In Reply Both our study1 and that of Bradford and colleagues2 have been called into question by the analysis of Bleyer and Barnes.3 However, their statistical treatment of states with regard to states’ policies is misleading. Rather than use the longitudinal data at their disposal to examine the changes in states’ cannabis policies over the 2010-2016 period and evaluate whether these changes affected opioid outcomes, Bleyer and Barnes assigned states a cannabis policy for the entire period based on the policy in effect in the state as of 2016.3 For example, in their analysis, Florida was considered as having a cannabidiol extract law from 2010 through 2016, even though the law was not in place until August 2016. Thus in their study, opioid deaths in Florida in 2010 are attributed to the 2016 law change.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Hockenberry JM, Wen H. Opioid Death Rate Acceleration in Jurisdictions Legalizing Marijuana Use—Reply. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(9):1282. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3894
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: