Adolescent cannabis use is down, but the decline is not evenly shared
A new study drawing on school-based survey data from Minnesota reports a substantial drop in adolescent cannabis use over the past decade, while also finding that several of the largest social disparities have remained stubbornly intact. The research offers a mixed picture: broad progress at the population level, but limited progress for some of the young people who already face the greatest health and social burdens.
The study, published in Social Science & Medicine and described by researchers at the University of Minnesota Medical School, examined cannabis use trends from 2013 to 2025 using the Minnesota Student Survey. Looking at ninth- and 11th-grade students, the researchers compared rates of past 30-day cannabis use across survey years and across a range of social identities, including assigned sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, racial and ethnic identity, and socioeconomic status.
The headline finding is straightforward: past 30-day cannabis use fell from 13% in 2013 to 5% in 2025. That is a marked decline in a behavior long associated in prior studies with emotional distress, academic problems, and harms to brain development and functioning that can extend into adulthood. On its face, that drop suggests many fewer Minnesota adolescents are using cannabis than a decade earlier.
But the overall decline does not tell the full story. The researchers found that for almost all of the social identities they studied, marginalized youth had significantly elevated odds of reporting cannabis use compared with the more privileged comparison group for that identity category. In other words, the state-level improvement did not erase unequal exposure.
What changed, and what did not
Some disparities did narrow. The report highlights one especially notable example involving racial differences. In 2013, non-Hispanic Black, African or African American youth were reported to be 51% more likely to use cannabis than non-Hispanic white youth. By 2025, that pattern had reversed in this dataset, with those Black youth reported as 10% less likely to use cannabis than white youth.
That shift matters because it shows that disparities are not fixed. Population-level change can alter relative risk across groups, and the mechanisms behind those changes deserve attention from public health researchers and policymakers. Whether the shift reflects changing norms, prevention efforts, differential access, reporting patterns, or broader social changes, it shows that gaps can move substantially over time.
At the same time, not all gaps narrowed. Some of the largest disparities remained effectively stable from 2013 to 2025. The study found that American Indian and Alaska Native youth, LGBTQ+ youth, and youth experiencing poverty were each about three times more likely to use cannabis than their respective comparison groups: white youth, straight youth, and non-impoverished youth. Those are not small residual differences at the margins. They point to persistent structural and social inequality inside an otherwise improving statewide trend.
The result is what lead author Marla Eisenberg described, in the source text, as a “good news, bad news” story. The good news is that fewer adolescents overall reported recent cannabis use in 2025 than in 2013. The bad news is that the decline did not eliminate some of the most consequential disparities, particularly for groups already more likely to encounter other forms of disadvantage.
Why the findings matter
Public discussion about youth cannabis use often gravitates toward one number: whether use is rising or falling. That measure matters, but it can flatten the real picture. A statewide average can improve while leaving behind groups that are disproportionately affected by poverty, discrimination, stress, or unequal access to supportive services. This study argues for a more precise way of measuring progress.
That matters for both prevention and intervention. If policymakers rely only on the overall decline, they may conclude that existing efforts are working broadly enough and that the problem is receding. But if the biggest remaining burdens are concentrated among specific populations, then universal approaches alone may not be sufficient. The data suggest the next phase of progress may depend less on broad messaging and more on targeted support.
The study also lands in a policy environment where cannabis debates increasingly focus on legalization, criminal justice, and commercial markets. Those conversations can overshadow adolescent health disparities. Yet youth exposure patterns remain an essential public health issue, especially given the evidence cited in the source text linking adolescent cannabis use with negative emotional, academic, and developmental outcomes.
Importantly, the Minnesota research does not argue that every group followed the same path or that all disparities worsened. Some comparative differences, especially among racial and ethnic groups, declined. That nuance is one of the study’s main contributions. It resists both easy optimism and easy pessimism. The trend is encouraging, but the benefits have been uneven.
A more targeted public health challenge
The practical implication is that a falling statewide rate should not be treated as the end of the story. Instead, it changes the nature of the challenge. When prevalence is higher overall, universal prevention can dominate the conversation. When prevalence falls but disparities remain large, the harder work becomes understanding why certain groups remain at elevated risk and designing responses that fit their circumstances.
For youth experiencing poverty, that may involve exposure to chronic stress, instability, or limited access to supportive resources. For LGBTQ+ youth, it may involve minority stress, stigma, or exclusion. For American Indian and Alaska Native youth, the drivers may reflect long-standing inequities that standard school-based or public health campaigns do not adequately address. The study itself, as summarized in the source text, does not resolve those causal questions, but it makes clear where attention is still needed.
That is also why the findings should matter beyond Minnesota. The state offers unusually rich school-based survey data over a long period, allowing researchers to examine change in both prevalence and inequity. Other states may show different patterns, but the broader lesson is portable: a declining average can coexist with persistent disparity, and public health success should be judged on both dimensions.
Minnesota’s adolescents are using cannabis less often than they were a decade ago. That is a meaningful improvement. But if some groups remain several times more likely than others to report use, then the central challenge is no longer simply reducing the total. It is making sure the gains reach the young people still most exposed to harm.
Key findings
- Past 30-day cannabis use among surveyed Minnesota adolescents fell from 13% in 2013 to 5% in 2025.
- Marginalized youth had significantly elevated odds of reporting cannabis use for almost all social identities studied.
- Some racial and ethnic disparities narrowed substantially over time.
- American Indian/Alaska Native youth, LGBTQ+ youth, and youth experiencing poverty remained about three times more likely to report use than comparison groups.
This article is based on reporting by Phys.org. Read the original article.
Originally published on phys.org
