To continue, when participants were asked about whether or not they have noted marijuana recovery programs within their counties or the state, they responded that they have not heard of marijuana recovery programs nor have they seen visual representations/advocacy associated with these programs. Because the respondents conveyed that they were unaware of marijuana recovery programs within South Central LA, this finding suggests that the existence marijuana use recovery programs have been obfuscated not only due to the acceptance of marijuana legalization, but also due to ineffective community educational programming tailored to the promotion of marijuana recovery programs in South Central LA. It was implied that more visual flyers and media promotion must be available to shed light onto current highly regulated community educational programming directed towards marijuana mis-use prevention/recovery strategies. In alignment with Goldstick’s argument, education in the form of disseminating “health outcomes” is crucial in informing decision making/intervention strategies. Dissemination of health outcomes through increased production of visual aids may establish presence of these interventions, while reinforcing their benefits in lowering marijuana dependency. It can also be inferred that ineffective community educational programming may not only hinder the development of these intervention strategies, but also may create nebulousness around substance mis-use recovery program compilation as well as subsequent dissemination. For adults, the implementation and uncovering of medical marijuana education programs, assisted in the reduction of adult marijuana mis-use instances, in comparison to loosely regulated marijuana prevention programs. Consequently, the presence of tight marijuana educational programming, whether its medical marijuana education or marijuana mis-use prevention,mobile vertical grow tables can be beneficial in lowering youth ingestion of marijuana alongside decreasing their inclination to access marijuana within outlets.
With this study finding bolstered by Goldstick’s and Lemstra’s argument as well as supported by Williams, it further coalesces with the research question: “can effective educational programming spur awareness on marijuana mis-use rates amongst adolescents of color, while emphasizing the presence of marijuana mis-use recovery initiatives amidst the indoctrinating marketing behind marijuana outlet formation and decreasing youth consumption of marijuana?”Towards the end of the focus group discussion, respondents provided their opinions on types of community educational programs which could be beneficial towards educating youth communities of color on the dangers of marijuana mis-use as well as challenge the effects of social disorganization factors such as lacking educational programming materials which could prompt increases in marijuana mis-use rates. Specifically, respondents proposed that increased community intervention programming, related to long-term deleterious effects of marijuana as well as marijuana outlet development prevention, that are implemented in middle schools and high schools may steer youth from mis-using marijuana. These programs that were suggested by respondents were also said to be effective in encouraging middle/high schoolers to turn to marijuana recovery programs if addiction behaviors prevail. This finding suggests that effective educational programming in the form of informative presentations with subtopics such as short/long-term effects of marijuana, perceptions behind marijuana use, as well as statistics that show target groups mostly affected by marijuana use, can not only educate youth on marijuana mis-use prevention, but also it can prevent marijuana outlet construction and sensationalized marketing towards youth. Continuing this, according to a systematic review conducted by Lemstra, researchers unraveled that school-based marijuana prevention programs helped adolescents reduce marijuana usage per month by 7 days.
This result is validated by Lemstra’s argument and further implicates that effective educational curricula development tailored to youth attunement on marijuana mis-use can potentially attenuate the likelihood of youth accessing marijuana outlet concentrations within South Central LA. When I attended Drug Take Back Day in South Central LA, SCPC volunteers and I encouraged event attendees to fill out a survey that asked them to strongly agree or disagree with statements related to the effectiveness of these events as a means to shed light on increased substance mis-use practices. Ninety percent of survey respondents who participated in active prescription drug disposal and who filled out the survey agreed that safe drug disposal events are beneficial for the community. This result suggests that the creation of events, similar to the engaging Drug Take Back Day event, can be developed to not only incorporate marijuana mis-use education/safe substance prevention practices in South Central LA, but also empower attendees to resist adverse drug marketing/outlet construction community indicators. Ultimately, this ties into the research inquiry presented above in that this finding provides support for whether the effectiveness of educational programming in a community event format can dismantle substance mis-use behaviors spurred by social disorganization indicators. Within the study data collection tools and methodology, study limitations were identified. During the focus group interview, eight individuals participated in this interview and received a monetary award for their participation. To strengthen evidence for the research question as well as effectively seal the gaps presented in the literature review, the focus group interview could have included a total of 12-15 individuals and more focus group interviews could have been conducted if time permitted. Additionally, the decreased quantity of focus group interviews tailored toward the exploration of increased marjiuana mis-use as well as contributing causes to marijuana mis-use amongst adolescents, posed as a limitation to this community engaged research.
This study utilized one focus group interview session that spanned 2 hours, however, if more focus group interviews were conducted with different sets of 12 participants each, then the credibility of the results as well as the application of the results to the research goals could have been improved. By including a few more participants and focus group interview sessions, more responses to the questions asked could have been analyzed and validated the use of the data tools in corroborating research goals as well as the overarching research question. Lastly, during the Drug Take Back day event, program evaluation surveys were devised and administered to participating individuals within South Central LA. With only nine participants filling out the Drug Take Back Day survey pertaining to the disadvantages and advantages in holding the Drug Take Back Day structured event,mobile vertical farm this small sample size overall alongside limited outreach about the event to community members may present another limitation to this community engaged research project. Therefore, increasing the sample size from 9 to around 50 participants may authenticate participants responses to questions pertaining to whether the Drug Take Back day event goals/practices or events similar to this were beneficial as well as may substantiate whether general perceptions suggest that more events similar to Drug Take Back day construction will sideline the historically based propulsion of substance outlet development. Future research that could be undertaken would be creating surveys before and after marijuana mis-use presentation materials to further record whether participants agreed with statements regarding marijuana mis-use before/after the presentation as well as evaluate whether they were/are aware of the information presented. Additionally, the responses from these surveys can be used to substantiate community programming/marijuana prevention programming development within South Central LA. Further research can also investigate strategy based proposals in regards to reducing the prevalence of marijuana outlet presence/development in South Central LA. Data collection tools that may be used for this would be focus group interviews, participant observation, and literature tables which can be coined to highlight current perceptions on marijuana outlet presence in middle school/high school areas as well as review policy rhetoric that underscores marijuana outlet development permissibility. Lastly, as the open-coding process was completed and yielded substantial themes for discussion, a few themes were omitted from the study as they weren’t affiliated with the research topic nor did they directly contribute to the address al of the gap. Themes from this study that could be further explored through outlet density mapping and interviewing are: pop culture promotion and commercialization of marijuana. Next steps include further collaborating with my community partner to contest potential data limitations by setting up more focus group interviews with disparate respondent choice, creating program evaluation surveys for Drug Take Back day which consists of multiple questions regarding program structure areas of strengths/weaknesses instead of just 1-2 questions for a larger audience, and generating eclectic substance mis-use education materials which address substance use misconceptions/community social disorganization causes.
Ultimately, these steps can be enacted to ascertain which programming materials have the potency to combat historically known causes that propel substance mis-use and whether these materials can effectively implore individuals to abstain from substance use/refer individuals to substance prevention programming. TOBACCO USE, INCLUDING CIGARETTE smoking, remains the single most preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, accounting for approximately one in five deaths, or 440,000 deaths per year . In the United States, the prevalence of cigarette smoking has declined among adults since 1983. However, the cigarette smoking prevalence among young adults ages 18–25 years has remained stable, with 34% reporting having smoked in the past month in 2010 . More than 90% of cigarette smokers become regular users before age 18 . Tobacco industry documents reveal that young adults ages 18–24 years constitute the largest segment of targeted tobacco-marketing efforts , which are associated with smoking initiation . Compared with other age groups, young adults are less likely to use behavioral or pharmacotherapy interventions for smoking cessation . Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit substance among young adults, with approximately 19% of those ages 18–25 reporting marijuana use in the past month . Rates of marijuana use among young adults have increased since 2008 and are highest among those ages 18–25, compared with any other age group. Young adulthood is an important developmental stage for understanding use patterns of cigarettes and marijuana .In 2009, 35% of cigarette smokers ages 18–25 had used marijuana in the past month, almost three times the rate of the general adult population . Tobacco use has been implicated as a gateway drug to the use of marijuana and other illicit drugs . Cigarette smoking is associated with the initiation and the extent of marijuana use in young adulthood. One study demonstrated that young adults ages 18–25 are 10 times more likely to have ever used marijuana if they also have a history of smoking cigarettes . Research also documents a reverse gateway effect, whereby those who smoke marijuana in early young adulthood are more likely to initiate tobacco use and to have a greater likelihood of developing nicotine dependence than their nonsmoking peers . Those who go on to have problems with the use of illicit drugs, including but not limited to marijuana, are more likely to be heavy smokers, to be nicotine dependent, and to experience greater difficulty with quitting smoking . The mechanisms by which tobacco and marijuana use are related include shared genetic factors, a similar route of administration , and co-administration . Possible manifestations of such commonalities in use are a substitution effect, whereby using marijuana causes smokers to smoke fewer cigarettes than they otherwise would have, or a facilitation effect, whereby smoking marijuana increases the intensity of use and is associated with reduced motivation, reduced abstinence goals, and increased barriers to quitting tobacco. For example, in one study among college students who reported smoking both marijuana and tobacco, 65% had smoked tobacco and marijuana in the same hour, and 31% reported that tobacco prolonged and sustained the effects of marijuana . Additionally, a qualitative study reported that youth were most likely to relapse to tobacco use while smoking marijuana . A recent review of clinical outcomes of tobacco and marijuana co-use found that, relative to tobacco use only, co-occurring use was not associated with a greater likelihood of tobacco use disorder, psychosocial problems, or poorer tobacco-cessation outcomes . However, many of the studies reviewed included marijuana use as a dichotomous variable , limiting the ability to detect a relationship between heavier marijuana use and tobacco use outcomes. As others have noted, most substance use interventions target risk behaviors individually . However, interventions that have targeted tobacco use in the context of treatment for other substance dependence have demonstrated significant post treatment effects on tobacco use and even improved long-term sobriety . Given the high rate of tobacco and marijuana co-use among young people, information is needed on patterns and processes of tobacco and marijuana use to determine the best way to tailor interventions to this population.