Correct knowledge of medical cannabis legal status in one's own state: Differences between adolescents and adults in the United States, 2004-2013

Editorial: Cannabis Legalization and Youth Cannabis Use: Findings From an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cannabis legalization is gaining traction in the United States, with 24 states having legalized recreational cannabis sales and 38 states having legalized medical cannabis sales. A possible unintended consequence of such widespread legalization is the effect that such policy change will have on youth (adolescents and young adults), whose neurodevelopment may be disrupted by cannabis use.1 Indeed, cannabis use in youth can lead to significant adverse psychosocial and health outcomes.1 Specifically, a major concern is that youth cannabis use may increase in the setting of legalization because of greater availability and acceptability. This concern has prompted studies of youth cannabis use patterns in states that have legalized recreational cannabis (RCL), have legalized medical cannabis (MCL), and have legalized neither (NL). Prior publications have had limited post-legalization data because of recreational cannabis legalization occurring only very recently and in a small number of states.2 The most recent meta-analysis exploring impacts of legalization on youth cannabis use only studies with data from 2016 and prior (only 4 years since the first states legalized recreational cannabis).2 Since then, 7 states have adopted MCL and 15 states have adopted RCL, prompting the need for an updated review of the literature. Pawar et al.3 conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing associations between state-level cannabis laws and past-month cannabis use among US youth using studies published up to 2023, providing a timely and important evaluation of the impacts of cannabis legalization on youth cannabis use.

Associations between cannabis policies and state-level specialty cannabis use disorder treatment in the United States, 2004-2019

BACKGROUND

Cannabis use disorder (CUD) treatment prevalence decreased in the US between 2002 and 2019, yet structural mechanisms for this decrease are poorly understood. We tested associations between cannabis laws becoming effective and self-reported CUD treatment.

METHODS

Restricted-use 2004-2019 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health included people ages 12+ classified as needing CUD treatment (i.e., past-year DSM-5-proxy CUD or last/current specialty treatment for cannabis). Time-varying indicators of medical cannabis laws (MCL) with/without cannabis dispensary provisions differentiated state-years before/after laws using effective dates. Multi-level logistic regressions with random state intercepts estimated individual- and state-adjusted CUD treatment odds by MCLs and model-based changes in specialty CUD treatment state-level prevalence. Secondary analyses tested associations between CUD treatment and MCL or recreational cannabis laws (RCL).

RESULTS

Using a broad treatment need sample definition in 2004-2014, specialty CUD treatment prevalence decreased by 1.35 (95 % CI = -2.51, -0.18) points after MCL without dispensaries and by 2.15 points (95 % CI = -3.29, -1.00) after MCL with dispensaries provisions became effective, compared to before MCL. Among people with CUD in 2004-2014, specialty treatment decreased only in MCL states with dispensary provisions (aPD = -0.91, 95 % CI = -1.68, -0.13). MCL were not associated with CUD treatment use in 2015-2019. RCL were associated with lower CUD treatment among people classified as needing CUD treatment, but not among people with past-year CUD.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy-related reductions in specialty CUD treatment were concentrated in states with cannabis dispensary provisions in 2004-2014, but not 2015-2019, and partly driven by reductions among people without past-year CUD. Other mechanisms (e.g., CUD symptom identification, criminal-legal referrals) could contribute to decreasing treatment trends.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Medical and Recreational Cannabis Legalization and Cannabis Use Among Youth in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Dramatic changes in state-level cannabis laws (CL) over the past 25 years have shifted societal beliefs throughout the United States, with unknown implications for youth. In the present study, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis examining estimated effects of medical cannabis legalization (MCL) and recreational cannabis legalization (RCL) on past-month cannabis use among US youth.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, followed by a subsequent meta-analysis investigating the associations between state-level cannabis laws (ie, MCL vs non-MCL, and RCL vs non-RCL) and past-month cannabis use prevalence among US adolescents and young adults. Supplemental analyses examined age-group effects and design-related factors.

RESULTS

Our search identified 4,604 citations, 34 and 30 of which were included in qualitative and quantitative analyses, respectively. Meta-analysis of MCL studies identified no significant association between MCL and change in past-month youth cannabis use (odds ratio [OR] = 0.981, 95% CI = 0.960, 1.003). Meta-analysis of RCL studies showed significantly increased odds of past-month cannabis use (OR = 1.134, 95% CI = 1.116-1.153). Meta-analysis of more recent studies, however, showed a significantly increased odds of past-month cannabis use among both adolescents and young adults (OR = 1.089, 95% CI = 1.015,1.169, and OR = 1.221, 95% CI = 1.188,1.255, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Cannabis legalization has complex and heterogenous effects on youth use that may differ across law types. Our meta-analytic results showed modest positive effects of RCL on past-month cannabis use (more so in young adults than in adolescents) and minimal effects of MCL on these outcomes in US youth. Given the shift toward recreational legalization, additional focus on RCL effects is warranted.

Awareness and knowledge of drug decriminalization among people who use drugs in British Columbia: a multi-method pre-implementation study

BACKGROUND

In January 2023, British Columbia implemented a three-year exemption to Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as granted by the federal government of Canada, to decriminalize the personal possession of small amounts of certain illegal drugs. This decriminalization policy, the first in Canada, was announced in response to the overdose emergency in British Columbia as a public health intervention that could help curb overdose deaths by reducing the impact of criminalization and increasing access to health and social services through stigma reduction.

METHODS

The current multi-method study examines people who use drugs' awareness and knowledge of British Columbia's decriminalization model through cross-sectional quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews among people who use drugs from September-November 2022, immediately prior to the implementation of decriminalization.

RESULTS

Quantitative findings show that two-thirds (63%) of people who use drugs were aware of the policy, but substantial knowledge gaps existed about the legal protections afforded (threshold amount, substances included, drug trafficking, confiscation). The qualitative findings suggest that people who use drugs misunderstood the details of the provincial decriminalization model and often conflated it with regulation. Results suggest that information sharing about decriminalization were minimal pre-implementation, highlighting areas for knowledge dissemination about people who use drugs' rights under this policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that decriminalization in British Columbia is a new and landmark reform, and that the success of decriminalization and its benefits may be undermined by poor awareness and knowledge of it, efforts to share information, increase understanding, and empower the community, may be required to promote its implementation and benefits for the community.

Health, safety, and socioeconomic impacts of cannabis liberalization laws: An evidence and gap map

Background

Globally, cannabis laws and regulations are rapidly changing. Countries are increasingly permitting access to cannabis under various decriminalization, medicalization, and legalization laws. With strong economic, public health, and social justice incentives driving these domestic cannabis policy reforms, liberalization trends are bound to continue. However, despite a large and growing body of interdisciplinary research addressing the policy-relevant health, safety, and socioeconomic consequences of cannabis liberalization, there is a lack of robust primary and systematic research that comprehensively investigates the consequences of these reforms.

Objectives

This evidence and gap map (EGM) summarizes the empirical evidence on cannabis liberalization policies. Primary objectives were to develop a conceptual framework linking cannabis liberalization policies to relevant outcomes, descriptively summarize the empirical evidence, and identify areas of evidence concentration and gaps.

Search Methods

We comprehensively searched for eligible English-language empirical studies published across 23 academic databases and 11 gray literature sources through August 2020. Additions to the pool of potentially eligible studies from supplemental sources were made through November 2020.

Selection Criteria

The conceptual framework for this EGM draws upon a legal epidemiological perspective highlighting the causal effects of law and policy on population-level outcomes. Eligible interventions include policies that create or expand access to a legal or decriminalized supply of cannabis: comprehensive medical cannabis laws (MCLs), limited medical cannabidiol laws (CBDLs), recreational cannabis laws (RCLs), industrial hemp laws (IHLs), and decriminalization of cultivations laws (DCLs). Eligible outcomes include intermediate responses (i.e., attitudes/behaviors and markets/environments) and longer-term consequences (health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes) of these laws.

Data Collection and Analysis

Both dual screening and dual data extraction were performed with third person deconfliction. Primary studies were appraised using the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale and systematic reviews were assessed using AMSTAR 2.

Main Results

The EGM includes 447 studies, comprising 438 primary studies and nine systematic reviews. Most research derives from the United States, with little research from other countries. By far, most cannabis liberalization research focuses on the effects of MCLs and RCLs. Studies targeting other laws-including CBDLs, IHLs, and DCLs-are relatively rare. Of the 113 distinct outcomes we documented, cannabis use was the single most frequently investigated. More than half these outcomes were addressed by three or fewer studies, highlighting substantial evidence gaps in the literature. The systematic evidence base is relatively small, comprising just seven completed reviews on cannabis use (3), opioid-related harms (3), and alcohol-related outcomes (1). Moreover, we have limited confidence in the reviews, as five were appraised as minimal quality and two as low quality.

Authors’ Conclusions

More primary and systematic research is needed to better understand the effects of cannabis liberalization laws on longer-term-and arguably more salient-health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes. Since most research concerns MCLs and RCLs, there is a critical need for research on the societal impacts of industrial hemp production, medical CBD products, and decriminalized cannabis cultivation. Future research should also prioritize understanding the heterogeneous effects of these laws given differences in specific provisions and implementation across jurisdictions.

Trends in cannabis use and attitudes toward legalization and use among Australians from 2001-2016: an age-period-cohort analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Changes in cannabis legalization and availability in Australia necessitate monitoring use and attitudes. We estimated age-period-cohort effects of past-year cannabis use and attitudes toward criminalization and legalization.

DESIGN

Analysis of six waves of the Australian National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS) every 3 years (2001-2016).

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The study was nationally representative of Australian households using multistage random sampling, totaling 145 168 respondents 18-79 years old. Data were collected using telephone, face-to-face, and drop-and-collect. Sample sizes per analysis varied based on data availability (~107 000-127 000 per model).

MEASUREMENTS

Six waves of data for past-year cannabis use (by sex and education), attitudes toward criminalization and legalization.

FINDINGS

Past-year cannabis use decreased in young adults ages 18-35 from 2001-2016 (25.1%-18.6%) and increased in middle adults ages 36-55 (8.6%-10.1%) and older adults ages 56-79 (0.6%-3.0%). We observed a positive period effect and negative cohort effect for recent cohorts for past-year use (e.g. 1955 cohort had 1.41 (95% CI: [1.11, 1.70]) increased log odds vs. 1998 cohort had -2.86 (95% CI: [-3.17, -2.55]) increased log odds) compared with the mean across years. Results were consistent by sex and varied by education. We observed a negative period effect for criminalization favorability (0.14 (95% CI: [0.003, 0.28]) increased log odds in 2001 vs. -0.31 (95% CI: [-0.45, -0.17]) increased log odds in 2016) and positive cohort effect for recent cohorts. Last, we observed a positive period effect for legalization support (-0.03 (95% CI: [-0.20, 0.14]) increased log odds in 2001 vs. 0.38 (95% CI: [0.22, 0.55]) increased log odds in 2016) and negative cohort effect for recent cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Cannabis use appears to be increasing in Australia among adults over 35, while decreasing among adolescents and young adults. Legalization support also appears to have been increasing since 2007, signaling discordance between use and attitudes among adolescents and young adults, and potentially predicting increases in use over time.

Cannabis use disorder among people using cannabis daily/almost daily in the United States, 2002-2016

BACKGROUND

Cannabis use disorder (CUD) prevalence among people reporting past-year cannabis use declined from 2002-2016. We examined whether similar reductions in CUD were observed among people reporting daily/almost daily cannabis use. We expected that CUD prevalence among people reporting daily/almost daily use would not decrease.

METHODS

We used 2002-2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) data, including 22,651 individuals using cannabis 300+ days in the past year. CUD was defined using DSM-IV criteria for cannabis abuse and/or dependence. Age categories included: 12-17, 18-25, and 26 + . Annual prevalence of CUD, cannabis dependence, cannabis abuse, and each individual abuse/dependence items accounted for the complex survey design. Differences in trends over time were examined by age group.

RESULTS

From 2002-2016, the prevalence of CUD among people reporting daily/almost daily cannabis use decreased by 26.8% in adolescents, by 29.7% in ages 18-25, and by 37.5% in ages 26 + . Prevalence of DSM-IV cannabis dependence decreased significantly among adolescents (-43.9%) and young adults (-26.8%) but remained stable in adults 26 + . Reductions in most dependence items were observed in young adults, with less consistent patterns in adolescents and adults 26 + . Prevalence of DSM-IV cannabis abuse decreased overall and for each abuse item across all age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to expectations, CUD prevalence decreased significantly across all ages reporting daily/almost daily cannabis use between 2002-2016. Cannabis dependence prevalence decreased for adolescents and young adults and was stable only among adults ages 26+ reporting daily/almost daily cannabis use. Potential drivers of this decrease should be further explored.

State-level marijuana policies and marijuana use and marijuana use disorder among a nationally representative sample of adults in the United States, 2015-2017: Sexual identity and gender matter

BACKGROUND

Research demonstrates an association between state-level medical marijuana laws (MMLs) and increased marijuana use (MU) and MU disorder (MUD) among adults, but has yet to explore this association among lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) individuals, including gender differences.

METHODS

We pooled the 2015-2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health data for adults (n = 126,463) and used gender-stratified adjusted multivariable logistic regression to model the odds of past-year MU, past-year medical MU, daily/near-daily MU, and MUD; we also tested the interaction between MML state residence and sexual identity.

RESULTS

Bisexual women had higher past-year MU (40% versus 10.3%; aOR = 2.9[2.4-3.4]), daily/near-daily MU (9.8% versus 1.5%; aOR = 4.6[3.3-6.2]), and medical MU ((5.5% versus 1.2%) aOR = 5.5[3.8-8.1]) than heterosexual women. Gay/lesbian women also had higher past-year MU (26.1% versus 10.3%; aOR = 2.8[2.2-3.7]), daily/near-daily MU (5.6% versus 1.5%; aOR = 2.9[1.8-4.6]), and medical MU (4.7% versus 1.2%; aOR = 3.0(1.4-6.6]) than heterosexual women. Bisexual women in MML states had higher past-year MU ((44.4% vs. 34.1%); aOR = 1.8[1.5-2.1]) and medical use (7.1% vs. 3.3% (aOR = 2.5[1.5-3.9]) than bisexual women in non-MML states. The odds of any past-year medical MU for bisexual versus heterosexual women was different in MML versus non-MML states (Exponentiated β = 0.53, p = 0.01). Gay men in MML states had higher past year MU (31.2% versus 25.7%; aOR = 1.6[1.1-2.5] and medical MU (6.4% vs 1.7%; aOR = 5.0[4.2-6.1]) than gay men in non-MML states.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that MMLs may differentially impact MU for sexual minority individuals-particularly bisexual women. Findings demonstrate the need for states enacting MMLs to consider potential differential impacts on LGB populations.

Concerns of Patients With Cancer on Accessing Cannabis Products in a State With Restrictive Medical Marijuana Laws: A Survey Study

PURPOSE

Several states, particularly in the Southeast, have restrictive medical marijuana laws that permit qualified patients to use specific cannabis products. The majority of these states, however, do not provide avenues for accessing cannabis products such as in-state dispensaries.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of patients registered for medical marijuana (low tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] oil cards) in an ambulatory palliative care practice in Georgia (one of the states with restrictive medical marijuana laws).

RESULTS

We had a total of 101 responses. Among our sample of patients who use cannabis as part of a state-approved low THC oil program, 56% were male and 64% were older than age 50 years. Advanced cancer was the most common reason (76%) for granting the patients access to a low THC oil card. Although patients reported cannabis products as being extremely helpful for reducing pain, they expressed considerable concerns about the legality issues (64%) and ability to obtain THC (68%). Several respondents were using unapproved formulations of cannabis products. For 48% of the patients, their physician was the source of information regarding marijuana-related products. Furthermore, they believed that their health care providers and family members were supportive of their use of cannabis (62% and 79%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Patients on Georgia's medical marijuana program are most concerned about the legality of the product and their ability to obtain marijuana-related products. Therefore, we recommend that states with medical marijuana laws should provide safe and reliable access to cannabis products for qualifying patients.

Crossing the Line: Care of a Pediatric Patient with Intractable Seizures and Severe Neuropathic Pain in Absence of Access to Medical Marijuana

Background: A reality of the current political and legal environment is that while marijuana and cannabis-based products remain not approved for human consumption at the federal level in the United States, several states have authorized use for constituents. While state lines represent meaningful cultural and geographical identity markers, the reality is that patients and families readily cross state lines to access medical interventions and care. Methods: We present the case of a six-year-old child with intractable seizures and severe neuropathic pain managed on medical marijuana (MM) in her home state of Colorado; where medicinal use of marijuana is authorized at the state level; traveling across state lines to access surgical care in Nebraska where MM is prohibited. Conclusion: The case report shares the communication and creativity invested in adequate symptom management for this child weaned off of MM perioperatively. The case recognizes the unique complexities of shared symptom management goals within state-specific care models.