Content uploaded by James Gould
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James Gould on Feb 08, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwle20
World Leisure Journal
ISSN: 1607-8055 (Print) 2333-4509 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwle20
Turning over a new leaf in Colorado: an
exploration of legalized recreational marijuana
preferences, leisure interests, and leisure
motivations in a sample of young adults
James Gould, Richard Donnelly & Brian Innacchione
To cite this article: James Gould, Richard Donnelly & Brian Innacchione (2018): Turning over
a new leaf in Colorado: an exploration of legalized recreational marijuana preferences, leisure
interests, and leisure motivations in a sample of young adults, World Leisure Journal, DOI:
10.1080/16078055.2018.1521866
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2018.1521866
Published online: 16 Sep 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 12
View Crossmark data
Turning over a new leaf in Colorado: an exploration of
legalized recreational marijuana preferences, leisure interests,
and leisure motivations in a sample of young adults
James Gould
a
, Richard Donnelly
a
and Brian Innacchione
b
a
Recreation, Tourism & Hospitality Program, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO, USA;
b
Criminology
and Criminal Justice Program, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO, USA
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to explore the cannabis consumption
preferences, leisure interests and leisure motivations of cannabis
consumers in the context of legalized recreational marijuana in
Colorado, USA. Snowball samples were conducted by the
distribution of the questionnaire link using the Facebook accounts
of four recreational consumers attending university in Colorado to
obtain responses from 382 cannabis consumers (mean 21.9 yoa).
The questionnaire was composed of consumption preference
items and pre-existing measures of the Leisure Interest Measure
and Leisure Motivation Scale. Results revealed gender differences
in preferences for cultivar and strength of psychoactive effect. The
top leisure interest choice of respondents when under the
psychoactive effects was social activity/time with friends.
Regression testing revealed that stimulus avoidance motivations
followed by competence-mastery best predicted preferred
psychoactive strength. Competence-mastery motivations best
predicted consumption times per week. ANOVA testing revealed
that the electronic activity/screen time leisure interest group
reported less social motivation and competence-mastery
motivation than other leisure interest groups. Considered is that
cannabis consumption behaviour may reflect a multi-dimensional
leisure experience.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 31 March 2017
Accepted 14 March 2018
KEYWORDS
Recreational marijuana;
leisure motivation; leisure
interests; cannabis; cultivars
Introduction
The process of drug use normalization includes social and cultural accommodations in
which attitudes and behaviours about various types of consumers may change over
time (Parker, 2005). It has been argued that cannabis consumption has become common-
place in leisure contexts of Western societies and is evidenced in the everyday lives of the
consumer’s leisure related activities and sub-culture participation (Belhassen, Santos, &
Uriely, 2007;Duff,2005). Parker, Williams, and Aldridge (2002) argued that drug use
within normalization processes is more closely related to lifestyle, especially leisure and
drug consumption preferences (Frank, Christensen, & Dah, 2013). Duffand Erickson
(2014) also posited that the cannabis use has become an accepted feature of mainstream
© 2018 World Leisure Organization
CONTACT James Gould james.gould@unco.edu Recreation, Tourism & Hospitality Program, University of Northern
Colorado, Campus Box 132, Greeley, CO 80639, USA
WORLD LEISURE JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2018.1521866
Canadian adolescents and young adults and that consumption “should be assessed in
terms of lifestyle and leisure (See also Kang, O’Leary, & Miller, 2016) rather than subcul-
tural connections”(p. 143).
Early research on cannabis consumption can largely be attributed to Becker’s(1953)
exploration of marijuana use and lifestyle. Given the historically illicit nature of cannabis
possession and consumption in Western societies, at various levels of local, state and
federal governance, a great deal of research has been contextualized within theories and
models of deviant and detrimental behaviours. For example, researchers from across
Europe and North America have traditionally addressed consumption in terms of deviance
(Becker, 1963; Hathaway, 1997; Rojek, 2000; Uriely & Belhassen, 2006), crime (Bennett &
Holloway, 2009; Green, Doherty, Stuart, & Ensminger, 2010), addiction (Haug et al., 2017;
Walther, Morgenstern, & Hanewinkel, 2012), mental and social ill health (Choi, DiNitto,
Marti, Nathan, & Bryan, 2016; Ciairano, Bosma, Miceli, & Settanni, 2008; Fergusson,
Horwood, & Swain-Campbell, 2003; Thornton, Baker, Johnson, & Lewin, 2013), adverse
health effects (Hall, 2015; Hall & Degenhardt, 2014; Volkow, Baler, Compton, & Weiss,
2014) and poly substance use (Agrawal, Budney, & Lynskey, 2012; McNaughton Reyes,
Foshee, Bauer, & Ennett, 2014; Yeomans-Maldonado & Patrick, 2015).
For this study, we approached cannabis consumption and leisure behaviour from the
perspective of normalization theory amid cannabis legalization for both medicinal and
recreational sales in several U.S. states, specifically Colorado. On November 6, 2012 Col-
orado residents voted to pass Amendment 64, which modified the state Constitution to
legalize recreational marijuana use and the first retail store opened on January 1, 2014
(Drug Policy Alliance, 2014). Those 21 years of age and older, who possess a valid gov-
ernment ID, can purchase, possess, and consume marijuana (Smith, 2015). The number
of Colorado business licenses issued for growing and selling both recreational and med-
icinal marijuana increased from 1,708 in 2014 to 2,913 in 2016 (CDOR MED Licensed
Facilities, 2016).
In the first ten months of sales, Colorado reported $40 million in tax revenue from sales
alone, excluding medical cannabis and licenses. According to ArcView Group’s estimate
(2016), the legal marijuana market garnered $6.7 billion in sales in 2016 and is expected
to be worth $24 billion by 2025 (Wallace, 2017). In November 2016, the city of Denver,
Colorado passed Initiative 300 allowing businesses to obtain a permit to allow cannabis
consumption on premises (Robinson, 2006). As a frontrunner of legalization, Colorado
reported $1.3 billion in cannabis sales for 2016, according to Colorado Department of
Revenue (CDOR), of which $875 million was recreational and $438 million was medicinal
sales (CDOR, 2016). The total economic contribution including affiliated industries such
as commercial real estate, construction, ancillary goods and services, legal services, and
tech services were estimated to be $2.3 billion in 2016 (Summerlin, 2017).
Given the liberties, availabilities and economic forces surrounding cannabis growing,
processing, buying, selling, and consumption in Colorado since legalization, we aimed
to explore the leisure behaviours of young adult consumers in a U.S. state that has demon-
strated strides in normalization as evidenced by the citizen vote. The assumption was
made that much of the sample would have some knowledge of the availability and
variety of cannabis related products and that assessing their consumption preferences
would be especially useful in analysing their leisure behaviours. No distinctions were
sought between medicinal and recreational consumers nor among categorical designations
2J. GOULD ET AL.
reflecting use, misuse, abuse, or addiction as the focus of the study remained on respon-
dent leisure interests and leisure motivations within the context of consumption. In broad
terms, we asked what do consumers enjoy doing most when they are under the psychoactive
effects of cannabis?
To our knowledge, few if any studies have demonstrated associations among cannabis
strains and leisure interests despite the large variation in cannabis products and their
effects on the consumer. Given that much of the social science literature on marijuana
has addressed use in terms of a singularly consistent product with sameness in effects,
we attempted to capture the variation found among the dominant cannabis species in
this exploration of leisure behaviour. Since various literatures, such as psychiatry
(Dekker, Linszen, & De Haan, 2009) and psychology (Annis, Turner, & Sklar, 1997),
have addressed marijuana use motivations, we endeavoured to address leisure motiv-
ations by assessment of consumption preferences and leisure interests. We posit that
the variation in consumer preferences, in types of products and their effects, and in
the consumer’s leisure behaviours, are worthy of exploration and quantitative
investigation.
Review of literature
According to May and Finch (2009), normalization theory has evolved from functionalist
(Merton, 1957) and interactionist (Goffman, 1974) sociologies eventually overtaken by
constructivist perspectives that addressed institutionalization as the routinization of prac-
tices in everyday life (Rosenau, 1992). The concept of normalizing practices in everyday
living and sociological research may be attributed to early studies on the living conditions
of disadvantaged groups (Parker, 2005) that had been stigmatized or were considered
deviant subcultures (Wolfensberger, 1984). For Parker et al. (2002; Parker, 2005) and
Hathaway, Comeau, and Erickson (2011), the “deviant”subculture surrounding rec-
reational cannabis use is attached to stigmas and the normalization process is concerned
with how these individuals or groups are “included in many features of everyday life
whereby their identities or behaviour become increasingly accommodated and perhaps
eventually valued”(2005, p. 205).
In their sociological model, May and Finch (2009) explained that normalization implies
the work that actors do as they engage with some ensemble of activities (that may include
new or changed ways of thinking, acting, and organizing) and by which means it becomes
routinely embedded in the matrices of already existing, socially patterned, knowledge and
practices (p. 540).
According to Duff and Erickson (2014), Parker and colleagues have refined six indi-
cators of normalization, as they pertain to illicit drug use: increasing access and avail-
ability of drugs in the community, increasing prevalence of this drug use, increasingly
tolerant attitudes about drug use among users and non-users, expectations among
abstainers about future use, cultural accommodations of drug cultures (including ‘sen-
sible’recreational use), and last, liberal policy shifts. Given these indicators of normal-
ization, and their evidences in Colorado, this study explored leisure behaviour in the
context of legalized recreational cannabis purchase and use including permissible
plant cultivation.
WORLD LEISURE JOURNAL 3
Cannabis products
Cannabis consumers have choice in plant lines that reflect proportional differences in the
delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) ratios that have different
psychoactive effects between male and female consumers (Pearce, Mitsouras, & Irizarry,
2014). THC has been considered the cannabinoid that produces psychoactivity and it
has been the primary focus of marijuana research at the virtual exclusion of other canna-
binoids (Burstein, 2015). According to Shannon and Opila-Lehman (2016), there may be
at least 85 cannabinoid compounds found in cannabis and the type of strain affects the
cannabinoid profile of the plant of which high CBD and low THC strains may be culti-
vated. For example, a growing body of research has indicated that CBD may have ben-
eficial effects in addressing insomnia (Belendiuk, Babson, Vandrey, & Bonn-Miller,
2015), epilepsy (Szaflarski & Bebin, 2014) and pain management (Jarvis, Rassmussen, &
Winters, 2017) among other studies that include treatments for cancers (Wilkie, Sakr,
& Rizack, 2016).
Cannabis products may contain variation in two possibly distinct species (or cultivars,
see Hazekamp & Fischedick, 2012; Pearce et al., 2014), Cannabis sativa and Cannabis
indica, and hybrid strains of these cultivars. Sativa is generally reported to have an ener-
getic effect that is largely cerebral and may produce heightened senses, creativity, opti-
mism and optimistic feelings. Indica is generally reported to have a heavy body effect
and is used in the evenings to relax, relieve pain and manage insomnia (Medithrive,
2014). Sativa has been associated with euphoria, work productivity, stimulation, creativity
and enhancing energy while indica, the “couch-lock”kind (Lau et al., 2015), has been
associated with pain relief, sedation, leisure and social activity (Murphy et al., 2015;
Pearce et al., 2014).
Cannabis consumers also have choice in method of consumption that typically includes
smoking cannabis using pipes or bongs (Murphy et al., 2015) or vaporizing (Borodovsky,
Crosier, Lee, Sargent, & Budney, 2016) or consuming concentrated “dabs”(Krauss et al.,
2015), or consuming edibles (Schauer, King, Bunnell, Promoff, & McAfee, 2016). In their
assessment of mode of use, Schauer et al. (2016) demonstrated that a pipe/bowl or a joint
were predominate preferences followed by the bong, water pipe, or hookah methods and
blunts (see also Schauer et al., 2016) although these varied by regions of the United States.
The consumption of cannabis concentrates has occurred over the centuries around the
world in various forms including the use of keif and hashish (Murphy et al., 2015). Accord-
ing to Medithrive (2014), keif is cannabis pollen composed of potent trichomes obtained
from the plant matter that can be reduced to a firm, dense material in a heating process for
hashish. Hash oil is produced by processes involving temperatures, pressures and some-
times solvents to aid in reduction and maximize the potency of the product (Medithrive,
2014). Daniulaityte et al. (2015) suggested that the consuming of concentrates by dab or
vaporizing has shown a trend towards increased popularity among consumers in the U.S.
that commented on social media.
Dab is a common name for the hard wax-like concentrate that is created by extracting
THC from the flower cannabis (Loflin & Earleywine, 2014) and is also known in the U.S.
as “amber,”“glass,”“honey,”“shatter,”or “wax”(Bell et al., 2015, p. 422). Dabs are most
commonly consumed using vaporizers, bongs or e-cigarettes (Daniulaityte et al., 2015)
and can be attributed to increases in the availability of marijuana concentrates at
4J. GOULD ET AL.
medical marijuana dispensaries (Loflin & Earleywine, 2014). Commonly cited reasons for
dabbing were that it requires fewer hits to achieve the desired effects, the effects are stron-
ger, and that the hash oil effects are different from the flower cannabis effects (Loflin &
Earleywine, 2014). Lee, Crosier, Borodovsky, Sargent, and Budney (2015) found in their
sample of concentrate consumers that the most popular vaping device was a vaping
pen, followed by table top and portable devices and e-cigarettes (See also Giroud et al.,
2015).
Edible cannabis products can produce a strong psychoactive effect, compared to other
methods of use, since the cannabinoids pass through the blood-brain barrier (30 min to
2 h after consumption), potency is increased (Borodovsky et al., 2016). Given the
potency and mildly delayed onset of the psychoactive effect of edibles, Colorado has, for
example, established a standard quantity of THC that cannot exceed 10 mg per serving
in order to address public health concerns involving hospital visits resulting from overcon-
sumption (MacCoun & Mello, 2015; Murphy et al., 2015). Since cannabis is still considered
an illicit substance by federal agencies, the US Food and Drug Administration has set no
guidelines for manufacturing, therefore each state establishes their own regulations and
procedures (Borodovsky et al., 2016). Many of the positively perceived cannabis edibles
among consumers include THC syrup products used in baked products that include brow-
nies, cookies, candies, and infused beverages among others (Lamy et al., 2016).
Cannabis consumption and leisure behaviour
Cannabis consumption as a form of leisure behaviour and as a type of recreational activity
has been explored (Liebregts et al., 2015) in adolescent and adult behaviours across mul-
tiple disciplines. For example, Schaub, Gmel, Annaheim, Mueller, and Schwappach (2010)
maintained that cannabis is often consumed in the user’s leisure time (Belhassen et al.,
2007; Peretti-Watel & Lorente, 2004) and Shukla (2005) demonstrated that many users
consume cannabis recreationally. Osborne and Fogel (2008) found in their sample that
cannabis was primarily used to enhance “leisure activities and manage the challenges
and demands of living in a contemporary modern society”(p. 562) and that most con-
sumed cannabis while engaged in leisure activities (see also Moffat, Johnson, & Shoveller,
2009). Lau et al. (2015) also found that “cannabis use was usually reserved for leisure-time”
(p. 716) and that cannabis was oftentimes consumed to enhance other activities and
stimulate creativity. Dekker et al. (2009) also indicated that respondents in their study con-
sumed to enhance positive affect and social experiences.
Hathaway (2003) found that increased cannabis consumption among long-term fre-
quent users was often associated with personal freedom and that decreased use was associ-
ated with personal responsibilities. Osborne and Fogel (2008)indicated that cannabis use
among adults was primarily a leisure time activity to disengage from stress but that it was
secondary to other roles and responsibilities. Shukla (2005) also demonstrated, that among
adult users, cannabis consumption was considered a recreational activity, conducted in
their free time, and that it was placed behind other life considerations involving work
and family responsibilities (Kronbaek & Frank, 2013). Liebregts et al. (2015) also found
that most respondents were not involved in criminal behaviour outside of acquiring
and using cannabis despite research (Bennett, Holloway, & Farrington, 2008) indicating
an association between regular cannabis use and crime.
WORLD LEISURE JOURNAL 5
Research approaches have included cannabis consumption as recreation (Belhassen
et al., 2007) and how cannabis consumption is related to other leisure choices (Sharp
et al., 2011). For leisure choices, Hathaway (2004) demonstrated that long-term frequent
cannabis consumers used primarily for relaxation and the enjoyment of music or televi-
sion. Moffat et al. (2009) found that young Canadian cannabis consumers sought to
experiences nature, contemplate existential matters, flow “through physical activities”
(p. 92), and transform outdoor chores into desirable activity. Peretti-Watel and Lorente
(2004) found among French adolescents aged 18 that the activities most associated with
regular cannabis use were “concert and sound system outings”and “spending time at a
friend’s home in the evening”(p. 256) without adult controls. Lau et al. (2015) found
that consumers suggested “that cannabis use was accepted like ‘drinking water’in the
artist community”(p. 714).
Cannabis consumption research as an extension of other similar leisure behaviours
(Belhassen et al., 2007) has demonstrated that increased use among adolescents was com-
monly associated with a partying lifestyle (Ciairano et al., 2008), participation in sports
(Peretti-Watel & Lorente, 2004), sport performance enhancement (Lorente, Peretti-
Watel, & Grelot, 2005), and decreased sports participation (Terry-McElrath &
O‘Malley, 2011). Schaub et al. (2010) found that changes in cannabis use were associated
with the setting in which the consumer shared leisure time with others. Murphy et al.
(2015) found among US baby boomers that preference by strain affected work (sativa pre-
ferred) and leisure (indica preferred) choices depending on the setting. Liebregts et al.
(2015) demonstrated that cannabis use can be a multi-faceted recreation experience; for
example that “interviewees regularly cycled while being stoned”(p. 149) would suggest
the enhancement or combination of leisure experiences.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to explore the cannabis consumption preferences, leisure
interests and leisure motivations of recreational cannabis consumers. Specifically, four
research questions guided this study:
RQ1: What are the associations between males and females in their preferences for rec-
reational marijuana consumption?
RQ2: What are the associations between leisure interests to experience psychoactive effects
and their most preferred type of marijuana strain?
RQ3: Which Leisure Motivation Scale factor is the best predictor of the strength of the psy-
choactive effect most preferred and the number of times per week they consume?
RQ4: Are there differences among the factor scores of the Leisure Motivation Scale across the
preferred leisure interests of consumers to experience the psychoactive effects of marijuana?
Methods
Participants
Snowball samples were used to collect the data for this study between October and
November of 2014 and 2015. The link to the study invitation and online questionnaire
6J. GOULD ET AL.
was developed using Qualtrics, a software system for online surveys. The survey link was
distributed using the Facebook accounts of four recreational consumers attending univer-
sity in Colorado, two for each of the years of this study. Facebook respondents were asked
to communicate the survey link to fellow consumers to snowball the sample size. Of the
401 that responded (206 in 2014 & 195 in 2015), sixteen were eliminated from the data set
for item nonresponses. The data was screened using calculations for Mahalanobis distance
and centred leverage (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) from which three outliers were elimi-
nated from the data set. The remaining respondents analyzed (n= 382) all consumed can-
nabis products.
Of the respondents, 54.2% were male and 45.8% female of which 97.1% were university
students. The eleven non-students, and the sixteen respondents over the age of 29, were
considered a likely outcome of the snowball samples in that cannabis related friendships
or networks would include individuals outside of higher education contexts. These eleven
non-students were not considered a large enough group for comparison and analysis. Par-
ticipants ranged from ages 18 to 56 with a mean age of 21.9 years. For employment status,
19.4% (n= 74) were unemployed, 50.3% (n= 192) were employed part-time, and 30.4% (n
= 116) were employed full-time. A minority (n= 33) of the sample included Freshmen
(8.6%) and Sophomores (n= 43: 11.3%) followed by Juniors (n= 71: 18.6%). The majority
(n= 166) of the sample were Seniors (43.5%) and included Graduate Students (n = 58:
15.2%).
Measures
The instrument used for this study was an 18-item questionnaire composed of two pre-
existing measures that were modified, items assessing marijuana consumption prefer-
ences, and demographic items. To measure which activities consumers most enjoyed
doing while being under the psychoactive effects of marijuana products, a modified
version of the Leisure Interest Measure (LIM) (Ragheb & Beard, 1992) was used for
respondents to rank their top leisure interest. The LIM includes these eight leisure inter-
ests: social,physical,artistic,outdoors,cultural,service,mechanical,and reading, and was
modified to include interests related to electronics (video games, television, watching
movies, online use …) and musical (bands, live music, singing, music listening, shows
…) interests. In previous studies, Ragheb and Beard (1992) indicated that the measure
demonstrated reliability (α= .87) within a range of .75–.93, however for this study,
reliability of the modified categories was not assessed given the nominal level data struc-
ture of the questionnaire item of which respondents were asked to choose one category.
In order to assess the respondent’s leisure motivation to consume marijuana, a
modified Leisure Motivation Scale (LMS) (Beard & Ragheb, 1983)was applied with
item wording indicating marijuana use as the leisure activity on a five-point scale anchored
by strongly disagree and strongly agree. The LMS is composed of four subscales of twelve
items each that include intellectual, social, competence-mastery, and stimulus avoidance
motivations. The intellectual factor assesses motivation to engage in a leisure activity
involving mental activity including exploring, creating, learning and imagining. The
social factor is indicated by the motivation to engage in leisure activity for social
reasons (friendships & esteem of others) and the competence-mastery factor reflects
leisure activity involving challenge, achievement, competition or mastery. The stimulus-
WORLD LEISURE JOURNAL 7
avoidance dimension assesses the motivation to escape overstimulating life situations
(Beard & Ragheb, 1983).
Rather than test twelve items per factor and risk respondent fatigue, a random number
generator with bounds of one and twelve were applied to each subscale in order to select
two items from each subscale for the survey. Item wording examples for this study
included: Marijuana helps satisfy my curiosities, and Marijuana helps me develop close
relationships, and Marijuana helps relieve stress and tension. For this study, the eight
items used were found to be reliable (α= .85).
See Table 1 for the five items used to assess preferences in cannabis consumption with
categories and one scale. For preferred cannabis strain, four categories were used: Sativa,
Indica,Hybrid and Unsure. Inclusion of the Unsure category was useful in determining the
proportions with and without preferences. We reasoned that the soundness of the analyses
involving group differences by strain would be supported by excluding the unsure from
testing.
Remaining items included method of use (Glass pipes –Vaporizers), time of day to
consume (Early Morning –Late Night), strength of psychoactive effect, and how many
times cannabis is consumed in an average week (1to 5 times –21+ times). The preference
items were categorical excepting the psychoactive effect item on a 7-point semantic
Table 1. Recreational marijuana consumption preferences by gender.
Variable
Gender
Sample total Chi-square df p-value
Males Females
N%N%
Preferred strain 19.5 3 .000
Sativa (104) 50.2 (59) 33.7 42.7 10.6 1 .001
Indica (38) 18.4 (41) 23.4 20.7 1.5 1 .223
Hybrid (44) 21.3 (32) 18.3 19.9 .5 1 .469
Unsure (21) 10.1 (43) 24.5 16.8 14.2 1 .000
Preferred method 19.1 4 .001
Glass Pipe (49) 23.7 (52) 29.7 26.4 1.9 1 .171
Joint/Paper (51) 24.6 (42) 24.0 24.3 .0 1 .910
Edibles (6) 2.9 (22) 12.6 7.3 13.1 1 .000
Water Pipe (74) 35.7 (44) 25.1 30.9 5.0 1 .025
Vaporizer (27) 13.0 (14) 8.0 10.7 2.5 1 .113
Preferred time 1.5 4 .832
Late Night (72) 34.8 (68) 38.9 36.6 .6 1 .410
Evening (93) 44.9 (72) 41.1 43.2 .6 1 .457
Afternoon (23) 11.1 (22) 12.6 11.8 .2 1 .659
Morning (13) 6.3 (9) 5.1 5.8 .2 1 .634
E. Morning (3) 1.4 (4) 2.3 1.8 .4 1 .544
Preferred psychoactive effect 28.7 6 .000
1: Light (4) 1.9 (9) 5.1 3.4 3.0 1 .085
2: (11) 5.3 (24) 13.7 9.2 8.0 1 .005
3: (32) 15.5 (42) 24.0 19.4 4.4 1 .035
4: (40) 19.3 (40) 22.9 20.9 .7 1 .398
5: (50) 24.2 (29) 16.6 20.7 3.3 1 .068
6: (49) 23.7 (16) 9.1 17.0 14.2 1 .000
7: Extreme (15) 7.2 (12) 6.9 7.1 .0 1 .882
Preferred consumption per week 20.9 4 .000
1–5 times (65) 31.4 (95) 54.3 41.9 20.4 1 .000
6–10 times (35) 16.9 (22) 12.6 14.9 1.4 1 .236
11–15 times (30) 14.5 (17) 9.7 12.3 2.0 1 .157
16–20 times (24) 11.1 (14) 8.0 9.9 1.4 1 .242
21+ times (52) 25.1 (26) 14.9 20.4 6.1 1 .013
8J. GOULD ET AL.
differential scale anchored by Very Light High and Extremely High. Demographic items
included gender, age, employment status and class status (five categories from Freshmen
to Graduate Student).
Data analysis
For this study, descriptive statistics using chi-square tests were conducted to explore differ-
ences between males and females in their preferences for recreational marijuana consump-
tion. Descriptive and chi-square tests were also used to explore differences in preferred
leisure interest while under the psychoactive effect (10 categories) by the four types of mar-
ijuana strains (sativa, indica, hybrid, & unsure).
A standard multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine which of the four
factors of the LMS (intellectual, social, competence-mastery, and stimulus avoidance) best
predicted the strength of the psychoactive effect (7-point scale) most preferred by consu-
mers and how many times per week they consumed. A One-way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) was used to test for differences among the four factors of the Leisure Motiv-
ation Scale as dependent variables across the independent variables of preferred leisure
interests (5 categories) of consumers for experiencing psychoactive effects.
Five of the ten categories of leisure interests were not included in the ANOVA for
having cell counts less than twenty as these can affect robustness (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001). The leisure interests most underreported for being the respondent’s top choice
to engage in while under the psychoactive effects are Mechanical,Service,Cultural,
Reading and Physical activity. The five leisure interests with cell counts greater than
twenty included Social,Outdoors,Musical,Electronics and Artistic activity. ANOVA
post hoc analyses were conducted using Tukey’s post hoc test. All analyses were performed
using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 23 software.
Results
See Table 1 for recreational marijuana consumption preferences by gender. Inspection of
chi-square tests of independence revealed associations in all but one preference variable,
the preferred time of day to consume was equally preferred by men and women χ(4) =
1.5, p= .832. For the type of strain (χ(3) = 19.5, p= .000), a significantly higher proportion
of men preferred sativa strains than women and a significantly higher proportion of the
women indicated that they were unsure of which strain they most preferred. For preferred
method of consumption χ(4) = 19.1, p= .001, females indicated a greater preference for
consuming edibles than males and the males indicated a greater preference for water
pipe use than the females in the sample.
Inspection of the chi-square tests of independence revealed significant associations
between preferences for the strength of the psychoactive effect and gender (See Table
1). Overall, a significantly higher proportion of men preferred a stronger psychoactive
effect than the women χ(6) = 28.7, p= .000. The majority (66%) of women preferred a psy-
choactive effect ranging from one to four on the seven-point scale while the majority
(74%) of men preferred a range of four to seven on the scale. Specifically, men and
women equally preferred the anchors (1 - Light Psychoactive effect & 7 - Extreme Psy-
choactive effect) and the midpoint (4) of the psychoactive preference scale. For
WORLD LEISURE JOURNAL 9
consumption times per week (χ(4) = 20.9, p= .000), the majority of women (54.3%) pre-
ferred consuming 1–5 times per week relative to the men (31.4%) and a higher proportion
of men consumed more frequently, including the 21+ times per week category (25.1%)
relative to women (14.9%).
See Table 2 for leisure interests to experience psychoactive effects by type of mari-
juana strain. Inspection of the top ranked leisure interests by preferred type of mari-
juana strain showed that the leisure interest of Social Activity (time with friends,
developing relationships, meeting new people) was the most highly ranked (37.2%)
interest for all strains. Interests related to the Outdoor Activity (fresh air, nature,
outdoor environment) (16.5%) and Musical Activity (bands, live music, singing,
music listening) (16.0%) pursuits were the 2
nd
and 3
rd
highest ranked interests followed
by Electronic and Artistic activities. Inspection of chi-square tests of independence
revealed strain associations with leisure interests involving social activity χ(3) = 8.78,
p= .032 and physical activity χ(3) = 8.33, p= .040. Over one-half (53.1%) of the
unsure-of-strain consumers chose Social Activity as their top leisure interest, the
highest proportion of any strain group. For the Physical Activity interest (2.9% of
sample), the majority of respondents consumed sativa, none consumed indica and
none were unsure of what strain they preferred.
The four factors of the LMS (intellectual, social, competence-mastery, and stimulus
avoidance motivation) were used in a multiple regression analysis to predict the strength
of the preferred psychoactive effect and the number of times per week they preferred to
consume most. See Table 3 for descriptive and correlation statistics for the leisure motiv-
ation scales. All correlations were statistically significant at the p< .001 level and ranged
from r= .353 to r= .654.
The prediction model for psychoactive effect was significant with F(4,368) = 25.24, p
< .001, and accounted for approximately 21% of the variance of the preferred strength
of psychoactive effect (R
2
= .215, Adjusted R
2
= .207). The prediction model for times
per week of consumption was significant with F(4,375) = 28.5, p< .001, and accounted
for approximately 23% of the variance of how many times per week respondents con-
sumed (R
2
= .233, Adjusted R
2
= .225). See Table 4 for multiple linear regression of
leisure motivations factors onto preferred psychoactive effect and preferred number of
times to consume per week.
Table 2. Top ranked leisure interests to experience psychoactive effects by preferred type of marijuana
strain.
Leisure interest
Preferred marijuana strain
Total Chi-square df p-value
Sativa Indica Hybrid Unsure
N%N%N%N%
Social (58) 35.6 (25) 31.6 (25) 32.9 (34) 53.1 37.2 8.78 3 .032
Outdoors (25) 15.3 (13) 16.5 (12) 15.8 (13) 20.3 16.5 .863 3 .834
Musical (26) 16.0 (18) 22.8 (11) 14.5 (6) 9.4 16.0 4.94 3 .177
Electronic (19) 11.7 (7) 8.9 (11) 14.5 (6) 9.4 11.3 1.49 3 .684
Artistic (14) 8.6 (3) 3.8 (7) 9.2 (1) 1.6 6.5 5.57 3 .131
Physical (9) 5.5 (0) 0.0 (2) 2.6 (0) 0.0 2.9 8.33 3 .040
Reading (1) 0.6 (4) 5.1 (1) 1.3 (1) 1.6 1.8 6.07 3 .108
Cultural (2) 1.2 (1) 1.3 (2) 2.6 (0) 0.0 1.3 1.89 3 .596
Service (0) 0.0 (2) 2.5 (1) 1.3 (0) 0.0 0.8 5.16 3 .160
Mechanical (0) 0.0 (2) 2.5 (0) 0.0 (1) 1.6 0.8 5.50 3 .140
10 J. GOULD ET AL.
Stimulus avoidance was the LMS factor that most significantly contributed to predict-
ing preferred psychoactive effect (b= .215, p= .000), followed by competence-mastery (b
= .155, p= .015) and intellectual motivation (b= .133, p= .021). Social motivation was
not a significant predictor. Competence/Mastery best predicted the number of times
per week (b= .275, p= .000) the respondents consumed, followed by social motivations
(b= .151, p= .016). Intellectual and stimulus-avoidance motivations were not significant
predictors of times per week and given the sizeable correlations, the unique variance
explained by each of the LMS factors was low in both models, ranging from sr
2
= .005 to sr
2
= .039. These results indicate that the primary leisure motivation for pre-
dicting preferred psychoactive effect is avoidance of certain stimuli while the number
of times per week the respondent consumed was best predicted by the motivation for
competence-mastery.
See Table 5 for ANOVA results comparing LMS factor mean scores across five cat-
egories of leisure interests (Social, Musical, Artistic, Electronic, and Outdoor activities).
There was a statistically significant difference between leisure interests groups in LMS
scores F(16, 996) = 2.76, p= .000 and the Tukey post hoc test revealed differences in
Social motivations (F(4, 329) = 2.66, p= .033) and Competence-Mastery motivations (F
(4, 329) = 2.76, p= .002). The Social (M= 3.26) and Musical (M= 3.14) leisure interest
groups reported greater Social motivation scores than did the Electronics (M= 2.58)
group. For Competence-Mastery motivation, the Social (M= 2.86) and Artistic (M=
3.3) groups demonstrated greater motivation than the Electronics group (M= 2.31).
There were no statistically significant differences in Intellectual and Stimulus-Avoidance
motivations across the five leisure interests groups.
Table 3. Descriptive and correlation statistics for leisure motivation model.
Factors Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis (1) (2) (3) (4)
1. Intellectual 3.76 .84 −.544 .332 1.00
2. Social 3.14 1.03 −.288 −.411 .484** 1.00
3. Competence/Mastery 2.84 1.04 .056 −.618 .496** .654** 1.00
4. Stimulus avoidance 4.50 .70 −1.790 4.17 .425** .368** .353** 1.00
*p< .05.
**p< .01.
n= 382.
Table 4. Multiple linear regression of leisure motivations factors onto preferred psychoactive effect and
preferred number of times to consume per week.
Variable
Psychoactive effect Consumption times per week
BSEB βtsr
2
BSEB βtsr
2
Intellectual .241 .104 .133* 2.32 .011 .164 .105 .086 1.56 .005
Social .149 .095 .100 1.56 .005 .235 .097 .151* 2.42 .011
Comp./Mastery .230 .094 .155* 2.43 .012 .421 .095 .275** 4.41 .039
Stim. Avoidance .469 .115 .215** 4.09 .035 .194 .118 .083 1.65 .005
R
2
.215 .233
Adjusted R
2
.207 .225
F25.2** 28.5**
*p< .05.
**p< .01.
WORLD LEISURE JOURNAL 11
Discussion
The aim of this study was to explore leisure behaviour and cannabis consumption within
the theoretical framework of normalization theory (Duffet al., 2012;Duff& Erickson,
2014; Parker, 2005) in a sample of young adults. Given Colorado’s liberal policy shift in
2012 with the legalization of recreational marijuana, and given the increased access and
availability of cannabis in the state since then, this assessment of cannabis and leisure
uses fits neatly within the normalization context (Duff& Erickson, 2014). We essentially
explored the broad question of what do consumers enjoy doing when they are under the
psychoactive effects of cannabis? Overall, the findings of this study revealed a few broad
patterns of cannabis related leisure behaviours that may provide insights for continued
theory development.
For consumption preferences, differences between men and women in product choices
and effect strengths supported previous research that consumption was greater among
males than female consumers (Haines, Johnson, Carter, & Arora, 2009) and that males
generally seek a stronger psychoactive effect than female consumers (Lorente et al.,
2005). In this study, a larger proportion of men, and respondents overall, preferred
sativa over indica strains. A potential explanation includes the differences in the effects
of the two species on the user’s experience and how aspects of the leisure experience
may be altered or enhanced contingent on the cultivar. Cannabis sativa is associated
with energetic effects, heightened senses, cerebral effects, optimism, creativity and stimu-
lation while cannabis indica is associated with heavy body effects, relaxation, sedation,
pain relief and aiding sleep (Medithrive, 2014). It is plausible to consider that a preferred
cannabis leisure experience could also vary between men and women in similar ways as
other leisure interests might vary between them.
For leisure interests, the preference for social activity was clear and supported pre-
vious research by Lorente et al. (2005) in a sample of students and Murphy et al.
(2015) in a sample of baby boomers. Attaining an enhanced positive affect amid relaxing
social experiences (Dekker et al., 2009) appears to be a consistent pattern of leisure
behaviour among cannabis consumers. This may be an indicator of the multi-dimen-
sional nature of an enhanced leisure experience that in turn may aid the consumer in
their adaptation to the demands of living in modern society (Osborne & Fogel,
2008). Given the entire range of social activity that could apply, whether one on one
with a friend at home, or with a group of friends at a party or concert, there seems
to be a notable association between consumption and friendships in this sample of
young adults.
Table 5. Mean comparisons of leisure motivation factors by leisure interest.
LMS factor
Groups based on leisure interests ANOVA
Social
(a)
Musical
(b)
Artistic
(c)
Electronics
(d)
Outdoors
(e) F
p
value
Post hoc
tests
Intellectual 3.70 3.93 4.1 3.64 3.60 2.66 .033
Social 3.26 3.14 3.16 2.58 3.12 3.66 .006 a,b > d
Competence/Mastery 2.86 2.86 3.3 2.31 2.71 4.22 .002 a,c > d
Stimulus Avoidance 4.53 4.44 4.38 4.36 4.50 .65 .628
n142 61 25 43 63
12 J. GOULD ET AL.
For respondents that recreated in the outdoors under the psychoactive effects of can-
nabis in British Columbia, Canada, Moffat et al. (2009) found the common need to be
free from life pressures and interruptions. Given the healthful effects associated with
outdoor participation, and the sizable proportion of respondents in this study whose
top leisure interest was outdoor activity, it would appear that stimulation by the natural
world, enhanced by cannabis, is another leisure behaviour commonality among consu-
mers seeking a multi-dimensional experience. Similarly, the stimulation provided by
music listening or playing (Hathaway, 2004) or art activity (Lau et al., 2015) may be
enhanced by the cannabis experience.
The findings from the current study also revealed that the best leisure motivation pre-
dictors of preferred strength of psychoactive effect were stimulus avoidance and compe-
tence-mastery activity. Competence-mastery activity was also the best predictor of the
number of times per week the respondents consumed. Given the strong correlation
between competence-mastery and social motivations, and given the differences in compe-
tence-mastery motivations among leisure interest groups in this study, it seems that can-
nabis leisure behaviour could be described as multi-dimensional in the satiation of several
consumer motivations.
First, the motivation to consume to relieve stress and tension seems clear and was sup-
ported in this study and previous studies (Hathaway, 2004; Osborne & Fogel, 2008).
Second, the motivation for social participation while under the psychoactive influence
also seems clear and was supported in this study and previous studies (Murphy et al.,
2015; Pearce et al., 2014). Third, combining elements of competence-mastery with canna-
bis consumption appears to be an important component of the leisure experience for some
consumers. Last, it seems plausible to consider that many consumers may be motivated to
enhance their leisure or work experiences in activities in which they already possess some
knowledge, experience and/or skill. As Moffat et al. (2009) found among young Cana-
dians, the desire to flow through physical activities and transform outdoor chores into
desirable activity was an often cited motivation for consumption.
Thus, some consumers seem to enjoy the relaxing effects of cannabis for its own sake,
while enjoying a leisure interest activity for its own sake, likely with a friend, for a multi-
dimensional leisure experience. Ultimately, it seems that the cannabis leisure experience is
composed of motivations involving the management of stimuli. First, the consumer is
motivated to reduce and avoid unwanted stimuli reflected in the demands of living in a
modern society. For example, this might include adaptation to personal hardships as
severe as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in U.S. war veterans. Second, and perhaps as
further indication of their avoidance of unwanted stimuli, many consumers appear to
be motivated to immerse themselves in active or passive leisure pursuits that produced
varying amounts of desirable stimuli. This immersion in desirable leisure activity may
serve as a buffer against undesirable stimuli and may involve the application of
differing amounts of experience, creativity, knowledge or skill.
Recommendations for future research
As the normalization of cannabis consumption occurs in the U.S., perhaps future inves-
tigations will explore in more detail the leisure lifestyles of cannabis consumers. For
example, how might ideal leisure experiences be described within a framework of cannabis
WORLD LEISURE JOURNAL 13
cultivars and specific recreation preferences that may include passive or active pursuits?
Furthermore, assessment of skill and competence in the activity chosen by respondents
may inform readers of the potential for casual leisure, serious leisure and flow experiences
surrounding cannabis consumption. This might also imply study of the reported benefits
of consumption and how medicinal cannabis may enable healthy leisure activity function-
ing through pain management. Cannabis friendly tourism and recreation organizations
(Peterson, 2017) may benefit from future research that identifies leisure or recreation
experiences that better meet the demands of cannabis tourists and consumers. This under-
standing may inform policy decisions as well as the production and marketing strategies of
cannabis friendly organizations.
Limitations
There were limitations to be noted, especially that the sample was small and was composed
almost entirely of university students in Colorado, which detracted significantly from the
generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, the sample size in part restricted ANOVA
testing of the leisure motivation factors with ten categories of leisure interests of which
five categories with cell counts less than twenty were excluded from analysis (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2001). It is also plausible that the leisure interests and motivations of students in
recreation resource rich Colorado could differ from those in other states. We did not dis-
tinguish between recreational and medicinal cannabis consumers despite differences in
their consumption preferences (Lin, Ilgen, Jannausch, & Bohnert, 2016) nor did we
assess how or where their cannabis was obtained, as the purpose of this study was to
explore leisure behaviour in the context of normalization involving legalized recreational
marijuana use.
Acknowledgement
We would like to acknowledge Lyda Ellis-McCartin and Soo Kang for their contributions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Agrawal, A., Budney, A., & Lynskey, M. (2012). The co-occurring use and misuse of cannabis and
tobacco: A review. Addiction,107(7), 1221–1233.
Annis, H., Turner, N., & Sklar, H. (1997). Inventory of drug-taking situations: User’s guide. Toronto:
Addiction Research Foundation, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
ArcView Market Research and New Frontier. (2016). The state of legal Marijuana markets, execu-
tive summary (4th ed.). Oakland, CA: The ArcView Group.
Beard, J. G., & Ragheb, M. G. (1983). Measuring leisure motivation. Journal of Leisure Research,15,
219–228.
Becker, H. S. (1953). Becoming a marihuana user. American Journal of Sociology,59(3), 235–242.
doi:10.1086/221326
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York, NY: Macmillan.
14 J. GOULD ET AL.
Belendiuk, K., Babson, K., Vandrey, R., & Bonn-Miller, M. (2015). Cannabis species and cannabi-
noid concentration preference among sleep-disturbed medicinal cannabis users. Addictive
Behaviors,50, 178–181.
Belhassen, Y., Santos, C., & Uriely, N. (2007). Cannabis usage in tourism: A sociological perspective.
Leisure Studies,26(3), 303–319.
Bell, C., Slim, J., Flaten, H., Lindberg, G., Arek, W., & Monte, A. (2015). Butane hash oil burns
associated with marijuana liberalization in Colorado. Journal of Medical Toxicology,11, 422–425.
Bennett, T., & Holloway, K. (2009). The causal connection between drug misuse and crime. British
Journal of Criminology,49, 513–531.
Bennett, T., Holloway, K., & Farrington, D. (2008). The statistical association between drug misuse
and crime: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior,13, 107–118.
Borodovsky, J., Crosier, B., Lee, D., Sargent, J., & Budney, A. (2016). Smoking, vaping, eating: Is
legalization impacting the way people use cannabis? International Journal of Drug Policy,36,
141–147.
Burstein, S. (2015). Cannabidiol (CBD) and its analogs: A review of their effects on inflammation.
Bioorgaic & Medicinal Chemistry,23(7), 1377–85.
CDOR Marijuana Enforcement. (2016). Marijuana enforcement. Colorado Department of Revenue.
Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/enforcement/marijuanaenforcement
CDOR MED Licensed Facilities. (2016). Number of licensed retail marijuana business as of May 3,
2015. Colorado Department of Revenue. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/
enforcement/med-licensed-facilities
Choi, N., DiNitto, D., Marti, C., Nathan, C., & Bryan, Y. (2016). Relationship between marijuana
and other illicit drug use and depression/suicidal thoughts among late middle-aged and older
adults. International Psychogeriatrics,28(4), 577–589.
Ciairano, S., Bosma, H., Miceli, R., & Settanni, M. (2008). Adolescent substance use in two
European countries: Relationships with psychosocial adjustment, peers, and activities.
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology,8(1), 119–138.
Daniulaityte, R., Nahhas, R., Wijeratne, S., Carlson, R., Lamy, F., Martins, S., …Sheth, A. (2015).
“Time for dabs”: Analyzing Twitter data on marijuana concentrates across the U.S.. Drug and
Alcohol Dependence,155, 307–311.
Dekker, N., Linszen, D., & De Haan, L. (2009). Reasons for cannabis use and effects of cannabis use
as reported by patients with psychotic disorders. Psychopathology,42, 350–360.
Drug Policy Alliance. (2014). Marijuana legalization in Colorado after one year of retail sales and
two years of decriminalization. Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/document/251755107/
Colorado-Marijuana-Legalization-One-Year-Status-Report-pdf#download&from_embed
Duff,C.(2005). Party drugs and party people: Examining the ‘normalization’of recreational drug
use in Melbourne, Australia. International Journal of Drug Policy,16(3), 161–170. doi:10.1016/j.
drugpo.2005.02.001
Duff, C., Asbridge, M., Brochu, S., Cousineau, M., Hathaway, A., Marsh, D., & Erickson, P. (2012).
A Canadian perspective on cannabis normalization among adults. Addiction Research & Theory,
20(4), 271–283.
Duff, C., & Erickson, P. (2014). Cannabis, risk and normalisation: Evidence from a Canadian study
of socially integrated, adult cannabis users. Health, Risk & Society,16(3), 210–226.
Fergusson, D., Horwood, L., & Swain-Campbell, N. (2003). Ethnicity and criminal convictions:
Results of a 21-year longitudinal study. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology,36
(3), 354–367. Retrieved from doi:10.1375/acri.36.3.354
Frank, V., Christensen, A., & Dah, H. (2013). Cannabis use during a life course - integrating can-
nabis use into everyday life. Drugs and Alcohol Today,13(1), 44–50.
Giroud, C., De Cesare, M., Berthet, A., Varlet, V., Concha-Lozano, N., & Favrat, B. (2015). E-
Cigarettes: A review of New trends in cannabis use. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health,12(8), 9988–10008.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA:
Northeastern University Press.
WORLD LEISURE JOURNAL 15
Green, K., Doherty, E., Stuart, A., & Ensminger, M. (2010). Does heavy adolescent marijuana use
lead to criminal involvement in adulthood? Evidence from a multiwave longitudinal study of
urban African Americans. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,112, 117–125.
Haines, R., Johnson, J., Carter, C., & Arora, K. (2009). “I couldn’t say, I’m not a girl”–adolescents
talk about gender and marijuana use. Social Science Medicine,68(11), 2029–2036. doi:10.1016/j.
socscimed.2009.03.003
Hall, W. (2015). What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health
effects of recreational cannabis use? Addiction,110(1), 19–35.
Hall, W., & Degenhardt, L. (2014). The adverse health effects of chronic cannabis use. Drug Testing
and Analysis,6(1–2), 39–45.
Hathaway, A. (1997). Marijuana and lifestyle: Exploring tolerable deviance. Deviant Behavior,18
(3), 213–232. doi:10.1080/01639625.1997.9968056
Hathaway, A. (2003). Cannabis effects and dependency concerns in long-term frequent users: A
missing piece of the public health puzzle. Addiction Research & Theory,11(6), 441–458.
Hathaway, A. (2004). Cannabis careers reconsidered: Transitions and trajectories of committed
long-term users. Contemporary Drug Problems,31(3), 401–423.
Hathaway, A., Comeau, N., & Erickson, P. (2011). Cannabis normalization and stigma:
Contemporary practices of moral regulation. Criminology & Criminal Justice,11(5), 451–469.
doi:10.1177/1748895811415345
Haug, N., Padula, C., Sottile, J., Vandrey, R., Heinz, A., & Bonn-Miller, M. (2017). Cannabis use
patterns and motives: A comparison of younger, middle-aged, and older medical cannabis dis-
pensary patients. Addictive Behaviors,72,14–20.
Hazekamp, A., & Fischedick, J. (2012). Cannabis –from cultivar to chemovar. Drug Testing and
Analysis,4(7–8), 660–7. doi:10.1002/dta.407
Jarvis, S., Rassmussen, S., & Winters, B. (2017). Role of the endocannabinoid system and medical
cannabis. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners,13(9), 525–531.
Kang, S., O’Leary, J., & Miller, J. (2016). From forbidden fruit to the goose that lays golden eggs.
SAGE Open,6(4). doi:10.1177/2158244016679213
Krauss, M., Sowles, S., Mylvaganam, S., Zewdie, K., Bierut, L., & Cavazos-Rehg, P. (2015). Displays
of dabbing marijuana extracts on YouTube. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,155,45–51.
Kronbaek, M., & Frank, A. (2013). Perspectives on daily cannabis use: Consumerism or a problem
for treatment? Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs,30, 387–402.
Lamy, F., Daniulaityte, R., Sheth, A., Nahhas, R., Martins, S., Boyer, E., & Carlson, R. (2016). “Those
edibles hit hard”: Exploration of Twitter data on cannabis edibles in the U.S. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence,164(1), 64–70.
Lau, N., Sales, P., Averill, S., Murphy, F., Sato, S., & Murphy, S. (2015). Responsible and controlled
use: Older cannabis users and harm reduction. International Journal of Drug Policy,26, 709–718.
Lee, D., Crosier, B., Borodovsky, J., Sargent, J., & Budney, A. (2015). Online survey characterizing
vaporizer use among cannabis users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,159, 227–233.
Liebregts, N., van der Pol, P., van Larr, M., De Graaf, R., van den Brink, W., & Korf, D. (2015). The
role of leisure and delinquency in frequent cannabis use and dependence trajectories among
young adults. International Journal of Drug Policy,26, 143–152.
Lin, L. A., Ilgen, M. A., Jannausch, M., & Bohnert, K. M. (2016). Comparing adults who use can-
nabis medically with those who use recreationally: Results from a national sample. Addictive
Behaviors,61,99–103.
Loflin, M., & Earleywine, M. (2014). A new method of cannabis ingestion: The dangers of dabs?
Addictive Behaviors,39, 1430–1433.
Lorente, F., Peretti-Watel, P., & Grelot, L. (2005). Cannabis use to enhance sportive and non-spor-
tive performances among French sport students. Addictive Behaviors,30, 1382–1391.
MacCoun, R., & Mello, M. (2015). Half Baked - The retail promotion of marijuana edibles. New
England Journal of Medicine,372, 989–991.
May, C., & Finch, T. (2009). Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: An outline of
normalization process theory. Sociology,43(3), 535–554.
16 J. GOULD ET AL.
McNaughton Reyes, H., Foshee, V., Bauer, D., & Ennett, S. (2014). Proximal and time-varying
effects of cigarette, alcohol, marijuana and other hard drug use on adolescent dating aggression.
Journal of Adolescence,37(3), 281–289.
Medithrive Direct. (2014). Cannabis. Retrieved from http://Medithrive.com/cannabis
Merton, R. (1957). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.
Moffat, B., Johnson, J., & Shoveller, J. (2009). A gateway to nature: Teenagers’narratives on
smoking marijuana outdoors. Journal of Environmental Psychology,29(1), 86–94.
Murphy, F., Sales, P., Murphy, S., Averill, S., Lau, N., & Sato, S. O. (2015). Baby boomers and can-
nabis delivery systems. Journal of Drug Issues,45, 293–313.
Osborne, G., & Fogel, C. (2008). Understanding the motivations for recreational marijuana use
among adult Canadians. Substance Use & Misuse,43, 539–572.
Parker, H. (2005). Normalization as barometer: Recreational drug use and the consumption of
leisure by young Britons. Addiction Research & Theory,13, 205–215.
Parker, H., Williams, L., & Aldridge, J. (2002). The normalization of sensible recreational drug use:
More evidence from the North West England longitudinal study. Sociology,36, 941–964.
Pearce, D., Mitsouras, K., & Irizarry, K. (2014). Discriminating the effects of cannabis sativa and
cannabis indica: A web survey of medical cannabis users. Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine,20, 787–791. doi:10.1089/acm.2013.0190
Peretti-Watel, P., & Lorente, F. (2004). Cannabis use, sport practice and other leisure activities at
the end of adolescence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,73(3), 251–257.
Peterson, S. (2017). A pot-smoker’s guide to elite marijuana tourism. Travel & Leisure. Retrieved
from http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/marijuana-tourism-colorado-washington
Ragheb, M., & Beard, J. (1992). Measuring leisure interests. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration,10,1–13.
Robinson. (2006).
Rojek. (2000).
Rosenau, P. (1992). Post-Modernism and the social sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Schaub, M., Gmel, G., Annaheim, B., Mueller, M., & Schwappach, D. (2010). Leisure time activities
that predict initiation, progression and reduction of cannabis use: A prospective, population-
based panel survey. Drug and Alcohol Review,29, 378–384.
Schauer, G., King, B., Bunnell, R., Promoff, G., & McAfee, T. (2016). Toking, vaping, and eating for
health or fun: Marijuana use patterns in adults. U.S., 2014. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine,50(1), 1–8.
Shannon, S., & Opila-Lehman, J. (2016). Effectiveness of cannabidiol Oil for pediatric anxiety and
insomnia as part of posttraumatic stress disorder: A case report. The Permanente Journal,20(4),
108–111.
Sharp, E., Coffman, D., Caldwell, L., Smith, E., Wegner, L., Vergnani, T., & Mathews, C. (2011).
Predicting substance use behaviour among South African adolescents: The role of leisure experi-
ences across time. International Journal of Behavioral Development,35(4), 343–351.
Shukla, R. (2005). Using marijuana in adulthood. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse,4, 153–
182.
Smith, J. (2015, July 17). A look back: The timeline of the marijuana legalization movement in
Colorado. Summit Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.postindependent.com/news/
entertainment/a-look-back-the-timeline-of-the-marijuana-legalization-movement-in-colorado/
Summerlin, R. (2017, January 30). Federal marijuana enforcement could be catastrophic to
Colorado economy. The Aspen Times. Retrieved from http://www.aspentimes.com/priority/
main-headline/federal-marijuana-enforcement-could-be-catastrophic-to-colorado-economy/
Szaflarski, J., & Bebin, E. (2014). Cannabis, cannabidiol, and epilepsy–from receptors to clinical
response. Epilepsy & Behavior,41, 277–82.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate analysis (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon: Boston.
Terry-McElrath, Y., & O‘Malley, P. (2011). Substance use and exercise participation among young
adults: Parallel trajectories in a national cohort-sequential study. Addiction,106(10), 1855–1865.
WORLD LEISURE JOURNAL 17
Thornton, L., Baker, A., Johnson, M., & Lewin, T. (2013). Perceived risk associated with tobacco,
alcohol and cannabis use among people with and without psychotic disorders. Addictive
Behaviors,38(6), 2246–2251.
Uriely, N., & Belhassen, Y. (2006). Drugs and risk-taking in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
33(2), 339–359. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2005.10.009
Volkow, N., Baler, R., Compton, W., & Weiss, S. (2014). Adverse health effects of marijuana Use.
New England Journal of Medicine,370, 2219–2227.
Wallace, A. (2017). Report: American’s marijuana industry headed for $24 billion by 2025. The
Gazette. Retrieved from http://gazette.com/article/1597402
Walther, B., Morgenstern, M., & Hanewinkel, R. (2012). Co-occurrence of addictive behaviours:
Personality factors related to substance use, gambling and computer gaming. European
Addiction Research,18(4), 167–174.
Wilkie, G., Sakr, B., & Rizack, T. (2016). Medical marijuana Use in oncology. Journal of the
American Medical Association - Oncology,2(5), 670–675.
Wolfensberger, W. (1984). A reconceptualization of normalisation as social role valorization.
Mental Retardation,34,22–25.
Yeomans-Maldonado, G., & Patrick, M. (2015). The effect of perceived risk on the combined used
of alcohol and marijuana: Results from daily surveys. Addictive Behaviors Reports,2,33–36.
18 J. GOULD ET AL.
