RESUMEN
Background: Despite a number of states in the U.S. enacting medical marijuana policies, there is currently a lack of research outlining the role that individual-level factors play in predicting medical marijuana use, especially regarding use and misuse of prescription pain relievers. The overall aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of medical marijuana use in the U.S. and to identify clinical, social, and demographic predictors. Methods: A retrospective secondary database analysis was conducted utilizing five years of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSUDH). A multivariable logistic regression model assessed the association between prescription pain reliever use and medical marijuana in the adult U.S. population while adjusting for substance use factors, psychiatric factors, and demographic characteristics. Results: Within the U.S. adult population from 2015 to 2019, medical marijuana use increased from 1.6% to 2.4%, while appropriate prescription pain reliever use decreased from 33.4% to 27.5%, and prescription pain reliever misuse decreased from 4.7% to 3.7%. Of all marijuana users, 15.1% resided within non-medical marijuana states. Medical marijuana users are more likely to have a serious mental illness (14.0% vs. 4.4%) and a non-marijuana related substance dependence (5.3% vs. 1.2%). Past-year medical marijuana use was significantly more likely to be reported among appropriate users of prescription pain relievers (OR = 1.99, p < .001) and misusers (OR = 1.94, p < .001) (relative to nonusers). Conclusions: Prescription pain reliever appropriate use and misuse were associated with higher odds of medical marijuana use. This study identified a potential treatment gap among individuals residing in states with no medical marijuana availability. These study findings highlight the potential benefits of medical marijuana legalization that future research can build on to guide policy making decisions.
RESUMEN
For over four decades, the topic of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) compensation has attracted considerable attention from the fields of economics, finance, management, public policy, law, and business ethics. As scholarly interest in CEO pay has increased, so has public concern about the ethics of high CEO pay. Despite growing interest and pressure among the public and government to reduce CEO pay, it has continued to increase. Using a multi-method design incorporating a pilot study, two online experiments, and an event study, we investigate the impact of CEO pay on consumer purchase intent and find that this negative relationship is magnified under conditions of brand crisis. We also find that the negative interaction of high CEO pay and brand crisis on purchase intent is more negative when the brand has strong equity. Finally, when the CEO is awarded high pay while the firm they manage is undergoing a brand crisis, consumers lose trust in the firm's brand which reduces consumer purchase intent. This research provides insight on how governance decisions can impact consumer perceptions of corporate brands and consumer behavior, with implications for public policy leaders, boards of directors, CEOs, and Chief Marketing Officers regarding how to manage and message CEO pay.
RESUMEN
Although there is an established literature regarding brand transgressions, Covid-19 has highlighted the need to better understand exogenously created brand crises. We introduce, define, and distinguish between two types of crises that emanate from exogenous, offending brands and the broader marketplace-brand infection and brand contamination. We further present future research ideas that can provide insights into the prevention, mitigation, and recovery strategies that firms can employ to address exogenously created brand crises.