| Audience | Families, pediatric and primary-care clinicians, school health teams, public-health professionals, and cautious readers. |
| Primary Topic | Changing adolescent cannabis use and social disparities in Minnesota from 2013 through 2025. |
| Source | Read the University of Minnesota research brief |
Minnesota Teen Cannabis Use Fell, but Major Social Disparities Persist
A new peer-reviewed analysis of Minnesota Student Survey data found that past-30-day cannabis use among ninth- and eleventh-grade students declined from 13% in 2013 to 5% in 2025. The statewide trend is reassuring, but several groups continued to report markedly higher use, and the observational study cannot show which policies or social changes caused the decline.
| Study | Changing cannabis use among diverse adolescents over a 12-year period of policy change: Trends and disparities |
| Journal | Social Science & Medicine |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119597 |
| Design | Repeated cross-sectional analysis of school-based survey data |
| Data Source | Minnesota Student Survey |
| Population | Minnesota ninth- and eleventh-grade students |
| Study Years | 2013 through 2025 |
| Primary Measure | Self-reported past-30-day cannabis use |
| Overall Trend | Declined from 13% in 2013 to 5% in 2025 |
| Key Limit | Observational survey trends cannot establish that legalization or another policy caused the change |
On July 23, 2026, the University of Minnesota reported new findings from a peer-reviewed analysis of Minnesota Student Survey data. Researchers examined self-reported cannabis use among ninth- and eleventh-grade students from 2013 through 2025. University of Minnesota research brief.
The paper, published in Social Science & Medicine, found that past-30-day cannabis use declined from 13% to 5%. The authors also examined differences by assigned sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Peer-reviewed paper and DOI.
The statewide decline is good news, but it should not make families dismiss signs of impairment or distress. A calm conversation should ask what a young person is using, how often, why they use it, whether it affects school or relationships, and whether anxiety, depression, trauma, bullying, or sleep problems are part of the picture.
Avoid turning identity into a risk label. The disparities in this study describe group-level patterns shaped by social conditions. They do not mean that a particular young person uses cannabis or will develop a problem.
Continue confidential, developmentally appropriate screening even when population prevalence is falling. Ask about frequency, THC concentration, route, source, solitary use, driving or riding with an impaired driver, co-use with nicotine or alcohol, withdrawal, and difficulty cutting down.
When use is present, assess the function it serves. Cannabis used to manage anxiety, trauma symptoms, social stress, pain, or sleep may signal unmet needs. Counseling is more useful when it addresses those needs and offers concrete harm-reduction or treatment options.
The study period spans major changes in cannabis policy, products, retail environments, social attitudes, and youth prevention. A downward trend during policy change challenges simplistic claims that any expansion of adult access automatically produces higher adolescent use.
It also does not prove that policy change reduced use. Other influences, including tobacco and alcohol trends, school climate, family behavior, prevention programs, survey participation, and broader social change, may contribute.
The analysis does not establish why use declined, whether adult-use legalization caused any part of the trend, or how individual policies affected different groups.
Self-reported past-30-day use does not measure product potency, dose, route, intoxication, cannabis use disorder, school impairment, mental-health effects, or long-term outcomes.
Repeated cross-sectional surveys describe different student samples over time. They do not follow the same adolescents from 2013 to 2025.
Lower prevalence does not make cannabis exposure harmless for adolescents. Younger age at initiation, frequent use, high-THC products, co-use, impaired driving, psychiatric vulnerability, and functional decline remain clinically important.
The study’s disparities should guide outreach and resource allocation, not stereotyping. Screening should remain universal enough to avoid missing youth outside statistically higher-prevalence groups.
A positive screen is the beginning of assessment. It is not, by itself, a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder or proof that cannabis caused a young person’s symptoms.
The University of Minnesota report accurately links to a peer-reviewed paper and states the main limits, but it is also an institutional summary of research supported by the university’s Cannabis Research Center. Readers should rely on the paper for methods and statistical details.
Headlines can overcompress a complex result. The most defensible conclusion is that reported use declined in these Minnesota student surveys while important disparities persisted. Stronger causal claims would require different designs and additional data.
The findings support prevention that is both universal and targeted. Broad education can reinforce the overall decline, while culturally responsive services and anti-stigma efforts can address the unequal burdens identified in the data.
Policymakers should watch more than prevalence. Product potency, age at initiation, frequent use, treatment access, school functioning, mental health, poisonings, and driving safety provide a fuller view of adolescent cannabis risk.
Population averages can improve while serious inequities remain.
Adolescent prevention works best when it combines clear substance information with attention to mental health, stigma, discrimination, poverty, and access to care.
The decline is worth recognizing. It gives families and clinicians a better starting point than the assumption that teen cannabis use must always rise as adult policy changes. But an average is not a victory lap when some groups remain three times more likely to report use.
I would use these findings to make screening calmer, not less important. Ask without judgment, understand what the cannabis is doing for the young person, and connect the conversation to mental health, sleep, trauma, school, family, and safety. That approach is more clinically useful than fear-based messaging or identity-based assumptions.
How to Read a Youth Cannabis Trend Carefully
A large decline can be real and encouraging.
It can coexist with persistent disparities and unresolved causal questions.
Four questions for a careful reading
What was measured?
Self-reported past-30-day cannabis use among Minnesota ninth- and eleventh-grade students across repeated survey years.
What changed?
Overall prevalence declined from 13% in 2013 to 5% in 2025, with changes that differed across social groups.
What can the design support?
It can describe trends and associations across survey samples, but it cannot prove why those trends occurred.
What deserves action?
Persistent disparities, especially for American Indian or Alaska Native youth, LGBTQ+ youth, and youth experiencing poverty.
The Same Study Can Mean Different Things Depending on the Question Being Asked
Scientific papers rarely answer a single question. Patients, clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and critics often read the same data differently. The perspectives below explore how this study looks through several evidence-based lenses.
A Trend Is Not Your Story
Statewide numbers do not define an individual young person.
Honest conversations can focus on goals, stress, and safety.
Keep Screening Specific
Ask about product, frequency, route, motives, impairment, and co-use.
Connect use to mental health, sleep, trauma, and function.
Lead With Curiosity
Avoid interrogation and catastrophic claims.
Make it safe to discuss mistakes and concerns.
Do Not Turn Disparity Into Stereotype
Group patterns reflect social context, not destiny.
Universal screening helps avoid biased assumptions.
Watch Function and Support
Attendance, grades, relationships, and distress may reveal emerging problems.
Punishment alone may miss the reason for use.
Potency and Context Still Matter
The survey trend does not describe THC concentration or dose.
Driving, co-use, and psychiatric symptoms require direct assessment.
Do Not Infer a Policy Effect
Many conditions changed between 2013 and 2025.
A trend alone cannot identify the cause.
Track Outcomes Beyond Use
Monitor frequent use, treatment access, poisonings, driving, and school effects.
Report trends separately for groups facing unequal burdens.
Join the Conversation
Have a question about how this applies to your situation? Ask Dr. Caplan
Want to discuss this topic with other patients and caregivers? Join the forum discussion
When a new paper overlaps with earlier CED Clinic coverage, we preserve the chain instead of hiding the overlap. These links point to older related posts so readers can compare what is new, what is repeated, and how the evidence has moved.
Earlier CED coverage examined national racial and ethnic trends in youth cannabis and tobacco use through 2021.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did adolescent cannabis use increase in Minnesota after legalization?
Not in this survey trend. Reported past-30-day use among ninth- and eleventh-grade students declined from 13% in 2013 to 5% in 2025, but the study cannot determine what caused the decline.
What data did the Minnesota cannabis study use?
Researchers analyzed repeated Minnesota Student Survey data from ninth- and eleventh-grade students between 2013 and 2025.
Which adolescents had persistent disparities?
The University of Minnesota summary highlighted American Indian or Alaska Native youth, LGBTQ+ youth, and youth experiencing poverty as groups with large persistent differences.
Does the study prove legalization reduced teen cannabis use?
No. The observational trend cannot isolate the effect of legalization or another policy from other social and behavioral changes.
Does lower prevalence mean adolescent cannabis use is safe?
No. Lower population prevalence does not remove risks related to early initiation, frequent use, high-THC products, impairment, co-use, or psychiatric vulnerability.
Did researchers follow the same teenagers for 12 years?
No. This was a repeated cross-sectional analysis using different survey samples across years.
Can the results predict whether one teenager uses cannabis?
No. Group-level rates and disparities cannot predict an individual young person’s behavior.
What should clinicians ask adolescents about cannabis?
Ask about frequency, product and potency, route, motives, impairment, driving, co-use, withdrawal, mental health, sleep, and difficulty cutting down.
How should families discuss cannabis with teenagers?
Use calm, specific, nonjudgmental questions and make room to discuss stress, mental health, peers, school, and safety.
What research is needed next?
Studies should examine which policies and social conditions contributed to the trend, track product-specific exposure and harms, and test interventions that reduce persistent disparities.
