Young Adults in Colorado Judge Cannabis and Tobacco Harms Through Five Key Lenses

Young adults in legal-market Colorado evaluated substance harms through five dimensions: combustion, potency, chemicals, addiction type, and information source, often concluding that "natural" products are safer.

Popova, Lucy et al.·Addiction (Abingdon·2017·Preliminary EvidenceQualitative Study
RTHC-01490QualitativePreliminary Evidence2017RETHINKTHC RESEARCH DATABASErethinkthc.com/research

Quick Facts

Study Type
Qualitative Study
Evidence
Preliminary Evidence
Sample
N=32

What This Study Found

Through 32 in-depth interviews with young adults aged 18-26 in Denver who used tobacco, marijuana, or vaporizers, researchers identified five dimensions these users applied when evaluating harms and benefits.

Combustion: smoking anything was considered more harmful than non-combustible forms (edibles, vaporizers). Potency: edibles and marijuana concentrates were seen as more potentially harmful due to overdose risk from getting too much THC. Chemicals: products with additives were considered more harmful than "pure" or "natural" plant products. Addiction: participants recognized physical nicotine addiction but described marijuana dependence as mainly psychological or lifestyle-related. Source of knowledge: personal experience, warning labels, media, retailer opinions, and medical advice all shaped perceptions.

Participants generally viewed marijuana as more "natural" and therefore safer than tobacco, a perception the authors suggest could be misleading given that marijuana smoke also contains harmful chemicals.

Key Numbers

32 participants aged 18-26 in Denver, CO. Five dimensions of harm evaluation identified. Participants used tobacco, marijuana, and/or vaporizers.

How They Did This

Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 32 young adults aged 18-26 in Denver, Colorado who used tobacco, marijuana, or vaporizers. Interviews covered perceived harms and benefits and personal experiences. Data were analyzed thematically.

Why This Research Matters

Understanding how young adults reason about substance risks is essential for designing effective health education. The finding that many users equate "natural" with "safe" suggests a gap in health messaging. The potency dimension is particularly relevant as concentrates and edibles become more prevalent in legal markets.

The Bigger Picture

As legal cannabis markets mature, young adults develop their own frameworks for evaluating risk that may not align with scientific evidence. The "natural = safe" heuristic, in particular, persists despite evidence that marijuana smoke contains many of the same harmful compounds as tobacco smoke. Health campaigns that engage with these existing mental models, rather than simply contradicting them, may be more effective.

What This Study Doesn't Tell Us

Small qualitative sample (32 participants) from a single city in the first legal recreational market. Findings reflect the specific cultural context of Denver in the early legalization period. Qualitative research identifies themes but cannot quantify how prevalent each belief is in the broader population.

Questions This Raises

  • ?Have young adult perceptions shifted as legal markets have matured?
  • ?Do health education campaigns that address the "natural = safe" belief change behavior?
  • ?How do perceptions of concentrate and edible risks affect actual use patterns?

Trust & Context

Key Stat:
Young adults viewed "natural" marijuana as safer than tobacco despite both producing harmful smoke compounds
Evidence Grade:
Preliminary evidence from a small qualitative study in a single location.
Study Age:
Published in 2017. Conducted in the early years of Colorado's recreational market.
Original Title:
Perceived harms and benefits of tobacco, marijuana, and electronic vaporizers among young adults in Colorado: implications for health education and research.
Published In:
Addiction (Abingdon, England), 112(10), 1821-1829 (2017)
Database ID:
RTHC-01490

Evidence Hierarchy

Meta-Analysis / Systematic Review
Randomized Controlled Trial
Cohort / Case-Control
Cross-Sectional / ObservationalSnapshot without intervening
This study
Case Report / Animal Study

Uses interviews or focus groups to understand experiences in depth.

What do these levels mean? →

Frequently Asked Questions

Is marijuana really safer than tobacco?

This study explored perceptions, not actual safety. Participants generally believed marijuana was safer because it is "natural," but marijuana smoke contains many of the same harmful chemicals as tobacco smoke. The health risks differ between the substances, and the route of consumption matters significantly.

Why were edibles seen as potentially more harmful?

Participants recognized that edibles carry a risk of consuming too much THC because the effects are delayed, making it easy to take more before the first dose kicks in. This potency-related concern is distinct from combustion-related harms.

Read More on RethinkTHC

Cite This Study

RTHC-01490·https://rethinkthc.com/research/RTHC-01490

APA

Popova, Lucy; McDonald, Emily Anne; Sidhu, Sohrab; Barry, Rachel; Richers Maruyama, Tracey A; Sheon, Nicolas M; Ling, Pamela M. (2017). Perceived harms and benefits of tobacco, marijuana, and electronic vaporizers among young adults in Colorado: implications for health education and research.. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 112(10), 1821-1829. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13854

MLA

Popova, Lucy, et al. "Perceived harms and benefits of tobacco, marijuana, and electronic vaporizers among young adults in Colorado: implications for health education and research.." Addiction (Abingdon, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13854

RethinkTHC

RethinkTHC Research Database. "Perceived harms and benefits of tobacco, marijuana, and elec..." RTHC-01490. Retrieved from https://rethinkthc.com/research/popova-2017-perceived-harms-and-benefits

Access the Original Study

Study data sourced from PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

This study breakdown was produced by the RethinkTHC research team. We analyze and report published research findings without making health recommendations. All interpretations are based solely on the published abstract and study data.