Adolescent Cannabis Use During a Period of Rapid Policy Change: Evidence From the PATH Study

A Review of Meta-Analyses of Prevention Strategies for Problematic Cannabis Use

Purpose of Review

This narrative review summarizes research-to-date on strategies to prevent problematic cannabis use.

Recent Findings

Ten meta-analytic reviews of cannabis use prevention strategies published after 2010 were identified for this review. The meta-analytic reviews were based on studies evaluating the effectiveness of school-based programs, online/digital interventions, mass-media approaches, culturally specific interventions, and brief interventions. Results indicate that school-based programs, online/digital interventions, and culturally specific interventions may help to prevent or reduce cannabis use, though effect sizes were modest. Brief interventions were found to have no effect on cannabis use frequency, but had small beneficial effects on cannabis use disorder, consequences, and abstinence. Mass media approaches were not effective in preventing cannabis use.

Summary

School-based programs, online/digital interventions, culturally specific interventions, and brief interventions can have modest effects on problematic cannabis use. Research is needed to evaluate environmental strategies to prevent problematic cannabis use at the population level.

Exploring the relationship of rurality and region: An analysis of adolescent marijuana use in the United States

Marijuana use among adolescents and young adults has increased, however, there is a paucity of research concerning marijuana use among adolescents in rural areas. Current literature holds the assumption that adolescents in rural areas tend to use less marijuana and marijuana associated products compared with youth from urban and suburban areas. However, geographical features may contribute to unique stressors experienced by rural youth, resulting in distinct differences in usage that have been previously unexplored. The purpose of the current study was to explore the relationship between rurality and geographic region by examining patterns of lifetime marijuana use in 12th graders across various geographical backgrounds. Using data from the Monitoring the Future Study database, participants were classified based on rurality (rural, medium suburban/urban, large suburban/urban) and geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West) and data was analyzed to investigate the differences in lifetime marijuana and hash usage. Results demonstrated that rural adolescents in the Northeast and West reported lifetime marijuana and hash product use at the same level as their urban/suburban counterparts; however, there were differences across rurality among Midwest and Southern regions. These results suggest that lifetime marijuana use among rural adolescents is not uniform across geographic regions, indicating that geography should be heavily considered when formulating preventative and educational marijuana programs.

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.

Why Are Adolescent Cannabis Use Disorder Treatment Admissions Declining in the US? The Mediated Pathway of State Treatment Admissions Rates before and after Recreational Cannabis Legalization

Purpose: State-level prevalence data are used to investigate whether recreational cannabis legalization moderates the mediated pathway from the perception of low risk of harm, to cannabis use, to cannabis use disorder (CUD) treatment admissions, among adolescents (age 12-17) in the US. Methods: Annual state prevalence measures of perception of low risk, cannabis use, and CUD treatment admissions between 2008 and 2019 (N = 542 state-year observations) were collected from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) and the Treatment Episode Dataset - Admissions (TEDS-A). A two-way fixed effects (state and year) moderated mediation model was used to test whether recreational legalization moderated the indirect effect of perception of low risk on treatment admissions via cannabis use. Results: A positive indirect effect of perceiving cannabis as low risk on CUD treatment admissions via cannabis use was observed prior to legalization but not afterwards. After legalization, the positive association of perceiving cannabis as low risk with cannabis use was strengthened, and the positive association of cannabis use with treatment admissions was suppressed, as compared to before legalization. Discussion: Recreational legalization may alter the social acceptability and medical self-administration of cannabis, potentially leading to CUD treatment utilization decline among adolescents even as risk factors for CUD increase. Linking recreational cannabis legalization to advancing awareness of the health risks associated with adolescent cannabis use and promoting adolescent CUD treatment engagement through mHealth approaches and primary care providers are key to addressing potential adolescent health challenges brought about by expanding cannabis legalization.

Effects of cannabis legalization on the use of cannabis and other substances

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As more jurisdictions legalize cannabis for non-medical use, the evidence on how legalization policies affect cannabis use and the use of other substances remains inconclusive and contradictory. This review aims to summarize recent research findings on the impact of recreational cannabis legalization (RCL) on cannabis and other substance use among different population groups, such as youth and adults.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature reports mixed findings regarding changes in the prevalence of cannabis use after the adoption of RCL. Most studies found no significant association between RCL and changes in cannabis use among youth in European countries, Uruguay, the US, and Canada. However, some studies have reported increases in cannabis use among youth and adults in the US and Canada, although these increases seem to predate RCL. Additionally, there has been a marked increase in unintentional pediatric ingestion of cannabis edibles postlegalization, and an association between RCL and increased alcohol, vaping, and e-cigarette use among adolescents and young adults.

SUMMARY

Overall, the effects of cannabis legalization on cannabis use appear to be mixed. Further monitoring and evaluation research is needed to provide longer-term evidence and a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of RCL.