4.6 Article

Twitter Chatter About Marijuana

Journal

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH
Volume 56, Issue 2, Pages 139-145

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.10.270

Keywords

Marijuana; Social media; Youth

Funding

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [R01 DA032843, R01 DA039455]
  2. National Institute of Health Midcareer Investigator Award [K02 DA021237, R01 DA031288]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: We sought to examine the sentiment and themes of marijuana-related chatter on Twitter sent by influential Twitter users and to describe the demographics of these Twitter users. Methods: We assessed the sentiment and themes of a random sample (n = 7,000) of influential marijuana-related tweets (sent from February 5, 20114, to March 5, 2014). Demographics of the users tweeting about marijuana were inferred using a social media analytics company (Demographics Pro for Twitter). Results: Most marijuana-related tweets reflected a positive sentiment toward marijuana use, with pro-marijuana tweets outnumbering anti-marijuana tweets by a factor of greater than 15. The most common theme of pro-marijuana tweets included the Tweeter stating that he/she wants/plans to use marijuana, followed by tweeting about frequent/heavy/or regular marijuana use, and that marijuana has health benefits and/or should be legalized. Tweeters of marijuanarelated content were younger and a greater proportion was African-American compared with the Twitter average. Conclusions: Marijuana Twitter chatter sent by influential Twitter users tends to be pro-marijuana and popular among African-Americans and youth/young adults. Marijuana-related harms mayafflict some individuals; therefore, our findings should be used to inform online and offline prevention efforts that work to target individuals who are most at risk for harms associated with marijuana use. (C) 2015 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available