp TJ, et al: Developmental trajectories of adolescent cannabis use and their relationship to young adult social and behavioural adjustment: a longitudinal study of Australian youth. Addict Behav 2016; 53:11–18
48.
Hughes K, Bellis MA, Calafat A, et al: Predictors of violence in young tourists: a comparative study of British, German and Spanish holidaymakers. Eur J Public Health 2008; 18:569–574
49.
Lowry R, Cohen LR, Modzeleski W, et al: School violence, substance use, and availability of illegal drugs on school property among US high school students. J Sch Health 1999; 69:347–355
50.
Forman-Hoffman VL, Glasheen C, Batts KR: Marijuana use, recent marijuana initiation, and progression to marijuana use disorder among young male and female adolescents aged 12–14 living in US households. Subst Abuse 2017; 11:1178221817711159
51.
Lukash A, Killias M: Cannabis use, binge-drinking, nightlife and violence among with and without immigration background in Switzerland and ex-Yugoslavian countries. J Forensic Crime 2018; 2:201
52.
Herrenkohl TI, Lee J, Hawkins JD: Risk versus direct protective factors and youth violence: Seattle social development project. Am J Prev Med 2012; 43(Suppl 1):S41–S56
53.
Schepis TS, Desai RA, Cavallo DA, et al: Gender differences in adolescent marijuana use and associated psychosocial characteristics. J Addict Med 2011; 5:65–73
54.
Grunbaum JA, Basen-Engquist K, Pandey D: Association between violent behaviors and substance use among Mexican-American and non-Hispanic white high school students. J Adolesc Health 1998; 23:153–159
55.
Nabors EL: Drug use and intimate partner violence among college students: an in-depth exploration. J Interpers Violence 2010; 25:1043–1063
56.
Wei EH, Loeber R, White HR: Teasing apart the developmental associations between alcohol and marijuana use and violence. J Contemp Crim Justice 2004; 20:166–183
57.
Tucker JS, Ellickson PL, Orlando M, et al: Substance use trajectories from early adolescence to emerging adulthood: a comparison of smoking, binge drinking, and marijuana use. J Journal of Drug Issues 2005; 35:307–332
58.
Grest CV, Amaro H, Unger J: Longitudinal predictors of intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization in Latino emerging adults. J Youth Adolesc 2018; 47:560–574
59.
Foshee VA, Reyes HL, Ennett ST: Examination of sex and race differences in longitudinal predictors of the initiation of adolescent dating violence perpetration. J Aggress Maltreat Trauma 2010; 19:492–516
60.
McNaughton Reyes HL, Foshee VA, Bauer DJ, et al: Proximal and time-varying effects of cigarette, alcohol, marijuana and other hard drug use on adolescent dating aggression. J Adolesc 2014; 37:281–289
61.
Shorey RC, Stuart GL, Moore TM, et al: The temporal relationship between alcohol, marijuana, angry affect, and dating violence perpetration: a daily diary study with female college students. Psychol Addict Behav 2014; 28:516–523
62.
Walton MA, Cunningham RM, Goldstein AL, et al: Rates and correlates of violent behaviors among adolescents treated in an urban emergency department. J Adolesc Health 2009; 45:77–83
63.
World Health Organization: Global status report on violence prevention, 2014. Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization, 2014
64.
Smith PH, Homish GG, Leonard KE, et al: Marijuana withdrawal and aggression among a representative sample of US marijuana users. Drug Alcohol Depend 2013; 132:63–68
65.
Goode E: Drugs in American Society, 7th ed. Boston, McGraw-Hill, 2008
66.
Hall W, Degenhardt L: Prevalence and correlates of cannabis use in developed and developing countries. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2007; 20:393–397
67.
Huas C, Hassler C, Choquet M: Has occasional cannabis use among adolescents also to be considered as a risk marker? Eur J Public Health 2008; 18:626–629
68.
Windle M, Wiesner M: Trajectories of marijuana use from adolescence to young adulthood: predictors and outcomes. Dev Psychopathol 2004; 16:1007–1027
69.
Swift W, Coffey C, Carlin JB, et al: Are adolescents who moderate their cannabis use at lower risk of later regular and dependent cannabis use? Addiction 2009; 104:806–814
70.
Lynne-Landsman SD, Bradshaw CP, Ialongo NS: Testing a developmental cascade model of adolescent substance use trajectories and young adult adjustment. Dev Psychopathol 2010; 22:933–948
71.
World Health Organization: The health and social effects of nonmedical cannabis use. Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization, 2016
72.
Lowe DJE, Sasiadek JD, Coles AS, et al: Cannabis and mental illness: a review. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2019; 269:107–120
73.
Blest-Hopley G, Giampietro V, Bhattacharyya S: Residual effects of cannabis use in adolescent and adult brains: a meta-analysis of fMRI studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2018; 88:26–41
74.
Chye Y, Christensen E, Yücel M: Cannabis use in adolescence: a review of neuroimaging findings. J Dual Diagn 2020; 16:83–105
75.
Lorenzetti V, Chye Y, Silva P, et al: Does regular cannabis use affect neuroanatomy? an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of structural neuroimaging studies. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2019; 269:59–71
76.
Batalla A, Bhattacharyya S, Yücel M, et al: Structural and functional imaging studies in chronic cannabis users: a systematic review of adolescent and adult findings. PLoS One 2013; 8:e55821
77.
Bhattacharyya S, Atakan Z, Martin-Santos R, et al: Neural mechanisms for the cannabinoid modulation of cognition and affect in man: a critical review of neuroimaging studies. Curr Pharm Des 2012; 18:5045–5054
78.
Kowal MA, Hazekamp A, Colzato LS, et al: Modulation of cognitive and emotional processing by cannabidiol: the role of the anterior cingulate cortex. Front Hum Neurosci 2013; 7:147
79.
Martín-Santos R, Fagundo AB, Crippa JA, et al: Neuroimaging in cannabis use: a systematic review of the literature. Psychol Med 2010; 40:383–398
80.
Wrege J, Schmidt A, Walter A, et al: Effects of cannabis on impulsivity: a systematic review of neuroimaging findings. Curr Pharm Des 2014; 20:2126–2137
81.
Yanes JA, Riedel MC, Ray KL, et al: Neuroimaging meta-analysis of cannabis use studies reveals convergent functional alterations in brain regions supporting cognitive control and reward processing. J Psychopharmacol 2018; 32:283–295
82.
Gruber SA, Sagar KA, Dahlgren MK, et al: Age of onset of marijuana use and executive function. Psychol Addict Behav 2012; 26:496–506
83.
Gruber SA, Dahlgren MK, Sagar KA, et al: Worth the wait: effects of age of onset of marijuana use on white matter and impulsivity. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2014; 231:1455–1465
84.
Jacobus J, Tapert SF: Effects of cannabis on the adolescent brain. Curr Pharm Des 2014; 20:2186–2193
85.
Brook JS, Zhang C, Brook DW: Antisocial behavior at age 37: developmental trajectories of marijuana use extending from adolescence to adulthood. Am J Addict 2011; 20:509–515
86.
Howard RC, Menkes DB: Brief report: changes in brain function during acute cannabis intoxication: preliminary findings suggest a mechanism for cannabis-induced violence. Crim Behav Ment Health 2007; 17:113–117
87.
Macleod J, Oakes R, Copello A, et al: Psychological and social sequelae of cannabis and other illicit drug use by young people: a systematic review of longitudinal, general population studies. Lancet 2004; 363:1579–1588
88.
Temple EC, Brown RF, Hine DW: The ‘grass ceiling’: limitations in the literature hinder our understanding of cannabis use and its consequences. Addiction 2011; 106:238–244
89.
Rapkin BD, Dumont KA: Methods for identifying and assessing groups in health behavioral research. Addiction 2000; 95(Suppl 3):S395–S417
90.
Lim JY, Lui CK: Longitudinal associations between substance use and violence in adolescence through adulthood. J Soc Work Pract Addict 2016; 16:72–92
91.
Herrenkohl TI, Catalano RF, Hemphill SA, et al: Longitudinal examination of physical and relational aggression as precursors to later problem behaviors in adolescents. Violence Vict 2009; 24:3–19
92.
White HR, Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M, et al: Developmental associations between substance use and violence. Dev Psychopathol 1999; 11:785–803
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 1 October 2019
Revision received: 25 November 2019
Accepted: 10 January 2020
Published online: 27 May 2020
Published in print: July 01, 2020
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
Dr. Dumais has received a Junior 2 Salary Award from Fonds de Recherche du Québec en Santé. Dr. Potvin is holder of the Eli Lilly Canada Chair on schizophrenia research. Ms. Dellazizzo has received a doctoral scholarship from Fonds de Recherche du Québec en Santé. Ms. Beaudoin and Ms. Luigi have received master’s degree scholarships from Fonds de Recherche du Québec en Santé. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).