Research paperCross-national comparison of adolescent drinking and cannabis use in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands
Introduction
Adolescent use of alcohol and cannabis are major public health and legal concerns in all Western countries, given the evidence of association with concurrent and future harm (Baumeister & Tossmann, 2005; Blows et al., 2005; Ellickson, Tucker, Klein, & Saner, 2004; Hingston, Heeren, Jamanka, & Howland, 2000; Monshouwer et al., 2006). Despite health and safety concerns and societal restrictions on availability, alcohol and cannabis use are relatively prevalent during adolescence, with substantial minorities in Western countries reporting regular use, despite declines over the past decade (Adlaf, Begin, & Sawka, 2005; Andersson et al., 2007; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006; Hibell et al., 2004; Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2007). However, it has been difficult for countries to develop laws and implement policies that limit drinking and cannabis use among adolescents while minimizing economic and social costs.
Laws and policies are in place in most Western countries to limit access and restrict use of substances (Brand, Saisana, Rynn, Pennoni, & Lowenfels, 2007; MacCoun & Reuter, 2001). However, drug laws tend to be complicated, subject to interpretation, and enforced and adjudicated variably. National laws and policies tend to range between strict penalty-and-punishment and harm-minimization (Brand et al., 2007; Grube & Nygaard, 2001; Lenton, 2003, Toumbourou et al., 2007). One basis for penalty approaches is the notion from demand theory that use should decline as the cost of the drug and penalties increase (Desimone & Farrelly, 2003). Accordingly, penalty approaches seek to make drug use difficult and expensive, with strict and certain consequences of arrest. However, the relationship between cost and prevalence is not consistent and penalty approaches can result in substantial negative social and economic consequences (King & Mauer, 2006). In contrast, harm-minimization/harm-reduction approaches focus on reducing higher risk use like drinking and driving and drug trafficking (Grube & Nygaard, 2001; Stockwell, 2001) and seek to minimize the costs to society of enforcement, adjudication, incarceration, and lost productivity (Lenton, 2003). While laws are slow to change, policy guidelines influence actual enforcement and adjudication practices (King & Mauer, 2006; Lenton, 2003).
In theory, laws designed to restrict the availability and use of alcohol and cannabis should influence adolescent prevalence (MacCoun & Reuter, 1997; Toumbourou, 2005), but research on the effectiveness of various policy approaches is limited (Giesbrecht & Greenfield, 1999; Lenton, 2003; MacCoun & Reuter, 1997), and enforcement, adjudication policy and other factors may also contribute to the variance in prevalence (Reuter, 2002, Toumbourou et al., 2007; Degenhardt, Chiu, Sampson, & Kessler, 2008). With respect to alcohol, one of the clearest findings is an inverse relationship between legal drinking age and alcohol-related motor vehicle injuries (Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002; Grube & Nygaard, 2001; Hingston et al., 2000, Toumbourou, 2005). With respect to cannabis, there is little evidence that criminalization reduces use (Senate of Canada, 2001). Notably, the prevalence of cannabis use among adults is no greater in the Netherlands than in the United States (MacCoun & Reuter, 1997; Abraham, Hendrien, Kaal, Peter, & Cohen, 2002; Reinarmann, Cohen, & Kall, 2004).
Surprisingly, no studies have compared the population prevalence of alcohol and cannabis use among adolescents in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands, countries with quite different laws and policies regarding minimum age to purchase, jurisdiction, and criminal sanctions for possession and consumption and enforcement and adjudication policies (Brand et al., 2007; MacCoun & Reuter, 2001). U.S. laws and policies are relatively strict, enforcement is a priority, and strict penalties apply to both users and sellers (Grube & Nygaard, 2001; Lenton, 2003; Beyers, Toumbourou, Catalano, Arthur, & Hawkins, 2004). In contrast, the Netherlands employs a unique, harm-reduction policy approach that does not impose criminal sanctions for possession and use of small amounts and employs lax enforcement of possession laws (Lenton, 2003). Canadian policies (Health Canada, 2006), are somewhere in between, with federal laws that are similar to those in the United States, but with enforcement and judicial practices that are more consistent with harm-reduction (Senate of Canada, 2001).
Notably, the legal age to drink in the United States is 21 (with some exceptions for drinking with parents) in all states, 19 in Canada (18 in three provinces), and no minimum age to drink in the Netherlands and 16 to purchase alcohol (Brand et al., 2007, World Health Organization, 2004a). Alcoholic beverage purchase, possession, and consumption (in some states) are criminal offenses in the United States, but not in Canada or the Netherlands where these are statutory offences involving fines at most. Except for legal age, jurisdiction of alcohol policies is somewhat decentralized in the United States, where national laws are sometimes preempted by local laws, which usually results in more strict policies (Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002). The legal drinking age in Canadian is determined provincially. In the Netherlands laws are national, with a few provincial or local exceptions.
Cannabis policies also vary across countries (MacCoun & Reuter, 2001; NORML, 2003). There is no legal age for purchase in the United States and Canada, but for decades the Netherlands has allowed regulated sales of small amounts of cannabis to those 18 and older. The jurisdiction of legislation is federal in Canada, but in the Netherlands and the United States some local or state policies are stricter than national policies (NORML, 2003, NORML, 2006). Purchase and possession (in some states) of cannabis are nominally criminal offences in the United States and Canada. In the United States most offenses are treated as criminal misdemeanors, resulting in a criminal record and incarceration or probation, but in Canada most offenses are treated as statutory offenses, resulting in a fine with no criminal record or incarceration. Only the United States requires mandatory sentencing (for all federal offences and in 23 states) for convictions of possession of relative small amounts (typically > .05 oz) of cannabis. In the United States cannabis laws are primary and enforcement is a priority, leading to hundreds of thousands of arrests annually for cannabis offenses, mostly for possession (King & Mauer, 2006). In Canada and the Netherlands cannabis possession and use are generally tolerated by police, with considerable local variability in enforcement. The complexity of policy is illustrated by the approach in the Netherlands, where the sale of cannabis in officially designed “coffee shops” to those over age 18 is regulated (and taxed), but it is not actually legal to grow or sell cannabis, even to coffee shop owners, although such transactions are tolerated (Abraham et al., 2002; MacCoun & Reuter, 2001).
A key indicator of the lower social costs of harm-reduction approaches compared with penalty approaches is the number of arrests for drug-related offenses. Arrests of juveniles for drug-related offenses are extremely low in Canada, with only 2236 such cases in 2006 (Statistics Canada, 2008). Meanwhile, the same year in the United States there were 168,888 arrests of juveniles for drug use, most of which was for cannabis possession, and another 250,000 alcohol-related arrests of juveniles, mostly for underage possession (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2006). While drug-related arrests are not uncommon in the Netherlands and Holland (Barclay & Tavares, 2003), arrests of juveniles for possession of alcohol or cannabis are virtually non-existent (Statistics Netherlands, 2008).
While substance use policies change over time, most youth-directed alcohol and cannabis policies have been in place in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands for at least a decade. If demand theory is correct, the prevalence in these countries should be related to the strictness of national policies (MacCoun & Reuter, 1997). The Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) survey was conducted in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands (and other countries) in 2005–2006 (Roberts et al., 2007). The survey provided an unusual opportunity to compare alcohol and cannabis use rates in these countries using national survey data with the same questionnaire items and participant ages. The purpose of this study is to examine the prevalence of drinking and cannabis use among 10th grade boys and girls in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands.
Section snippets
Method
The Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children survey has been conducted every 4 years in many European countries since 1985, in Canada since 1989/1990, and in the United States since 1997/1998. In 2005–2006, 41 countries participated in the survey. The survey is designed to assess a variety of variables, including health indicators and behaviours among 6th–10th grade students, including substance use of 10th graders. Each participating country must use approved survey methodology to provide a
Results
The samples of 10th graders in each study are shown in Table 2, including 1559 in the United States, 1973 in Canada, and 1326 in the Netherlands. The mean ages of the samples were 16.1 years in the United States, 15.8 years in Canada, and 16.0 years in the Netherlands.
Drinking prevalence for each measure is shown in Table 3, with relative risks calculated with the United States as the referent (significant differences are indicated in bold). On most measures, prevalence was higher in Canada and
Discussion
In this paper we report the prevalence of drinking and cannabis use among national samples of adolescents from the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands, countries with diverse substance use policy approaches. We identified those laws that would seem most important for adolescent access and use and scored them for strictness in each country. The ordinal system employed provided scores that were consistent with the general reputations of the countries, with the United States rated the most
Conclusion
The prevalence rates for adolescent alcohol use for the three countries are consistent with the contention that strict policies may have the intended effect of limiting prevalence. However, the data provide no evidence that strict cannabis laws in the United States provide protective effects compared to the similarly restrictive but less vigorously enforced laws in place in Canada, and the regulated access approach in the Netherlands. Given the cross-sectional nature of the research, the data
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no financial or personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence or bias this work.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge Suzanne Dostaler for initial work on the analyses and Jeremy Luk for literature review and manuscript preparation. This research was supported [in part] by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, contract # N01-HD-5-3401.
References (43)
- et al.
Association between early onset of cigarette. Alcohol and cannabis use and later drug use patterns: An analysis of a survey in European Metropolises
European Addiction Research
(2005) - et al.
A cross-national comparison of risk and protective factors for adolescent substance use: The United States and Australia
Journal of Adolescent Health
(2004) - et al.
Assessment of factors affecting the validity of self-reported health-risk behavior among adolescents: Evidence from the scientific literature
Journal of Adolescent Health
(2003) - et al.
Antecedents and outcomes of marijuana use initiation during adolescence
Journal of Preventative Medicine
(2004) - et al.
Adolescent alcohol and cannabis use in relation to peer and school factors. Results of multilevel analyses
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
(2006) - et al.
Interventions to reduce harm associated with adolescent substance use
Lancet
(2007) - et al.
Licit and illicit drug use in the Netherlands, 2001
(2002) - et al.
Canadian Addiction Survey (CAS): A national survey of Canadians’ use of alcohol and other drugs: Prevalence of use and related harms: Detailed report
(2005) - et al.
Alcohol and drug use among European 17–18 year old students: Data from the ESPAD project
(2007) - et al.
International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 2001
(2003)