A meta-analysis of the crash risk of cannabis-positive drivers in culpability studies-Avoiding interpretational bias

Cannabis in combat sports: position statement of the Association of Ringside Physicians

and ARP Position Statement: Based on the available body of scientific evidence and with the goals of promoting safety of combat sports athletes and striving for the advancement of clean sport, the Association of Ringside Physicians recommends the following regarding cannabis:• Use of marijuana or synthetic cannabinoids by combat sports athletes is discouraged due to unproven benefits and many known adverse effects. Acute use can impair cognition and complex motor function, which likely leads to reduced performance in combat sports. Chronic use can increase risk for heart and lung disease, several cancers, schizophrenia, and can reduce testosterone in men and impair fertility. Benefits from cannabis in most contexts, including athletic performance, have not been proven.• Use of topical purified CBD is neither encouraged nor discouraged.• Since acute cannabis intoxication can impair complex cognitive and motor function, any athlete suspected of acute intoxication at the time of competition - based on clinical judgment - should be banned from that competition.• Wide-scale regulation of cannabis based on quantitative testing has limited usefulness in combat sports, for the following reasons:∘ Cannabis is not ergogenic and is likely ergolytic.∘ Concentrations in body fluids correlate poorly with clinical effects and timing of use.∘ Access to testing resources varies widely across sporting organizations.

Evaluating possible 'next day' impairment in insomnia patients administered an oral medicinal cannabis product by night: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Cannabis and its major constituents, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), are being widely used to treat sleep disturbances. However, THC can cause acute cognitive and psychomotor impairment and there are concerns that driving and workplace safety might be compromised the day after evening use. Here, we examined possible 'next day' impairment following evening administration of a typical medicinal cannabis oil in adults with insomnia disorder, compared to matched placebo. This paper describes the secondary outcomes of a larger study investigating the effects of THC/CBD on insomnia disorder. Twenty adults [16 female; mean (SD) age, 46.1 (8.6) y] with physician-diagnosed insomnia who infrequently use cannabis completed two 24 h in-laboratory visits involving acute oral administration of combined 10 mg THC and 200 mg CBD ('THC/CBD') or placebo in a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial design. Outcome measures included 'next day' (≥9 h post-treatment) performance on cognitive and psychomotor function tasks, simulated driving performance, subjective drug effects, and mood. We found no differences in 'next day' performance on 27 out of 28 tests of cognitive and psychomotor function and simulated driving performance relative to placebo. THC/CBD produced a small decrease (-1.4%, p=.016, d=-0.6) in accuracy on the Stroop-Colour Task (easy/congruent) but not the Stroop-Word Task (hard/incongruent). THC/CBD also produced a small increase (+8.6, p=.042, d=0.3) in self-ratings of Sedated at 10 h post-treatment, but with no accompanying changes in subjective ratings of Alert or Sleepy (p's>0.05). In conclusion, we found a lack of notable 'next day' impairment to cognitive and psychomotor function and simulated driving performance following evening use of 10 mg oral THC, in combination with 200 mg CBD, in an insomnia population who infrequently use cannabis.

The effect of cannabis edibles on driving and blood THC

BACKGROUND

Cannabis has been shown to impact driving due to changes produced by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive component of cannabis. Current legal thresholds for blood THC while driving are based predominantly on evidence utilizing smoked cannabis. It is known that levels of THC in blood are lower after eating cannabis as compared to smoking yet the impact of edibles on driving and associated blood THC has never been studied.

METHODS

Participants drove a driving simulator before and after ingesting their preferred legally purchased cannabis edible. In a counterbalanced control session, participants did not consume any THC or cannabidiol (CBD). Blood was collected for measurement of THC and metabolites as well as CBD. Subjective experience was also assessed.

RESULTS

Participants consumed edibles with, on average, 7.3 mg of THC, which is less than the maximum amount available in a single retail package in Ontario, providing an ecologically valid test of cannabis edibles. Compared to control, cannabis edibles produced a decrease in mean speed 2 h after consumption but not at 4 and 6 h. Under dual task conditions in which participants completed a secondary task while driving, changes in speed were not significant after the correction for multiple comparison. No changes in standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP; 'weaving'), maximum speed, standard deviation of speed or reaction time were found at any time point or under either standard or dual task conditions. Mean THC levels were significantly increased, relative to control, after consuming the edible but remained relatively low at approximately 2.8 ng/mL 2 h after consumption. Driving impairment was not correlated with blood THC. Subjective experience was altered for 7 h and participants were less willing/able to drive for up to 6 h, suggesting that the edible was intoxicating.

INTERPRETATION

This is the first study of the impact of cannabis edibles on simulated driving. Edibles were intoxicating as revealed by the results of subjective assessments (VAS), and there was some impact on driving. Detection of driving impairment after the use of cannabis edibles may be difficult.

Complexity of Translating Analytics to Recent Cannabis Use and Impairment

While current analytical methodologies can readily identify cannabis use, definitively establishing recent use within the impairment window has proven to be far more complex, requiring a new approach. Recent studies have shown no direct relationship between impairment and Δ9-tetra-hydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) concentrations in blood or saliva, making legal "per se" Δ9-THC limits scientifically unjustified. Current methods that focus on Δ9-THC and/or metabolite concentrations in blood, saliva, urine, or exhaled breath can lead to false-positive results for recent use due to the persistence of Δ9-THC well outside of the typical 3-4 h window of potential impairment following cannabis inhalation. There is also the issue of impairment due to other intoxicating substances-just because a subject exhibits signs of impairment and cannabis use is detected does not rule out the involvement of other drugs. Compounding the matter is the increasing popularity of hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) products following passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized industrial hemp in the United States. Many of these products contain varying levels of Δ9-THC, which can lead to false-positive tests for cannabis use. Furthermore, hemp-derived CBD is used to synthesize Δ8-THC, which possesses psychoactive properties similar to Δ9-THC and is surrounded by legal controversy. For accuracy, analytical methods must be able to distinguish the various THC isomers, which have identical masses and exhibit immunological cross-reactivity. A new testing approach has been developed based on exhaled breath and blood sampling that incorporates kinetic changes and the presence of key cannabinoids to detect recent cannabis use within the impairment window without the false-positive results seen with other methods. The complexity of determining recent cannabis use that may lead to impairment demands such a comprehensive method so that irresponsible users can be accurately detected without falsely accusing responsible users who may unjustly suffer harsh, life-changing consequences.

Effects of acute cannabis inhalation on reaction time, decision-making, and memory using a tablet-based application

BACKGROUND

Acute cannabis use has been demonstrated to slow reaction time and affect decision-making and short-term memory. These effects may have utility in identifying impairment associated with recent use. However, these effects have not been widely investigated among individuals with a pattern of daily use, who may have acquired tolerance. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of tolerance to cannabis on the acute effects as measured by reaction time, decision-making (gap acceptance), and short-term memory.

METHODS

Participants (ages 25-45) completed a tablet-based (iPad) test battery before and approximately 60 min after smoking cannabis flower. The change in performance from before to after cannabis use was compared across three groups of cannabis users: (1) occasional use (n = 23); (2) daily use (n = 31); or (3) no current use (n = 32). Participants in the occasional and daily use group self-administered ad libitum, by smoking or vaping, self-supplied cannabis flower with a high concentration of total THC (15-30%).

RESULTS

The occasional use group exhibited decrements in reaction time (slowed) and short-term memory (replicated fewer shapes) from before to after cannabis use, as compared to the no-use group. In the gap acceptance task, daily use participants took more time to complete the task post-smoking cannabis as compared to those with no use or occasional use; however, the level of accuracy did not significantly change.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings are consistent with acquired tolerance to certain acute psychomotor effects with daily cannabis use. The finding from the gap acceptance task which showed a decline in speed but not accuracy may indicate a prioritization of accuracy over response time. Cognitive and psychomotor assessments may have utility for identifying impairment associated with recent cannabis use.

A systematic review of oculomotor deficits associated with acute and chronic cannabis use

Driving is a critical everyday task necessitating the rapid and seamless integration of dynamic visually derived information to guide neurobehaviour. Biological markers are frequently employed to detect Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) consumption among drivers during roadside tests, despite not necessarily indicating impairment. Characterising THC-specific alterations to oculomotor behaviour may offer a more sensitive measure for indexing drug-related impairment, necessitating discrimination between acute THC effects, chronic use and potential tolerance effects. The present review aims to synthesise current evidence on the acute and chronic effects of THC on driving-relevant oculomotor behaviour. The review was prospectively registered (10.17605/OSF.IO/A4H9W), and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines informed reporting standards. Overall, 20 included articles comprising 12 experimental acute dosing trials, 5 cross-sectional chronic use studies and 3 roadside epidemiological studies examined the effects of cannabis/THC on oculomotor parameters including saccadic activity gaze behaviour, nystagmus, smooth pursuit and eyelid/blink characteristics. Acute THC consumption selectively impacts oculomotor control, notably increasing saccadic latency and inaccuracy and impairing inhibitory control. Chronic cannabis users, especially those with early age of use onset, display enduring oculomotor deficits that affect visual scanning efficiency. The presence of eyelid tremors appears to be a reliable indicator of cannabis consumption while remaining distinct from direct impairment associated with visual attention and motor control. Cannabis selectively influences oculomotor activity relevant to driving, highlighting the role of cannabinoid systems in these processes. Defining cannabis/THC-specific changes in oculomotor control may enhance the precision of roadside impairment assessments and vehicle safety systems to detect drug-related impairment and assess driving fitness.

Accuracy and replicability of identifying eyelid tremor as an indicator of recent cannabis smoking

INTRODUCTION

Cannabis intoxication may increase the risk of motor vehicle crashes. However, reliable methods of assessing cannabis intoxication are limited. The presence of eyelid tremors is among the signs of cannabis use identified under the Drug Evaluation and Classification Program of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Our objectives were to assess the accuracy and replicability of identifying eyelid tremor as an indicator of recent cannabis smoking using a blinded, controlled study design.

METHODS

Adult subjects (N = 103) were recruited into three groups based on their cannabis use history: daily, occasional, and no current cannabis use. Participants' closed eyelids were video recorded for 30 seconds by infrared videography goggles before and at a mean ± standard deviation time of 71.4 ± 4.6 minutes after the onset of a 15-minute interval of ad libitum cannabis flower smoking or vaping. Three observers with expertise in neuro-ophthalmology and medical toxicology were trained on exemplar videos of eyelids to reach a consensus on how to grade eyelid tremor. Without knowledge of subjects' cannabis use history or time point (pre- or post-smoking), observers reviewed each video for eyelid tremor graded as absent, slight, moderate, or severe. During subsequent data analysis, this score was further dichotomized as a consensus score of absent (absent/slight) or present (moderate/severe).

RESULTS

Kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient statistics demonstrated moderate agreement among the coders, which ranged from 0.44-0.45 and 0.58-0.61, respectively. There was no significant association between recent cannabis use and the observers' consensus assessment that eyelid tremor was present, and cannabis users were less likely to have tremors (odds ratio: 0.75; 95 percent confidence interval: 0.25, 2.40). The assessment of eyelid tremor as an indicator of recent cannabis smoking had a sensitivity of 0.86, specificity of 0.18, and accuracy of 0.64.

DISCUSSION

Eyelid tremor has fair sensitivity but poor specificity and accuracy for identification of recent cannabis use. Inter-rater reliability for assessment of eyelid tremor was moderate for the presence and degree of tremor. The weak association between recent cannabis use and eyelid tremor does not support its utility in identifying recent cannabis use.

LIMITATIONS

Videos were recorded at only one time point after cannabis use. Adherence to abstinence could not be strictly supervised. Due to regulatory restrictions, we were unable to control the cannabis product used or administer a fixed Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol dose. Participants were predominately non-Hispanic and White.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort of participants with a range of cannabis use histories, acute cannabis smoking was not associated with the presence of eyelid tremor, regardless of cannabis use history, at 70 minutes post-smoking. Additional research is needed to identify the presence of eyelid tremor accurately, determine the relationship between cannabis dose and timeline in relation to last cannabis use to eyelid tremor, and determine how it should be, if at all, utilized for cannabis Drug Recognition Evaluator examinations.

A two-sample approach to retrograde extrapolation of blood THC concentrations - Is it feasible?

BACKGROUND

Retrograde extrapolation of drug concentrations in blood can be relevant in cases of drug-impaired driving and is regularly used in forensic toxicology in Norway. Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) has complex, multi-compartmental pharmacokinetics, which makes retrograde extrapolation of blood THC concentrations problematic. In the present study, we evaluated an approach to retrograde extrapolation in which momentary rates of decrease of THC were estimated from two consecutive blood samples in apprehended drivers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data were collected from apprehended drivers in Norway 2000-2020. We included 548 cases in which THC was detected in two consecutive blood samples collected ≥ 20 min apart. THC concentrations were measured by GC-MS and UHPLC-MS/MS. In each case, THC concentrations and the time between the two sampling points (Δt) were used to estimate the rate constant k. The relationship between THC concentration and k was modelled by linear regression.

RESULTS

The median Δt was 31 min (interquartile range, IQR = 9). The median blood THC concentration was 2.4 μg/L (IQR = 3.4) at the first sampling point and 2.3 μg/L (IQR =3.1) at the second. The concentration decreased in 62% and increased in 38% of all cases. However, considering measurement uncertainty, the changes were not statistically significant in 87% of cases. The mean of k was 0.12 h-1, corresponding to an apparent t1/2 of 6.0 h. The t1/2 predicted from linear regression of k against THC concentration ranged from 0.93 to 13 h for the highest and lowest concentrations observed (36 and 0.63 μg/L, respectively). The time from driving to blood collection had a median of 1.7 h (IQR = 1.5), and did not correlate with k.

CONCLUSIONS

The apparent t1/2 of THC calculated from the mean of k was 6.0 h, which is shorter than the terminal elimination t1/2 suggested in previous population studies. This indicates that blood samples were often taken during the late distribution phase of THC. Because Δt was short relative to the rates of decrease expected in the late distribution and elimination phases, the underlying true concentration changes related to in vivo pharmacokinetics were small and masked by the relatively larger "false" changes introduced by random analytical and pre-analytical error. Therefore, individual values of k calculated from only two blood samples taken a short time apart are unreliable, and a two-sample approach to retrograde extrapolation of THC cannot be recommended.

Self-Regulation of Driving Behavior Under the Influence of Cannabis: The Role of Driving Complexity and Driver Vision

OBJECTIVE

This study analyzed the self-regulation behaviors of drivers under the influence of cannabis and its relationship with road complexity and some driver traits, including visual deterioration.

BACKGROUND

Cannabis is the illicit drug most often detected in drivers; its use results in significant negative effects in terms of visual function. Self-regulation behaviors involve the mechanisms used by drivers to maintain or reduce the risk resulting from different circumstances or the driving environment.

METHODS

Thirty-one young, occasional cannabis users were assessed both in a baseline session and after smoking cannabis. We evaluated the visual function (visual acuity and contrast sensitivity) and driver self-regulation variables of both longitudinal and lateral control as the speed adaptation and standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP).

RESULTS

Visual function was significantly impaired after cannabis use. Recreational cannabis use did not result in self-regulation, although some road features such as curved roads did determine self-regulation. Male participants adopted mean faster driving speeds with respect to the speed limit. Driver age also determined better lateral control with lower SDLPs. In addition, visual impairment resulting from cannabis use (contrast sensitivity) was linked with self-regulation by changes in longitudinal and lateral control.

CONCLUSION

Contrast sensitivity could be a good indicator of individual visual status to help determine how drivers self-regulate their driving both in normal conditions and while under the influence of cannabis.

APPLICATION

The findings provide new insights about driver self-regulation under cannabis effects and are useful for policy making and awareness campaigns.

Balancing risks and benefits of cannabis use: umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess credibility and certainty of associations between cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis based medicines and human health, from observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

Umbrella review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, PsychInfo, Embase, up to 9 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies and RCTs that have reported on the efficacy and safety of cannabis, cannabinoids, or cannabis based medicines were included. Credibility was graded according to convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant (observational evidence), and by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) (RCTs). Quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2). Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

101 meta-analyses were included (observational=50, RCTs=51) (AMSTAR 2 high 33, moderate 31, low 32, or critically low 5). From RCTs supported by high to moderate certainty, cannabis based medicines increased adverse events related to the central nervous system (equivalent odds ratio 2.84 (95% confidence interval 2.16 to 3.73)), psychological effects (3.07 (1.79 to 5.26)), and vision (3.00 (1.79 to 5.03)) in people with mixed conditions (GRADE=high), improved nausea/vomit, pain, spasticity, but increased psychiatric, gastrointestinal adverse events, and somnolence among others (GRADE=moderate). Cannabidiol improved 50% reduction of seizures (0.59 (0.38 to 0.92)) and seizure events (0.59 (0.36 to 0.96)) (GRADE=high), but increased pneumonia, gastrointestinal adverse events, and somnolence (GRADE=moderate). For chronic pain, cannabis based medicines or cannabinoids reduced pain by 30% (0.59 (0.37 to 0.93), GRADE=high), across different conditions (n=7), but increased psychological distress. For epilepsy, cannabidiol increased risk of diarrhoea (2.25 (1.33 to 3.81)), had no effect on sleep disruption (GRADE=high), reduced seizures across different populations and measures (n=7), improved global impression (n=2), quality of life, and increased risk of somnolence (GRADE=moderate). In the general population, cannabis worsened positive psychotic symptoms (5.21 (3.36 to 8.01)) and total psychiatric symptoms (7.49 (5.31 to 10.42)) (GRADE=high), negative psychotic symptoms, and cognition (n=11) (GRADE=moderate). In healthy people, cannabinoids improved pain threshold (0.74 (0.59 to 0.91)), unpleasantness (0.60 (0.41 to 0.88)) (GRADE=high). For inflammatory bowel disease, cannabinoids improved quality of life (0.34 (0.22 to 0.53) (GRADE=high). For multiple sclerosis, cannabinoids improved spasticity, pain, but increased risk of dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, somnolence (GRADE=moderate). For cancer, cannabinoids improved sleep disruption, but had gastrointestinal adverse events (n=2) (GRADE=moderate). Cannabis based medicines, cannabis, and cannabinoids resulted in poor tolerability across various conditions (GRADE=moderate). Evidence was convincing from observational studies (main and sensitivity analyses) in pregnant women, small for gestational age (1.61 (1.41 to 1.83)), low birth weight (1.43 (1.27 to 1.62)); in drivers, car crash (1.27 (1.21 to 1.34)); and in the general population, psychosis (1.71 (1.47 to 2.00)). Harmful effects were noted for additional neonatal outcomes, outcomes related to car crash, outcomes in the general population including psychotic symptoms, suicide attempt, depression, and mania, and impaired cognition in healthy cannabis users (all suggestive to highly suggestive).

CONCLUSIONS

Convincing or converging evidence supports avoidance of cannabis during adolescence and early adulthood, in people prone to or with mental health disorders, in pregnancy and before and while driving. Cannabidiol is effective in people with epilepsy. Cannabis based medicines are effective in people with multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, inflammatory bowel disease, and in palliative medicine but not without adverse events.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018093045.

FUNDING

None.

Collisions and cannabis: Measuring the effect of recreational marijuana legalization on traffic crashes in Washington State

OBJECTIVE

Washington State was among the first states in the US to legalize recreational consumption and retail sales of marijuana. Recreational use of cannabis was legalized December 6, 2012, following the passage of Initiative 502 30 days prior. Roughly 19 months later the first retail cannabis stores opened their doors for public sales ("commercialization"). I measure the impact of cannabis legalization and commercialization on traffic collisions in Washington State.

METHODS

With county-level vehicle crash data from the Washington State Department of Transportation collected monthly, I utilize an interrupted time-series framework with Poisson estimation to compare traffic collisions with recreational retail cannabis sales revenue from 2011 (three years pre-commercialization) through 2017 (three years post-commercialization). First, I measure the shift in collisions brought about by Washington's 2012 cannabis legalization. Then, I compare retail cannabis sales-a measure of commercialization-to traffic collisions based on severity of injury (fatal, severe injury, minor injury, non-injury, and all).

RESULTS

After controlling for confounding factors, evidence suggests that recreational cannabis legalization led to fewer fatal and serious injury collisions. Retail cannabis sales generally correlate with more traffic collisions, particularly for less severe (minor injury) crashes. These findings are robust to the inclusion of additional control variables pertaining to county-level cannabis usage and driving behavior while intoxicated.

CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis legalization led to fewer fatal, serious, and minor injury collisions. Commercialization (cannabis sales) correlated with an increase in less severe crashes. Although cannabis use generally increased in Washington State following legalization/commercialization, survey data suggest that driving behavior while under the influence of cannabis did not change significantly over the post-commercialization period. Future research should focus on measuring the dose-dependent impact of cannabis consumption on traffic collisions. This should include recognition of the importance of cannabis dosing, timing, and route of consumption. Lastly, the dangers of poly-drug driving-particularly cannabis and alcohol-are well established and should be high priority for further research.

The impact of recreational cannabis markets on motor vehicle accident, suicide, and opioid overdose fatalities

In the U.S., an increasing number of states are legalizing regulated commercial markets for recreational cannabis, which allows private industry to produce, distribute, and sell marijuana to those 21 and older. The health impacts of these markets are not fully understood. Preliminary evidence suggests recreational markets may be associated with increased use among adults, which indicates there may be downstream health impacts on outcomes related to cannabis use. Three causes of death that are linked to cannabis use are motor vehicle accidents, suicide, and opioid overdose. Drawing on data from U.S. death certificates from 2009 to 2019, we conducted a difference-in-differences analysis to estimate the impact of recreational markets on fatalities from motor vehicle accidents, suicide, and opioid overdose in seven states: Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Nevada, California, and Massachusetts. States with comprehensive medical cannabis programs with similar pre-trends in deaths were used as comparisons. For each outcome, a pooled estimate was generated with a meta-analysis using random effects models. The results revealed substantial increases in crash fatalities in Colorado, Oregon, Alaska, and California of 16%, 22%, 20%, and 14%, respectively. Based on estimates from all seven states, recreational markets were associated with a 10% increase in motor vehicle accident deaths, on average. This study found no evidence that recreational markets impacted suicides. Most states saw a relative reduction in opioid overdose death that ranged between 3 and 28%. On average, recreational markets were associated with an 11% reduction in opioid overdose fatalities.

The "Next Day" Effects of Cannabis Use: A Systematic Review

Background: Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main intoxicating component of cannabis, can cause cognitive and psychomotor impairment. Whether this impairment is still present many hours or even days after THC use requires clarification. Possible "next day" effects are of major significance in safety-sensitive workplaces. We therefore conducted a systematic review of studies investigating the "next day" effects of THC. Methods: Studies that measured performance on safety-sensitive tasks (e.g., driving, flying) and/or neuropsychological tests >8 h after THC (or cannabis) use using interventional designs were identified by searching two online databases from inception until March 28, 2022. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the relevant Cochrane tools. Results were described in terms of whether THC had a significant effect on performance relative to the primary comparator (i.e., placebo or baseline, as appropriate). Results: Twenty studies (n=458) involving 345 performance tests were reviewed. Most studies administered a single dose of THC (median [interquartile range]: 16 [11-26] mg) and assessed performance between >12 and 24 h post-treatment. N=209/345 tests conducted across 16 published studies showed no "next day" effects of THC. Nine of these 16 studies used randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled designs. Half (N=8) had "some" RoB, and half (N=8) had a "high" RoB. Notably, N=88 of these 209 tests failed to demonstrate "acute" (i.e., <8 h post-treatment) THC-induced impairment. N=12/345 tests conducted across five published studies indicated negative (i.e., impairing) "next day" effects of THC. None of these five studies used randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled designs and all were published >18 years ago (four, >30 years ago). Three had "some" RoB, and two had a "high" RoB. A further N=121/345 tests indicated "unclear" "next day" effects of THC with insufficient information provided to assess outcomes. The remaining N=3/345 tests indicated positive (i.e., enhancing) "next day" effects of THC. Conclusions: Some lower quality studies have reported "next day" effects of THC on cognitive function and safety-sensitive tasks. However, most studies, including some of higher quality, have found no such effect. Overall, it appears that there is limited scientific evidence to support the assertion that cannabis use impairs "next day" performance. Further studies involving improved methodologies are required to better address this issue.

Effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine and methamphetamine on motor vehicle driving performance: A systematic review of experimental and observational studies

Methamphetamine (METH) and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) are common drugs of abuse and driving under their influence may occur in 1 million people yearly in the United States. This systematic review fills the currently unmet need in understanding the effects of METH and MDMA on motor vehicle driving performance (MVP) and provides insight into the forensic community. A PubMed search on September 24, 2020, for experimental and observational studies, which evaluated the impact of METH and MDMA on MVP was performed. After a review of 208 abstracts, 103 were considered potentially interesting and full texts were obtained. After the exclusion of non-English articles, review articles, single case reports, and articles which did not evaluate METH or MDMA on MVP, a total of nine experimental studies, 10 traditional observational studies, and 35 case series were included. The clinical rigor of experimental studies was evaluated using the Jadad scale. Experimental studies often demonstrated no significant MVP safety signals for METH or MDMA use, which was contrary to the overwhelming MVP safety risks found in observational studies. Common driving behaviors while using METH or MDMA include: errors in judgment, traveling at high speeds, failure to stop, merging inappropriately, lane weaving, and crashes. Limitations of experimental studies that led to dissimilar MVP outcomes from observational studies include: the common use of driving simulators, as opposed to actual driving examinations, and doses of METH or MDMA administered may not be representative of blood concentrations seen in observational studies. This systematic review has no funding source and was not registered.

Can cannabis kill? Characteristics of deaths following cannabis use in England (1998-2020)

BACKGROUND

Cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug but is rarely considered a causal factor in death.

AIMS

This study aimed to understand trends in deaths in England where cannabinoids were detected at post-mortem, and to evaluate the clinical utility of post-mortem cannabinoid concentrations in coronial investigations.

METHODS

Deaths with cannabinoid detections reported to the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths (NPSAD) were extracted and analysed.

RESULTS

From 1998 to 2011, on average 7% of all cases reported to NPSAD had a cannabinoid detected (n = 110 deaths per year), rising to 18% in 2020 (n = 350). Death following cannabis use alone was rare (4% of cases, n = 136/3455). Traumatic injury was the prevalent underlying cause in these cases (62%, n = 84/136), with cannabis toxicity cited in a single case. Polydrug use was evident in most cases (96%, n = 3319/3455), with acute drug toxicity the prevalent underlying cause (74%, n = 2458/3319). Cardiac complications were the most cited physiological underlying cause of death (4%, n = 144/3455). The median average Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol post-mortem blood concentrations were several magnitudes lower than previously reported median blood concentrations in living users (cannabis alone: 4.3 µg/L; cannabis in combination with other drugs: 3.5 µg/L).

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of death due to cannabis toxicity is negligible. However, cannabis can prove fatal in circumstances with risk of traumatic physical injury, or in individuals with cardiac pathophysiologies. These indirect harms need careful consideration and further study to better elucidate the role cannabis plays in drug-related mortality. Furthermore, the relevance of cannabinoid quantifications in determining cause of death in coronial investigations is limited.

Driving under the influence of drugs: Correlation between blood psychoactive drug concentrations and cognitive impairment. A narrative review taking into account forensic issues

Driving under the influence of alcohol has been shown to increase the risk of involvement in road traffic collisions (RTCs) however, less is known about the effects of illicit drugs, and a clear correlation between drug concentrations and RTC risk is still debated. The goal of this narrative review is to assess the current literature regarding the most detected psychoactive drugs in RTC (ethanol, amphetamines, cannabis, opioids and cocaine), in relation to driving performance. Evidence on impaired driving due to psychoactive substances, forensic issues relating to the assessment of the impact of drugs, blood cut-off values proposed to date as well as scientific basis for proposed legislative limits are discussed. At present there is no unequivocal evidence demonstrating a clear dose/concentration dependent impairment in many substances. Per se and zero tolerance approaches seem to have negative effect on drugged driving fatalities. However, the weight of these approaches needs further investigation.

Cannabis and Driving

As more states in the U.S legalize recreational and medicinal cannabis, rates of driving under the influence of this drug are increasing significantly. Aspects of this emerging public health issue potentially pit science against public policy. The authors believe that the legal cart is currently significantly ahead of the scientific horse. Issues such as detection procedures for cannabis-impaired drivers, and use of blood THC levels to gauge impairment, should rely heavily on current scientific knowledge. However, there are many, often unacknowledged research gaps in these and related areas, that need to be addressed in order provide a more coherent basis for public policies. This review focuses especially on those areas. In this article we review in a focused manner, current information linking cannabis to motor vehicle accidents and examine patterns of cannabis-impairment of driving related behaviors, their time courses, relationship to cannabis dose and THC blood levels, and compare cannabis and alcohol-impaired driving patterns directly. This review also delves into questions of alcohol-cannabis combinations and addresses the basis for of per-se limits in cannabis driving convictions. Finally, we distinguish between areas where research has provided clear answers to the above questions, areas that remain unclear, and make recommendations to fill gaps in current knowledge.

Simulated driving performance among daily and occasional cannabis users

OBJECTIVE

Daily cannabis users develop tolerance to some drug effects, but the extent to which this diminishes driving impairment is uncertain. This study compared the impact of acute cannabis use on driving performance in occasional and daily cannabis users using a driving simulator.

METHODS

We used a within-subjects design to observe driving performance in adults age 25 to 45 years with different cannabis use histories. Eighty-five participants (43 males, 42 females) were included in the final analysis: 24 occasional users (1 to 2 times per week), 31 daily users and 30 non-users. A car-based driving simulator (MiniSim™, National Advanced Driving Simulator) was used to obtain two measures of driving performance, standard deviation of lateral placement (SDLP) and speed relative to posted speed limit, in simulated urban driving scenarios at baseline and 30 min after a 15 min ad libitum cannabis smoking period. Participants smoked self-supplied cannabis flower product (15% to 30% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Blood samples were collected before and after smoking (30 min after the start of smoking). Non-users performed the same driving scenarios before and after an equivalent rest interval. Changes in driving performance were analyzed by repeated measures general linear models.

RESULTS

Mean whole blood THC cannabinoids concentrations post smoking were use THC = 6.4 ± 5.6 ng/ml, THC-COOH = 10.9 ± 8.79 ng/mL for occasional users and THC = 36.4 ± 37.4 ng/mL, THC-COOH = 98.1 ± 90.6 ng/mL for daily users. On a scale of 0 to 100, the mean post-use score of subjective high was similar in occasional users and daily users (52.4 and 47.2, respectively). In covariate-adjusted analysis, occasional users had a significant increase in SDLP in the straight road segment from pre to post compared to non-users; non-users decreased by a mean of 1.1 cm (25.5 cm to 24.4 cm) while occasional users increased by a mean of 1.9 cm (21.7 cm to 23.6 cm; p = 0.02). Daily users also increased adjusted SDLP in straight road segments from baseline to post-use (23.2 cm to 25.0 cm), but the change relative to non-users was not statistically significant (p = 0.08). The standardized mean difference in unadjusted SDLP from baseline to post-use in the straight road segments comparing occasional users to non-users was 0.64 (95% CI 0.09 - 1.19), a statistically significant moderate increase. When occasional users were contrasted with daily users, the baseline to post changes in SDLP were not statistically significant. Daily users exhibited a mean decrease in baseline to post-use adjusted speed in straight road segments of 1.16 mph; a significant change compared to slight speed increases in the non-users and occasional users (p = 0.02 and p = 0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSION

We observed a decrement in driving performance assessed by SDLP after acute cannabis smoking that was statistically significant only in the occasional users in comparison to the nonusers. Direct contrasts between the occasional users and daily users in SDLP were not statistically significant. Daily users drove slower after cannabis use as compared to the occasional use group and non-users. The study results do not conclusively establish that occasional users exhibit more driving impairment than daily users when both smoke cannabis ad libitum.

Medicine consumptions and occupational road risk

BACKGROUND

Whereas an increased risk of road traffic crashes has been highlighted as linked to some medicine consumptions, there is no available data on this risk according to the type of journey (private, commuting or mission). Drivers on occupational journey (commuting or mission) are likely to have different coping behaviors related to the use of medicines than drivers on private journey. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between exposure to ten classes of medicines and the risk of being responsible for a road traffic crash according to the type of journey (private, commuting or mission).

METHODS

The data used came from three French national databases: the national police database of injurious crashes, the police reports and the national health care insurance database. A total of 179,269 drivers aged between 18 and 65 years old involved in an injurious crash in France between July 2005 and December 2015 were included in the analyses. Logistic regression models stratified by journey were used to estimate the Odds Ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI), adjusted for potential confounding factors.

RESULTS

Medicines exposure levels were generally lower for drivers during occupational journeys, the risk of being responsible for a road traffic crash seems to be higher on commuting or mission journeys than on private journeys for four medicines. Indeed, for antiepileptics the OR was 1.59 [1.01-2.51] for mission journeys, 1.63 [1.24-2.15] for commuting journeys, and 1.47 [1.25-1.73] for private journey. For psycholeptics the OR was 1.02 [0.80-1.28] for mission journey, 1.19 [1.03-1.39] for commuting and 1.17 [1.08-1.26] for private journey. For psychoanaleptics OR was 1.35 [1.02-1.78] for mission journeys, 1.37 [1.17-1.60] for commuting journeys and 1.26 [1.14-1.40] for private journeys. Finally, for other nervous system drugs OR reached 2.04 [1.35-3.07] for mission journeys compared to 1.43 [1.21-1.70] for private journeys.

CONCLUSION

Our results encourage the implementation of preventive measures about some treatments and diseases in the context of occupational journeys.

General risks of harm with cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicine possibly relevant to patients receiving these for pain management: an overview of systematic reviews

ABSTRACT

The growing demand for improved pain treatments together with expanding legalization of, and access to, cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines has intensified the focus on risk-benefit considerations in pain management. Given limited harms data from analgesic clinical trials, we conducted an overview of systematic reviews focused on all harms possibly relevant to patients receiving cannabinoids for pain management. This PROSPERO-registered, PRISMA-compliant systematic overview identified 79 reviews, encompassing over 2200 individual reports about psychiatric and psychosocial harms, cognitive/behavioral effects, motor vehicle accidents, cardiovascular, respiratory, cancer-related, maternal/fetal, and general harms. Reviews, and their included studies, were of variable quality. Available evidence suggests variable associations between cannabis exposure (ranging from monthly to daily use based largely on self-report) and psychosis, motor vehicle accidents, respiratory problems, and other harms. Most evidence comes from settings other than that of pain management (eg, nonmedicinal and experimental) but does signal a need for caution and more robust harms evaluation in future studies. Given partial overlap between patients receiving cannabinoids for pain management and individuals using cannabinoids for other reasons, lessons from the crisis of oversupply and overuse of opioids in some parts of the world emphasize the need to broadly consider harms evidence from real-world settings. The advancement of research on cannabinoid harms will serve to guide optimal approaches to the use of cannabinoids for pain management. In the meantime, this evidence should be carefully examined when making risk-benefit considerations about the use of cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicine for chronic pain.

Medicinal cannabis and driving: the intersection of health and road safety policy

BACKGROUND

Recent shifting attitudes towards the medical use of cannabis has seen legal access pathways established in many jurisdictions in North America, Europe and Australasia. However, the positioning of cannabis as a legitimate medical product produces some tensions with other regulatory frameworks. A notable example of this is the so-called 'zero tolerance' drug driving legal frameworks, which criminalise the presence of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) in a driver's bodily fluids irrespective of impairment. Here we undertake an analysis of this policy issue based on a case study of the introduction of medicinal cannabis in Australia.

METHODS

We examine the regulatory approaches used for managing road safety risks associated with potentially impairing prescription medicines and illicit drugs in Australian jurisdictions, as well as providing an overview of evidence relating to cannabis and road safety risk, unintended impacts of the 'zero-tolerance' approach on patients, and the regulation of medicinal cannabis and driving in comparable jurisdictions.

RESULTS

Road safety risks associated with medicinal cannabis appear similar or lower than numerous other potentially impairing prescription medications. The application of presence-based offences to medicinal cannabis patients appears to derive from the historical status of cannabis as a prohibited drug with no legitimate medical application. This approach is resulting in patient harms including criminal sanctions when not impaired and using the drug as directed by their doctor, or the forfeiting of car use and related mobility. Others who need to drive are excluded from accessing a needed medication and associated therapeutic benefit. 'Medical exemptions' for medicinal cannabis in comparable jurisdictions and other drugs included in presence offences in Australia (e.g. methadone) demonstrate a feasible alternative approach.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that in medical-only access models there is little evidence to justify the differential treatment of medicinal cannabis patients, compared with those taking other prescription medications with potentially impairing effects.

The why behind the high: determinants of neurocognition during acute cannabis exposure

Acute cannabis intoxication may induce neurocognitive impairment and is a possible cause of human error, injury and psychological distress. One of the major concerns raised about increasing cannabis legalization and the therapeutic use of cannabis is that it will increase cannabis-related harm. However, the impairing effect of cannabis during intoxication varies among individuals and may not occur in all users. There is evidence that the neurocognitive response to acute cannabis exposure is driven by changes in the activity of the mesocorticolimbic and salience networks, can be exacerbated or mitigated by biological and pharmacological factors, varies with product formulations and frequency of use and can differ between recreational and therapeutic use. It is argued that these determinants of the cannabis-induced neurocognitive state should be taken into account when defining and evaluating levels of cannabis impairment in the legal arena, when prescribing cannabis in therapeutic settings and when informing society about the safe and responsible use of cannabis.

Cannabis and driving ability

The aim of this review is to discuss recent evidence on cannabis and driving ability. In particular, the review examines experimental research on the acute effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on driving-related neurobehavioral skills and driving performance based on simulator and road course studies. The evidence indicates that certain driving abilities are significantly, albeit modestly, impaired in individuals experiencing the acute effects of THC. Treatment effects are moderated by dose, delivery method, recency of use, and tolerance development, with inconclusive evidence concerning the moderating influence of cannabidiol. Emerging research priorities include linking neurobehavioral deficits to specific decrements in driving performance, estimating the real-world implications of experimental impaired driving research, understanding how tolerance differentially affects driving impairment across subgroups, and developing more evidence on cannabidiol's potential role in mitigating THC-induced impairment.

Determining the magnitude and duration of acute Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC)-induced driving and cognitive impairment: A systematic and meta-analytic review

The increasing legal availability of cannabis has important implications for road safety. This systematic review characterised the acute effects of Δ⁹-THC on driving performance and driving-related cognitive skills, with a particular focus on the duration of Δ⁹-THC-induced impairment. Eighty publications and 1534 outcomes were reviewed. Several measures of driving performance and driving-related cognitive skills (e.g. lateral control, tracking, divided attention) demonstrated impairment in meta-analyses of "peak" Δ⁹-THC effects (p's<0.05). Multiple meta-regression analyses further found that regular cannabis users experianced less impairment than 'other' (mostly occasional) cannabis users (p = 0.003) and that the magnitude of oral (n = 243 effect estimates [EE]) and inhaled (n = 481 EEs) Δ⁹-THC-induced impairment depended on various factors (dose, post-treatment time interval, the performance domain (skill) assessed) in other cannabis users (p's<0.05). The latter model predicted that most driving-related cognitive skills would 'recover' (Hedges' g=-0.25) within ∼5-hs (and almost all within ∼7-hs) of inhaling 20 mg of Δ⁹-THC; oral Δ⁹-THC-induced impairment may take longer to subside. These results suggest individuals should wait at least 5 -hs following inhaled cannabis use before performing safety-sensitive tasks.

Effect of Cannabidiol and Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol on Driving Performance: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Cannabis use has been associated with increased crash risk, but the effect of cannabidiol (CBD) on driving is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the driving impairment caused by vaporized cannabis containing Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and CBD.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A double-blind, within-participants, randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience at Maastricht University in the Netherlands between May 20, 2019, and March 27, 2020. Participants (N = 26) were healthy occasional users of cannabis.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants vaporized THC-dominant, CBD-dominant, THC/CBD-equivalent, and placebo cannabis. THC and CBD doses were 13.75 mg. Order of conditions was randomized and balanced.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP; a measure of lane weaving) during 100 km, on-road driving tests that commenced at 40 minutes and 240 minutes after cannabis consumption. At a calibrated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.02%, SDLP was increased relative to placebo by 1.12 cm, and at a calibrated BAC of 0.05%, SDLP was increased relative to placebo by 2.4 cm.

RESULTS

Among 26 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 23.2 [2.6] years; 16 women), 22 (85%) completed all 8 driving tests. At 40 to 100 minutes following consumption, the SDLP was 18.21 cm with CBD-dominant cannabis, 20.59 cm with THC-dominant cannabis, 21.09 cm with THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis, and 18.28 cm with placebo cannabis. SDLP was significantly increased by THC-dominant cannabis (+2.33 cm [95% CI, 0.80 to 3.86]; P < .001) and THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis (+2.83 cm [95% CI, 1.28 to 4.39]; P < .001) but not CBD-dominant cannabis (-0.05 cm [95% CI, -1.49 to 1.39]; P > .99), relative to placebo. At 240 to 300 minutes following consumption, the SDLP was 19.03 cm with CBD-dominant cannabis, 19.88 cm with THC-dominant cannabis, 20.59 cm with THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis, and 19.37 cm with placebo cannabis. The SDLP did not differ significantly in the CBD (-0.34 cm [95% CI, -1.77 to 1.10]; P > .99), THC (0.51 cm [95% CI, -1.01 to 2.02]; P > .99) or THC/CBD (1.22 cm [95% CI, -0.29 to 2.72]; P = .20) conditions, relative to placebo. Out of 188 test drives, 16 (8.5%) were terminated due to safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In a crossover clinical trial that assessed driving performance during on-road driving tests, the SDLP following vaporized THC-dominant and THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis compared with placebo was significantly greater at 40 to 100 minutes but not 240 to 300 minutes after vaporization; there were no significant differences between CBD-dominant cannabis and placebo. However, the effect size for CBD-dominant cannabis may not have excluded clinically important impairment, and the doses tested may not represent common usage.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EU Clinical Trials Register: 2018-003945-40.

The blind men and the elephant: Systematic review of systematic reviews of cannabis use related health harms

Cannabis is the third most used psychoactive substance worldwide. The legal status of cannabis is changing in many Western countries, while we have very limited knowledge of the public health impact of cannabis-related harms. There is a need for a summary of the evidence of harms and risks attributed to cannabis use, in order to inform the definition of cannabis risky use. We have conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews, aiming to define cannabis-related harms. We included systematic reviews published until July 2018 from six different databases and following the PRISMA guidelines. To assess study quality we applied the AMSTAR 2 tool. A total of 44 systematic reviews, including 1,053 different studies, were eligible for inclusion. Harm was categorized in three dimensions: mental health, somatic harm and physical injury (including mortality). Evidence shows a clear association between cannabis use and psychosis, affective disorders, anxiety, sleep disorders, cognitive failures, respiratory adverse events, cancer, cardiovascular outcomes, and gastrointestinal disorders. Moreover, cannabis use is a risk factor for motor vehicle collision, suicidal behavior and partner and child violence. Cannabis use is a risk factor for several medical conditions and negative social consequences. There is still little data on the dose-dependency of these effects; evidence that is essential in order to define, from a public health perspective, what can be considered risky use of cannabis. This definition should be based on quantitative and qualitative criteria that informs and permits the evaluation of current approaches to a regulated cannabis market.

Alcohol and illicit substances associated with fatal crashes in Queensland: An examination of the 2011 to 2015 Coroner's findings

PROBLEM

The problem of impaired driving is well documented in the literature but is heavily dependent upon self-report studies and/or databases that do not include in-depth information about the contributing origins of fatalities.

AIM

This study aimed to conduct an in-depth analysis of Coroner's findings for all fatally injured drivers in the state of Queensland in order to explore the prevalence of alcohol and different types of illicit substances (including drug combinations) in fatal crash reports.

METHOD

A total of 701 Coroner's reports related to drivers or controllers of vehicles involved in traffic related fatalities for the period of 2011-2015 were analysed, revealing 306 controllers (43.6%) were detected with either alcohol or illegal drugs (e.g., methylamphetamine, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cocaine or MDMA) RESULTS: Alcohol was the most commonly detected substance identified with 223 cases (72.9% of the drug and alcohol sample). Illicit drug detections totalled 147 cases (48% of the drug and alcohol sample) with Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol the most commonly detected illicit substance (109 cases; 35.6% of the drug and alcohol sample) followed by methylamphetamine (total of 63 cases; 20.6% of the drug and alcohol sample). An important theme to emerge was the prevalence of polysubstance use among fatally injured drivers, not just for alcohol and one drug type, but also multiple drug combinations. Fatality trends revealed a decrease in both non-substance and alcohol-related fatalities across the study period. However, road fatalities where an illicit substance was detected increased by approximately 57%. Males were overrepresented as a proportion of total fatalities (82.4%) and there were no significant sex or age differences regarding illicit substance related deaths. Drivers of passenger vehicles were most commonly identified in the data (66.2%), but motorcycle operators were disproportionately represented (28.1% of the total controller sample compared to 4% of vehicle registrations in Queensland) CONCLUSION: This case study analysis of fatal crashes not only confirms the ongoing problem of alcohol and driving, but also illuminates the emerging (and escalating) issue of illicit substances detected in fatally injured drivers.

Odds of culpability associated with use of impairing drugs in injured drivers in Victoria, Australia

Culpability analysis was conducted on 5000 drivers injured as a result of a vehicular collision and in whom comprehensive toxicology testing in blood was conducted. The sample included 1000 drivers for each of 5 years from approximately 5000-6000 drivers injured and taken to hospital in the State of Victoria. Logistic regression was used to investigate differences in the odds of culpability associated with alcohol and drug use and other selected crash attributes using the drug-free driver as the reference group. Adjusted odds ratios were obtained from multivariable logistic regression models in which other potentially explanatory driver and crash attributes were included. Drivers with alcohol present showed large increases in the odds of culpability similar to that seen in other studies investigating associations between blood alcohol concentration and crash risk. Methylamphetamine also showed a large increase in the odds of culpability (OR 19) compared to the reference group at both below and above 0.1 mg/L, whereas those drivers with Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) present showed only modest increase in odds when all concentrations were assessed (OR 1.9, 95 %CI 1.2-3.1). Benzodiazepines in drivers also gave an increase in odds (3.2, 95 %CI 1.6-6.1), but not other medicinal drugs such as antidepressants, antipsychotics and opioids. Drivers that had combinations of impairing drugs generally gave a large increase in odds, particularly combinations of alcohol with THC or benzodiazepines, and those drivers using both THC and methamphetamine.

Variability of baseline vehicle control among sober young adult cannabis users: A simulator-based exploratory study

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the variability in vehicle control for sober young adult drivers (18-23 years old) who either use cannabis but are not acutely exposed or do not use cannabis.Methods: The data analyzed in the study were from 4 prospective driving simulation studies (completed at the National Advanced Driving Simulator at the University of Iowa) that examined vehicle control metrics in cannabis users and nonusers across high-fidelity simulated urban, interstate, and rural driving environments. Data were collected for segments of consistent driving environments including urban driving, urban curves, interstate, interstate curves, dark rural, and rural straight. Dependent measures included measures of lateral and longitudinal vehicle control.Results: Thirty out of 72 (12 users and 18 nonusers) met the age requirements for inclusion in the analysis. Between the cohorts, we identified differences in lateral and longitudinal driving performance. For lateral control there were no observed effects on variability in lane keeping. Cannabis users exhibited lower frequency steering and fewer and less variable steering reversals compared to nonusers. For longitudinal control, cannabis users drove slower than nonusers and more accelerator pedal holds and a lower accelerator pedal reversal rate were observed.Conclusions: Young adult drivers who use cannabis in our study drove slower and produced significantly less frequent steering and accelerator pedal inputs than drivers who did not use cannabis. This suggests that lasting effects of cannabis use persist and may lead to detrimental driving behaviors even after intoxication has subsided. These findings have implications for legislation in support of legalizing cannabis because sober cannabis-using drivers may still be a public health concern. Further study is needed to evaluate whether these differences persist even with longer term abstinence and whether differences are found in other age demographics.

Medical Cannabis for the Primary Care Physician

Medical cannabis use is common in the United States and increasingly more socially acceptable. As more patients seek out and acquire medical cannabis, primary care physicians will be faced with a growing number of patients seeking information on the indications, efficacy, and safety of medical cannabis. We present a case of a patient with several chronic health conditions who asks her primary care provider whether she should try medical cannabis. We provide a review of the pharmacology of medical cannabis, the state of evidence regarding the efficacy of medical cannabis, variations in the types of medical cannabis, and safety monitoring considerations for the primary care physician.

Does cannabis legalisation change healthcare utilisation? A population-based study using the healthcare cost and utilisation project in Colorado, USA

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of cannabis legalisation on health effects and healthcare utilisation in Colorado (CO), the first state to legalise recreational cannabis, when compared with two control states, New York (NY) and Oklahoma (OK).

DESIGN

We used the 2010 to 2014 Healthcare Cost and Utilisation Project (HCUP) inpatient databases to compare changes in rates of healthcare utilisation and diagnoses in CO versus NY and OK.

SETTING

Population-based, inpatient.

PARTICIPANTS

HCUP state-wide data comprising over 28 million individuals and over 16 million hospitalisations across three states.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We used International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Edition codes to assess changes in healthcare utilisation specific to various medical diagnoses potentially treated by or exacerbated by cannabis. Diagnoses were classified based on weight of evidence from the National Academy of Science (NAS). Negative binomial models were used to compare rates of admissions between states.

RESULTS

In CO compared with NY and OK, respectively, cannabis abuse hospitalisations increased (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.28 and RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.17; both p<0.0005) post-legalisation. In CO, there was a reduction in total admissions but only when compared with OK (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98, p<0.0005). Length of stay and costs did not change significantly in CO compared with NY or OK. Post-legalisation changes most consistent with NAS included an increase in motor vehicle accidents, alcohol abuse, overdose injury and a reduction in chronic pain admissions (all p<0.05 compared with each control state).

CONCLUSIONS

Recreational cannabis legalisation is associated with neutral effects on healthcare utilisation. In line with previous evidence, cannabis liberalisation is linked to an increase in motor vehicle accidents, alcohol abuse, overdose injuries and a decrease in chronic pain admissions. Such population-level effects may help guide future decisions regarding cannabis use, prescription and policy.