The effect of cannabis laws on opioid use

United States marijuana legalization and opioid mortality trends before and during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

To determine if marijuana legalization was associated with reduced opioid mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

The United States (US) opioid mortality trend during the 2010-2019 decade was compared in states and District of Columbia (jurisdictions) that had implemented marijuana legalization with states that had not. Acceleration of opioid mortality during 2020, the first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, was also compared in recreational and medicinal-only legalizing jurisdictions.

METHODS

Joinpoint methodology was applied to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER data. Trends in legalizing jurisdictions were cumulative aggregates.

RESULTS

The overall opioid and fentanyl death rates and the percentage of opioid deaths due to fentanyl increased more during 2010-2019 in jurisdictions that legalized marijuana than in those that did not (pairwise comparison p = 0.007, 0.05, and 0.006, respectively). By 2019, the all-opioid and fentanyl death rates were 44 and 50 percent greater in the legalizing than in the nonlegalizing jurisdictions, respectively. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, jurisdictions that implemented recreational marijuana legalization before 2019 had significantly greater increases in both overall opioid and fentanyl death rates than jurisdictions with medicinal-only legalization. For all-opioids, the mean (95 percent confidence interval) 2019-to-2020 increases were 46.5 percent (36.6, 56.3 percent) and 29.1 percent (20.2, 37.9 percent), respectively (p = 0.02). For fentanyl, they were 115.6 percent (80.2, 151.6 percent) and 55.4 percent (31.6, 79.2 percent), respectively (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

During the past decade, marijuana legalization in the US was associated at the jurisdiction level with a greater acceleration in opioid death rate. An even greater increase in opioid mortality occurred in recreational-legalizing jurisdictions with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Marijuana legalization is correlated with worsening of the US opioid epidemic.

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.

Cannabis use among adults undergoing cancer treatment

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the risks and benefits of cannabis use in the context of cancer care. This study characterized the prevalence, reasons for use, and perceived benefits of cannabis and compared symptoms and perceived risks between those who reported past 30-day cannabis use and those who did not.

METHODS

Adults undergoing cancer treatment at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center completed measures of sociodemographic characteristics, cannabis use, use modalities, reasons for use, perceived harms/benefits of use, physical and psychological symptoms, and other substance/medication use. Analyses compared patients who used or did not use cannabis in the past 30 days.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 267) were 58 years old on average, primarily female (70%), and predominantly White (88%). Over a quarter of respondents (26%) reported past 30-day cannabis use, and among those, 4.5% screened positive for cannabis use disorder. Participants who used cannabis most often used edibles (65%) or smoked cannabis (51%), and they were younger and more likely to be male, Black, and disabled, and to have lower income and Medicaid insurance than participants who did not use cannabis. Those who used cannabis reported more severe symptoms and perceived cannabis as less harmful than those who did not use cannabis. The most common medical reasons for cannabis use were pain, cancer, sleep problems, anxiety, nausea/vomiting, and poor appetite. Participants reported the greatest cannabis-related symptom relief from sleep problems, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain, muscle spasms, and anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cancer who used cannabis perceived benefits for many symptoms, although they showed worse overall symptomatology.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Among adults undergoing cancer treatment, 26% reported cannabis use in the past 30 days. Those who used cannabis were more likely to be male and disabled and to have lower income and Medicaid insurance than those who did not use cannabis. Participants most commonly reported using cannabis for pain, cancer, sleep, anxiety, and nausea/vomiting and reported the greatest perceived benefits for sleep, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain, muscle spasms, and anxiety, yet participants who used cannabis also reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared to those who did not use cannabis. Participants who used cannabis were more likely to report that cannabis was less risky to their health than alcohol, smoking, and opioids than those who did not use cannabis.

Medical cannabis laws lower individual market health insurance premiums

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the impact of medical cannabis laws (MCLs) on health insurance premiums. We study whether cannabis legalization significantly impacts aggregate health insurer premiums in the individual market. Increases in utilization could have spillover effects to patients in the form of higher health insurance premiums.

METHODS

We use 2010-2021 state-level U.S. private health insurer financial data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. We examined changes to individual market health insurance premiums after the implementation of medical cannabis laws. We employed a robust difference-in-differences estimator that accounted for variation in policy timing to exploit temporal and geographic variation in state-level medical cannabis legalization.

RESULTS

Seven years after the implementation of Medical Cannabis laws, we observe lower health insurer premiums in the individual market. Starting seven years post-MCL implementation, we find a reduction of $-1662.7 (95% confidence interval [CI -2650.1, -605.7]) for states which implemented MCLs compared to the control group, a reduction of -$1541.8 (95% confidence interval [CI 2602.1, -481.4]) in year 8, and a reduction of $-1625.8, (95% confidence interval [CI -2694.2, -557.5]) in year 9. Due to the nature of insurance pooling and community rating, these savings are appreciated by cannabis users and non-users alike in states that have implemented MCLs.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of MCLs lowers individual-market health insurance premiums. Health insurance spending, including premiums, comprises between 16% and 34% of household budgets in the United States. As healthcare costs continue to rise, our findings suggest that households that obtain their health insurance on the individual (i.e., not employer sponsored) market in states with MCLs appreciate significantly lower premiums.

The clouded debate: A systematic review of comparative longitudinal studies examining the impact of recreational cannabis legalization on key public health outcomes

Background

Ineffective cannabis regulatory frameworks such as prohibition have sparked interest in alternative solutions to reduce individual and societal harms. While it has been suggested that the recreational legalization process has yielded early successes, the relatively recent implementation of the novel policies has provided a modest time frame for a truly thorough establishment and assessment of key population-level indicators. The following systematic review focuses on identifying the downstream public health sequelae of cannabis legalization policies, including parameters such as cannabis consumption rates, hospitalization rates, vehicular accidents and fatalities, criminal activity, and suicidal behaviors, as well as other substance use trends.

Methods

An exhaustive search of the MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases were performed to identify high-quality (1) longitudinal studies, which (2) compared key public health outcomes between regions which had and had not implemented recreational cannabis legalization (RML) policies, (3) using distinct databases and/or time frames. Thirty-two original research articles were retained for review.

Results

Adult past-month cannabis consumption (26+ years) seems to have significantly increased following RML, whereas young adult (18-26 years) and adolescent (12-17 years) populations do not show a significant rise in past-month cannabis use. RML shows preliminary trends in increasing service use (such as hospitalizations, emergency department visits, or poisonings) or vehicular traffic fatalities. Preliminary evidence suggests that RML is related to potential increases in serious/violent crimes, and heterogeneous effects on suicidal behaviors. While the research does not illustrate that RML is linked to changing consumptions patterns of cigarette, stimulant, or opioid use, alcohol use may be on the rise, and opioid prescribing patterns are shown to be significantly correlated with RML.

Conclusion

The current data supports the notion that RML is correlated with altered cannabis consumption in adults, potentially increased criminal activity, and a decline in opioid quantities and prescriptions provided to patients. Future work should address additional knowledge gaps for vulnerable populations, such as individuals with mental health problems or persons consuming cannabis frequently/at higher THC doses. The effects of varying legalization models should also be evaluated for their potentially differing impacts on population-level outcomes.

Co-use of cannabis and prescription opioids in adults in the USA: a population-based, cross-sectional analysis of the NHANES from 2009 to 2018

INTRODUCTION

Cannabis and cannabinoids continue to gain popularity as adjuncts or alternatives to opioids in pain management, with evolving evidence of effectiveness. The relationship between cannabis and opioid use has previously been investigated in smaller cohorts or ecological samples, but not yet in a nationally representative sample.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis of adults in the USA was undertaken using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 2009 to 2018. The primary exposure was self-reported use of at least one opioid-containing prescription medication in the 30 days prior to survey administration. The outcome of interest was self-reported cannabis use in the same period. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for sociodemographic and health-related covariates, and NHANES survey sample weights were included in modeling. Prescription opioid users were then subclassified as short-term users (<90 days) or chronic users (≥90 days) in secondary analysis.

RESULTS

A total 10,928 survey respondents were included in analyses, representing 110 million adults in the USA aged 18-59. In this weighted cohort, 5.6%±0.4% reported a recent opioid prescription. Among prescription opioid users, 18.4%±3.1% reported recent cannabis use, not significantly different from 17.7%±0.7% among non-users (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.36, p=0.714). After adjustment for covariates, opioid users were significantly less likely to have recently used cannabis (adjusted OR, aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.97, p=0.032). When opioid users were subclassified by duration of prescription, there was no detectable difference in recent cannabis use between chronic opioid users and short-term opioid users (aOR 1.11, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.78, p=0.649).

CONCLUSION

Recent prescription opioid use was associated with decreased odds of cannabis use in this cross-sectional analysis of a nationally representative cohort. These findings suggest that use of cannabis or prescription opioids may not independently promote use of the other.

Characteristics of adults with a medical cannabis license, reasons for use, and perceptions of benefit following medical cannabis legalization in Oklahoma

Little is known about the risks and benefits associated with medical cannabis legalization. The current study was an online panel survey of adult Oklahomans recruited between September and October 2020 (N = 1898). Respondents with and without a medical cannabis license were compared on sociodemographic, substance use and health characteristics, and sub-analyses focused on the characteristics of licensed and unlicensed past 30-day cannabis users. Among all participants, 19.34% (n = 367) reported that they had a medical cannabis license, and 35.73% (n = 676) reported past 30-day cannabis use. Licensees were more likely to be younger (i.e., 18-35 years of age; p = 0.001), identify as a sexual minority (p < 0.001), and report past 30-day cannabis, cigarette, alcohol, and prescription opiate use (all p's ≤ 0.003). Licensed participants most commonly reported medically-recommended cannabis use for anxiety (42.51%), depression (33.24%), sleep problems (26.98%), chronic pain (24.25%), and arthritis (12.81%). The likelihood of medically-recommended cannabis use for anxiety, depression, and chronic pain differed by age group (all p's ≤ 0.028). Licensees were most likely to perceive that cannabis delivered "very much/extreme" relief from anxiety (78.57%), sleep problems (76.30%), nausea/vomiting (70.00%), and depression (67.05%). Compared to licensed past 30-day cannabis users (n = 308), unlicensed users (n = 368) were more likely to be non-White, to have ≤ high school education, to report an annual household income <$30,000, and to report current smoking (all p's ≤ 0.027). Findings provide initial information about the personal characteristics associated with having a medical cannabis license in Oklahoma, the reasons for medical cannabis use, and the perceived medical benefits.

Societal Costs and Outcomes of Medical and Recreational Marijuana Policies in the United States: A Systematic Review

Significant support exists in the United States for legalization of marijuana/cannabis. As of 2021, 36 states and four territories approved the legalization of medical cannabis via medical marijuana laws (MMLs), and 15 states and District of Columbia (DC) have adopted recreational marijuana laws (RMLs). We performed structured and systematic searches of articles published from 2010 through September 2021. We assess the literature pertaining to adolescent marijuana use; opioid use and opioid-related outcomes; alcohol use; tobacco use; illicit and other drug use; marijuana growing and cultivation; employment, earnings, and other workplace outcomes; academic achievement and performance; criminal activity; perceived harmfulness; traffic and road safety; and suicide and sexual activity. Overall, 113 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. Except for opioids, studies on use of other substances (illicit drugs, tobacco, and alcohol) were inconclusive. MMLs and RMLs do not generate negative outcomes in the labor market, lead to greater criminal activity, or reduce traffic and road safety.

Chronic Pain Clinical and Prescriptive Practices in the Cannabis Era

BACKGROUND

To explore how health care providers in the United States are adapting clinical recommendations and prescriptive practices in response to patient use of medical cannabis (MC) for chronic pain symptoms.

DESIGN

Literature searches queried MeSH/Subject terms "chronic pain," "clinician," "cannabis," and Boolean text words "practice" and "analgesics" in EBSCOHost, EMBASE, PubMed, and Scopus, published 2010-2021 in the United States. Twenty-one primary, peer-reviewed studies met criteria.

METHODS

Studies are synthesized under major headings: recommending MC for chronic pain; MC and prescription opioids; and harm reduction of MC.

RESULTS

MC is increasingly utilized by patients for chronic pain symptoms. Clinical recommendations for or against MC are influenced by scopes of practice, state or federal laws, institutional policies, education, potential patient harm (or indirect harm of others), and perceived confidence. Epidemiologic and cohort studies show downward trajectories of opioid prescribing and consumption in states with legal cannabis. However, clinicians' recommendations and prescription practices are nonuniform. Impacts of cannabis laws are clear between nongovernmental and governmental institutions. Strategies addressing MC and opioid use include frequent visits, and, to reduce harm, suggesting alternative therapies and treating substance use disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

MC use for chronic pain is increasing with cannabis legalization. Provider practices are heterogenous, demonstrating a balance of treating chronic pain using available evidence, while being aware of potential harms associated with MC and opioids.

Demographics, Perceptions, and Use of Medical Marijuana among Patients in Florida

Medical marijuana (MMJ) is currently legal in 35 US states, with an estimated 3.6 million state-legal medical cannabis patients. Although there are currently over 440,000 MMJ patients in the state of Florida, there are limited data on their demographics, reasons and patterns of use, and successes or failures of treatment. The goal of this study is to examine the demographics, perceptions, and use of medical cannabis among patients in Florida, as well as their perceptions of the quality of information received from physicians and dispensaries. One hundred and fifty-seven MMJ patients completed an online survey regarding their characteristics and use. Patients in Florida shared many characteristics with patients in other states, such as race, use frequency, and administration technique. Patients most commonly used MMJ to treat their symptoms of anxiety, pain, and stress and reported great therapeutic effectiveness. A majority (65%) of patients also reported either a reduction or total discontinuation of at least one prescription or over-the-counter drug. The findings highlight the need to further investigate the use of MMJ as a viable treatment for pain and anxiety and to improve access of quality cannabis information to patients, physicians, and dispensary employees.

Facilitators and barriers to the regulation of medical cannabis: a scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature

Background

In recent decades, several political, legislative, judicial, consumer, and commercial processes around the world have advanced legalization efforts for the use of medical cannabis (MC). As the use of MC evolves through legislative reform, with an increase in public acceptance and therapeutic potential, a need exists to further investigate the facilitators and barriers to MC regulation.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted to identify the facilitators and barriers associated with the implementation of MC regulations. MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched; no restrictions were placed on geographic location/jurisdiction. Eligible articles included those that evaluated the MC regulatory framework of one or more countries.

Results

Twenty-two articles were deemed eligible and included in this review. Themes identified include: (1) effects of conflicts, mindset, and ideology of state population, (2) the use of comparisons to analyze MC regulation, and (3) the need for more knowledge, advice, and empirical/clinical evidence to inform future MC policies.

Conclusion

Policymakers should be aware of facilitators to the MC regulation implementation process, such as the influence of state and federal congruence, increased transparency, and the incorporation of stakeholder concerns, in order to effectively respond to a growing societal acceptance of MC and its use among patients. Given a comprehensive understanding of these influential factors, policymakers may be better equipped to meet the consumer and commercial demands of a rapidly evolving MC regulatory environment.

The Endocannabinoid System: A Potential Target for the Treatment of Various Diseases

The Endocannabinoid System (ECS) is primarily responsible for maintaining homeostasis, a balance in internal environment (temperature, mood, and immune system) and energy input and output in living, biological systems. In addition to regulating physiological processes, the ECS directly influences anxiety, feeding behaviour/appetite, emotional behaviour, depression, nervous functions, neurogenesis, neuroprotection, reward, cognition, learning, memory, pain sensation, fertility, pregnancy, and pre-and post-natal development. The ECS is also involved in several pathophysiological diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases. In recent years, genetic and pharmacological manipulation of the ECS has gained significant interest in medicine, research, and drug discovery and development. The distribution of the components of the ECS system throughout the body, and the physiological/pathophysiological role of the ECS-signalling pathways in many diseases, all offer promising opportunities for the development of novel cannabinergic, cannabimimetic, and cannabinoid-based therapeutic drugs that genetically or pharmacologically modulate the ECS via inhibition of metabolic pathways and/or agonism or antagonism of the receptors of the ECS. This modulation results in the differential expression/activity of the components of the ECS that may be beneficial in the treatment of a number of diseases. This manuscript in-depth review will investigate the potential of the ECS in the treatment of various diseases, and to put forth the suggestion that many of these secondary metabolites of Cannabis sativa L. (hereafter referred to as "C. sativa L." or "medical cannabis"), may also have potential as lead compounds in the development of cannabinoid-based pharmaceuticals for a variety of diseases.

Demand curve analysis of marijuana use among persons living with HIV

BACKGROUND

Despite medicalization and legalization of marijuana use, factors influencing demand for marijuana among persons living with HIV (PLWH) are incompletely understood. This knowledge gap undermines effective clinical management and policies. This study used demand curve simulation methods to address these issues.

METHODS

Marijuana-using PLWH (N = 119) completed experimental tasks to simulate amount of marijuana purchasing/use across different costs (money or time), and likelihood of reselling marijuana or marijuana therapeutic-use registration card in relation to profits. Additional simulations assessed purchasing of marijuana relative to other drug and non-drug goods.

RESULTS

Simulated marijuana use decreased as money and time costs increased. Consumption was greater for participants with more severe Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) and anxiety, intermediate pain levels, and past 90-day opioid use. Whereas few participants chose to sell their registration card, marijuana resale (diversion) steeply increased with profit. Likelihood of seeking marijuana therapeutic-use certification decreased in relation to registration card money cost, having to visit more physicians to get a signature, and delay to receiving the card, and increased with duration of certification. Participants who reported recent opioid use were more likely to seek certification. Consumption of several commodities assessed was independent of marijuana.

CONCLUSIONS

Simulated marijuana use was related to participants' clinical profile (CUD, anxiety and pain symptoms, recent opioid use), and unrelated to purchasing other goods. Likelihood of seeking marijuana therapeutic-use registration was affected by several types of costs and recent opioid use. Participants were unlikely to divert registration cards. We discuss clinical and policy implications of these findings.

Shared Decision-Making for Patients Using Cannabis for Pain Symptom Management in the United States

OBJECTIVES

Gaps in research evidence and inconsistent policies regarding use of cannabis for pain and associated symptoms result in confusion for healthcare providers and patients. The objective of this review was to synthesize information on cannabis use for pain with legal and policy implications to create a shared decision-making model that can be used to guide patient care interactions.

APPROACH

Current cannabis policies, state laws, research, and patient care practices related to medical and recreational cannabis in the United States were reviewed, along with best practices in shared decision-making. Reviewed literature was then synthesized to create a model that can be used by registered nurses and others to address cannabis use, where legal, for pain and related symptoms.

RESULT AND CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis is a legal option for many patients with pain. To minimize harms and optimize benefits, nurses can play a key role when authorized by law in assisting with decision-making surrounding cannabis use.

Trajectories of cannabis use and risk for opioid misuse in a young adult urban cohort

BACKGROUND

Although much of the attention surrounding the opioid epidemic has focused on rural and suburban Whites and prescription opioids, heroin overdoses among urban Blacks are on the rise. While some argue that legalization of cannabis will combat the epidemic, there are concerns it ignores the shift in the epidemic and could increase vulnerability to opioid misuse. The goal of this study is to examine the association between cannabis use from adolescence to young adulthood with opioid misuse in a primarily urban Black cohort.

METHODS

Data are from a study of 580 youth (87 % Black and 71 % low SES) residing in Baltimore City followed from ages 6-26. Cannabis trajectories were identified between ages 14-26 using group-based trajectory modeling. Logistic regressions were conducted to examine the impact of trajectories on opioid misuse in young adulthood adjusting for individual, neighborhood and peer factors. Opioid misuse was defined as using heroin or narcotics or painkillers without a prescription between ages 19-26.

RESULTS

Four cannabis trajectories were identified: Low/Non-Users (59.7 %), Adolescent Onset Limited (19.5 %), Young Adult Onset (10.8 %), and Adolescent Onset Chronic (10.0 %). Adolescent Onset Chronic cannabis users had the highest rate of opioid misuse (44.8 %) followed by Adolescent Onset Limited (18.8 %), Young Adult Onset (14.8 %) and Low/Non-Users (8.3 %). Prevalences were significantly higher for Adolescent Onset groups relative to Low/Non-Users even after adjustment for individual, neighborhood and peer factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescent onset cannabis use is associated with opioid misuse in young adulthood among urban Blacks even after adjustment for socioecological factors associated with opioid misuse.

Medical cannabis laws and medical and non-medical prescription stimulant use among a nationally representative sample of US Adults: Examining the role of sexual identity and gender

BACKGROUND

Medical marijuana laws (MMLs) can impact marijuana and opioid use, but the relationship between MMLs and other drugs, such as prescription stimulants, remains unexamined. Because lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) individuals report higher levels of prescription stimulant use than heterosexuals, we explored the relationship between MMLs and past-year medical and non-medical stimulant use by sexual identity and gender.

METHODS

We pooled 2015-2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health data for adults (n = 126 463), and used survey-weighted multinomial logistic regression to estimate odds of past-year (a) medical prescription stimulant use, (b) non-medical prescription stimulant use and (c) non-medical versus medical stimulant use. We stratified by gender, adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, and tested the interaction between MML state residence and sexual identity.

RESULTS

Bisexual men had higher medical (6.4% versus 4.1%; aROR=1.93[1.29-2.88]) and non-medical stimulant use 6.6% versus 2.4%; aROR=2.23[1.44-3.44]) than heterosexual men. Bisexual women had higher non-medical stimulant use (6.8% versus 1.6%; aROR=1.54[1.23-2.93] than heterosexual women. Female (aROR=0.70[0.62-0.78]) and male (aROR=0.74[0.66-0.82]) heterosexuals in MML states had lower odds of medical stimulant use than in non-MML states. Bisexual men in MML states had lower odds of medical (aROR=0.36[0.21-0.61]) and non-medical stimulant use (aROR=0.48[0.29-0.81]) than bisexual men in non-MML states. Similar patterns emerged for bisexual women's non-medical use (aROR=0.57[0.40-0.81]).

CONCLUSION

Prescription stimulant use was higher in non-MML states for most LGB subgroups. MMLs may differentially impact stimulant use, primarily for bisexual men and women. States enacting MMLs should consider potential impacts on drugs other than marijuana, especially among LGB populations.