Introduction: Marijuana represents the most widely-used illicit drug on college campuses. Repeated use can impair students’ physical and mental health, intelligence, memory, and academic performance (Arria et al., 2013a; Arria et al., 2013c; Beck et al., 2009; Buckner et al., 2012; Caldeira et al, 2013; Falls et al., 2013; Hall & Dagenhardt, 2008; Jacobus et al., 2013;Meier et al., 2012; Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1983; Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2004). People who use marijuana heavily in their teens and early twenties are especially vulnerable to experiencing reductions in intelligence quotient (I.Q.) and memory impairment (Meier et al., 2012). Further, marijuana use has been associated with reductions in college graduation, skipping class, early conduct problems, and lower grade point averages (Arria et al., 2013a; Arria et al., 2013b; Arria et al., 2013c). The current political landscape and public opinions indicate more permissive attitudes toward marijuana use, with several states voting to legalize recreational use of marijuana (Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington; Governing, 2015) and many others supporting decriminalization and medicinal marijuana licenses (ProCon.org, 2015). Additionally, the U.S. Attorney General issued a memorandum indicating that the Department of Justice will not challenge state marijuana laws (Reilly, 2013), leading many to speculate that widespread legalization appears imminent. Purpose: The aim of this study was twofold. First, to evaluate the outcomes medical marijuana laws have within the college student population. Specifically, the difference in marijuana use between states with and without medical marijuana laws as well as other drug use, grade point average (GPA), location of use, negative outcomes, and normative influences. Second, to determine which variables (negative outcomes, normative influence, location of use, and substance use) predicted marijuana use. Methods: Data from the 2013 Core Alcohol and Drug Survey Long Form national data set were obtained after receiving IRB approval. Institutions of higher education self-select to administer the Core and each campus determined their own method of administration (online vs. in the classroom) and implementation (random sample vs. convenience sample). ). The survey consists of 39 items assessing college student demographics and experiences with alcohol and other drugs. Martens and colleagues (2005) assessed the psychometrics and the results indicate the instrument is both reliable and valid. Results: The odds ratio results indicate the location of drug use differed in states with medical marijuana laws. Students who attended college in states with medical marijuana laws were more than twice as likely to use marijuana on campus, in the residence halls, where they live, in bar/restaurant, and in a car than students in states without laws. Odds ratio analysis also revealed that students who attended college in states with medical marijuana laws were more likely to experience negative consequences (memory loss, being hurt or injured, doing something they regretted, or doing poorly on an exam) than students who did not. Logistic regressions were used to assess marijuana and other drug use and suggest that student use also differed by state medical marijuana laws. Students in states with laws were more likely to have used hallucinogens and designer drugs while students in states without laws were more likely to have used legal substances (alcohol and tobacco). Finally, logistic regressions also evaluated social norms revealing that students who believed that their friends would approve of their marijuana use were more likely to live in states with medical marijuana laws. Conclusions: Students in states with medical marijuana laws are more likely to have used marijuana in the past year, use on campus, suffer academic challenges, and believe that their friends would approve of their use. With impending passage of future more permissive marijuana laws, it is recommended that college health practitioners, campus administrators, researchers, grantors, and the state and federal governments begin to address the negative impact that these laws have on college students.