Big marijuana--lessons from big tobacco

Oral health status among recreational cannabis (marijuana and hashish) users in the USA: A NHANES-based cross-sectional study

Background

As of November 2023, twenty-four states, two territories, and DC have legalized marijuana for non-medical use, leading to concerns about its potential oral health effects. This study investigated the association between marijuana use and clinical dental outcomes among adults in the US.

Methods

We analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2015 to 2018 using a cross-sectional survey of non-institutionalized US civilians. Marijuana use was assessed among 18-59-year-old adults and categorized as never, former, or current frequent use. The dental outcomes included the prevalence of untreated coronal caries, root caries, and missing teeth. We employed logistic and negative binomial regressions to assess the crude and adjusted associations between marijuana use, dental caries, and tooth loss.

Results

Of the 6,424 participants, 13.85% of US adults aged 18-59 years were current frequent marijuana users (21.67 million), with the highest prevalence among 18-29-year-olds (21.31%), males (17.54%), and non-Hispanic Black individuals (21.31%). Frequent marijuana users showed the highest prevalence of untreated coronal caries (33.4%). Before adjusting for socioeconomic confounders, current frequent marijuana users had 1.76 times higher odds of having teeth with coronal caries, whereas former frequent users had 1.47 times higher odds. However, the associations between marijuana use and all dental outcomes were attenuated after adjusting for socioeconomic confounders, tobacco use, and access to dental care.

Conclusion

Although marijuana use was associated with worse dental health, socioeconomic factors, tobacco use, and access to dental care were more significant contributors to the prevalence of untreated dental caries and missing teeth than marijuana use alone.

Parallel trajectories of vaping and smoking cannabis and their associations with mental and physical well-being among young adults

BACKGROUND

Vaping and smoking are common modes of using cannabis (THC) among young adults, but little is known about how patterns of cannabis vaping and smoking unfold over time or how using one or both types of products may differently affect mental and physical well-being. This study examines parallel processes of cannabis vaping and smoking over 5 years and mental and physical outcomes in a sample of young adults.

METHODS

Annual surveys were conducted between 2016 and 2022 with a mostly California-based cohort of 2428 young adults. Parallel process growth mixture models examined trajectories of past-month frequency of cannabis vaping and smoking from ages 20 - 25. Classes were extracted based on parallel trajectories of vaped and smoked product use. Models assessed differences in self-reported mental (anxiety, depression) and physical (ailments, subjective overall) well-being outcomes in young adulthood across classes, adjusting for demographic characteristics and mental and physical well-being at pre-baseline (average age 19).

RESULTS

Four cannabis vaping/smoking classes emerged: low use of cannabis (84.7%), decreasing smoking, low-moderate vaping (7.1%), stable moderate smoking, decreasing vaping (4.6%), and rapid increasing dual use (3.4%). Classes were similar on physical well-being indicators in young adulthood. The rapid increasing dual use class showed higher anxiety and depressive symptoms compared to other classes.

CONCLUSION

Progression to higher frequency of both vaping and smoking cannabis in young adulthood may contribute to poorer mental well-being compared to other use patterns. Targeted efforts to reduce dual vaping and smoking in young people who use cannabis may be needed.

Youth tobacco and cannabis use and co-use: Associations with daily exposure to tobacco marketing within activity spaces and by travel patterns

BACKGROUND

We investigated youth daily activity spaces, travel patterns, exposure to tobacco retail marketing, and tobacco and cannabis use and co-use.

METHODS

Data included 1,060 daily assessments from 100 participants (16-20 years old) in 8 California cities. Using GPS-enabled smartphones with a survey application, youth completed brief daily surveys, and location coordinates were obtained at one-minute intervals. Tobacco outlets in study cities were visited by observers to record outlet GPS point locations and data concerning tobacco marketing. Tobacco outlet addresses and GPS location coordinates were geocoded. Activity spaces were constructed by joining sequential location points. Measures included the number of outlets with outdoor tobacco marketing within 50 m of activity space polylines and the amount of time participants were within 50 m of these outlets each day. Participants also reported tobacco and cannabis use and whether they saw tobacco ads by their neighborhood, school, workplace, and anywhere else each day. Additionally each day they reported how much time they traveled by different modes of transportation, with parents/guardians, and with friends.

RESULTS

In mixed effects multinomial regression models, perceived exposure to tobacco marketing was associated with co-use of tobacco and cannabis on a given day (RRR = 1.66, p < 0.05). Although perceived exposure to tobacco marketing was not associated with tobacco use only, moderation analysis indicated that the likelihood of tobacco use was greater among youth who walked/biked/skated more (RRR = 5.22, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Perceived exposure to tobacco marketing contributes to youth tobacco and cannabis use or co-use, especially for those who travel by walking/biking/skating.

Post-Legalization Drug Communication: Examining a Colorado Cannabis Campaign

Colorado legalized marijuana use for recreational purposes by adults over 21 in 2012. Our goal is to examine the first major communication campaign (called Good-To-Know) mounted by the state government with the objective of informing the public regarding regulatory and safety precautions surrounding newly legal use. Methods: We assess the content of campaign's central messaging qualitatively by comparing its major themes in terms of criteria developed from the literature and the campaign's own goals. Results: With minor exceptions (lack of audience segmentation; limiting the focus to generating knowledge) Colorado's Good-To-Know campaign rates well when assessed against specific criteria for effective drug communication campaigns as well as its own goals. Conclusions: We conclude that although there were minor limitations to this campaign, policy makers and activists should think proactively about messaging content in states where legalization is imminent. And that more research on legal drug use messaging needs to occur.

Compliance With Cannabis Act Regulations Regarding Online Promotion Among Canadian Commercial Cannabis-Licensed Firms

IMPORTANCE

As global jurisdictions shift toward cannabis legalization, 2 areas of public health importance relate to exposure to youth and to truthful promotion. Although Canada's Cannabis Act specifies many prohibitions related to cannabis promotion, no systematic monitoring or enforcement among licensed firms exists. Compliance with marketing regulations has effects beyond Canadian citizens because of the global outreach of websites and social media.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate compliance among licensed firms with the Cannabis Act and analyze trends among violations regarding promotional material.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study evaluated cannabis-licensed firms after cannabis legalization. Data were extracted from online public platforms, including company websites, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, from October 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. Descriptive statistics, Poisson regression, and logistic regression were used to analyze the associations of covariates with promotion violations.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was characterization of type and prevalence of promotion violations. Secondary outcomes were the role of various covariates (namely, licensed firm characteristics and online platforms) in the frequency and probability of violations. Hypotheses were formulated before data collection.

RESULTS

Among 261 licensed firms, 211 (80.8%) had an online platform, including 204 (96.7%) with websites, 128 (60.7%) with Facebook, 123 (58.3%) with Instagram, and 123 (58.3%) with Twitter. Of all licensed firms with an online platform, 182 (86.3%) had at least 1 violation. Compared with websites, the risk of violations was significantly higher on Facebook (rate ratio [RR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11-1.39) and Instagram (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05-1.34). The most common violations included lack of age restrictions, brand glamorization, and omission of risk information. With websites as the reference group, lack of age restrictions was approximately 15 times more likely to occur on Facebook (odds ratio [OR], 14.76; 95% CI, 8.06-27.05); the odds of an age restriction violation were also higher on Instagram (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.43-4.32) and Twitter (OR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.29-7.09). For unsubstantiated claims, the odds of violations were significantly decreased on Facebook (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.48) and Instagram (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.14-0.57). The odds of glamorization were associated with an increase on Instagram (OR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.72-4.88).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, widespread violations were observed in online Canadian cannabis promotion. To protect public health and safety amid legalization, decision-makers should make explicit federal regulation and enforcement regarding promotional activities of cannabis retailers. These results suggest that policy and enforcement of cannabis promotion in Canada would have an international impact, from ease of access to online media and downstream consequences of unregulated promotion.

Patterns of Cannabis Use Among Individuals with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Results from an Internet Survey

BACKGROUND

Americans increasingly use cannabis, including those with psychiatric disorders. Yet little is known about cannabis use among individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Thus, we conducted the first survey of cannabis users with OCD.

METHODS

Adults with OCD (i.e., prior professional diagnosis and/or score above the cutoff on a validated scale) who reported using cannabis were recruited from internet sources to complete a survey querying demographic information, medical/psychiatric history, cannabis use patterns, and perceived cannabis effects.

RESULTS

Of 1096 survey completers, 601 met inclusion criteria. Inhalation/cannabis flower were the most common method/formulation participants endorsed; most identified using high-potency cannabis products; 42% met criteria for cannabis use disorder. Nearly 90% self-reported using cannabis medicinally, 33.8% had a physician's recommendation, and 29% used specifically to manage OCD symptoms. Most participants reported cannabis improved obsessions/compulsions; those with increased obsession severity perceived less benefit. Finally, most participants were not receiving evidence-based OCD treatment, and the odds of receiving treatment decreased with increased cannabis use.

CONCLUSIONS

In this survey, participants with OCD reported both subjective benefits and harms from cannabis use. Future research should clarify the risks and benefits of cannabis use to those with OCD and develop treatment models to better support this population.

The Clinical Assessment of Vaping Exposure

: Vaping, the inhalation of a nicotine or tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD), or non-drug infused solution delivered by vaping devices, is a growing phenomenon across many segments of the US population. Complications associated with vaping are newly emerging and relatively unstudied; little guidance exists on how clinicians may best elicit information related to vaping practices and associated medical problems. This publication, therefore, provides physicians and other treatment clinicians with direction for obtaining the medical history that can guide clinical decision-making for patients at risk for adverse effects associated with vaping.

Differences in Opinions About Marijuana Use and Prevalence of Use by State Legalization Status

OBJECTIVE

Beliefs about marijuana use and prevalence of use may be associated with the legalization status of the state of residence. We examined differences in views and rates of use of marijuana among residents in recreationally legal, medically legal, and nonlegal states.

METHODS

We surveyed a nationally representative online panel of US adults (N = 16,280) and stratified results by marijuana legalization status of states. We compared views of residents of recreational states on benefits and risks of marijuana use to residents in other states.

RESULTS

The response rate was 56.3% (n = 9003). Residents in recreationally legal states were more likely to believe marijuana could be beneficial for pain management (73% in recreationally legal states, 67% in medically legal states, 63% in nonlegal states; P value: <0.0001), provide relief from stress, anxiety or depression (52% in recreationally legal states, 47% in medically legal states, 46% in nonlegal states; P value: 0.01), and improve appetite (39% in recreationally legal states, 36% in medically legal states, 33% in nonlegal states; P value: <0.009). In addition, residents in recreational states were significantly more likely to believe that smoking 1 marijuana joint a day is somewhat or much safer than smoking 1 cigarette a day (40.8% in recreationally legal states, 39.1% in medically legal states, and 36.1% in nonlegal states; P value: <0.0001). Residents of recreationally and medically legal states were more likely to believe second-hand marijuana smoke was somewhat or much safer than second-hand tobacco smoke (38.3% in recreationally legal states, 38.3% in medically legal states, and 35.7% in nonlegal states; P value: 0.003). Past-year marijuana use in any form (20% in recreational, 14.1% in medical, 12% in nonlegal) and past-year marijuana use of multiple forms (11.1% in recreational, 6.1% in medical, 4.9% in nonlegal) were highest among residents of recreationally legal states. Overall, prevalence of past-year use of any form of marijuana use was more common among residents of recreationally legal states compared with other states (20.3%, confidence interval [CI] 19.5, 21.1 in recreationally legal states; 15.4%, CI 14.7, 16.2 in medically legal states; 11.9%, CI 11.2, 12.6 in nonlegal states).

CONCLUSIONS

Residents in recreationally legal states were most likely to believe marijuana has benefits, marijuana smoke is safer than tobacco smoke, and have the highest rate of marijuana use. This is cause for concern, given the tide of commercialization, growing number of high-potency cannabis products, and favorable media coverage promoting use for health problems.

Human Laboratory Models of Cannabis Use: Applications for Clinical and Translational Psychiatry Research

Cannabis is increasingly used by individuals with mental health diagnoses and often purported to treat anxiety and various other psychiatric symptoms. Yet support for using cannabis as a psychiatric treatment is currently limited by a lack of evidence from rigorous placebo-controlled studies. While regulatory hurdles and other barriers make clinical trials of cannabis challenging to conduct, addiction researchers have decades of experience studying cannabis use in human laboratory models. These include methods to control cannabis administration, to delineate clinical and mechanistic aspects of cannabis use, and to evaluate potential treatment applications for cannabis and its constituents. In this paper, we review these human laboratory procedures and describe how each can be applied to study cannabis use in patients with psychiatric disorders. Because anxiety disorders are among the most common psychiatric illnesses affecting American adults, and anxiety relief is also the most commonly-reported reason for medicinal cannabis use, we focus particularly on applying human laboratory models to study cannabis effects in individuals with anxiety and related disorders. Finally, we discuss how these methods can be integrated to study cannabis effects in other psychiatric conditions and guide future research in this area.

Parental Optimism and Perceived Control over Children's Initiation of Tobacco, Cannabis, and Opioid Use

Families play an important role in helping teenagers avoid using tobacco, cannabis, and opioids, but some parents may underestimate the risk of their children using those substances. This study aimed to determine parents' perceived likelihood of their child initiating tobacco, cannabis, and opioid use, as well as the control they have in preventing their child from using those substances. We surveyed 427 parents of children aged 0-18 years old using the online Amazon Mechanical Turk platform in the spring of 2019. We measured participants' perceived likelihood of their child initiating tobacco, cannabis, or opioid use before the age of 18 compared to other children, using a five-point Likert scale. This perceived likelihood was dichotomized between optimistic (less likely than average) and non-optimistic (average or more likely than average). Independent variables included parental tobacco use, perceived parental control, and perceived severity of the behavior. Participants with missing data and participants with children who had already initiated substance use were excluded from statistical analyses. Mean age of participants was 38.1 years (Standard Deviation 8.4); 67% were female. Level of parental optimism was 59% for cannabis, 77% for tobacco, and 82% for opioids. Perceived severity was significantly lower for cannabis use (71/100) than tobacco (90/100) and opioid use (92/100) (p < 0.001). Current smokers were less likely than never smokers to be optimistic about their child's risk of initiating using tobacco (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 0.18 [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.10-0.34]) or cannabis (AOR: 0.21 [95% CI 0.12-0.38]). Parental perceived likelihood of a child initiating substance use represents an understudied and potential target for substance use prevention.

Acute effects of cannabinoids on symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder: A human laboratory study

BACKGROUND

Preclinical data implicate the endocannabinoid system in the pathology underlying obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), while survey data have linked OCD symptoms to increased cannabis use. Cannabis products are increasingly marketed as treatments for anxiety and other OCD-related symptoms. Yet, few studies have tested the acute effects of cannabis on psychiatric symptoms in humans.

METHODS

We recruited 14 adults with OCD and prior experience using cannabis to enter a randomized, placebo-controlled, human laboratory study to compare the effects on OCD symptoms of cannabis containing varying concentrations of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) on OCD symptoms to placebo. We used a within-subjects design to increase statistical power. Across three laboratory sessions, participants smoked three cannabis varietals in random order: placebo (0% THC/0% CBD); THC (7.0% THC/0.18% CBD); and CBD (0.4% THC/10.4% CBD). We analyzed acute changes in OCD symptoms, state anxiety, cardiovascular measures, and drug-related effects (e.g., euphoria) as a function of varietal.

RESULTS

Twelve participants completed the study. THC increased heart rate, blood pressure, and intoxication compared with CBD and placebo. Self-reported OCD symptoms and anxiety decreased over time in all three conditions. Although OCD symptoms did not vary as a function of cannabis varietal, state anxiety was significantly lower immediately after placebo administration relative to both THC and CBD.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first placebo-controlled investigation of cannabis in adults with OCD. The data suggest that smoked cannabis, whether containing primarily THC or CBD, has little acute impact on OCD symptoms and yields smaller reductions in anxiety compared to placebo.

Assessment of Incorporation of Lessons From Tobacco Control in City and County Laws Regulating Legal Marijuana in California

IMPORTANCE

As marijuana continues to be legalized in many states, little is known about best regulatory practice, exposing the population to significant potential harm.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the extent to which potential best practices, including those from tobacco control, were incorporated into state and local marijuana policies in California.

DESIGN AND SETTING

California legalized medical marijuana in 1996 and adult recreational use in 2016, effective in January 2018. A cross-sectional study with data collection and analysis from February 1 to November 30, 2019, measured the adoption of potential demand reduction and youth protection best practices, including restrictions on sales, products, marketing, warnings, and taxation. Laws in effect by January 31, 2019, were verified and all 539 California local jurisdictions were studied.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Adoption of potential best practices in marijuana laws for demand reduction and youth protection.

RESULTS

The laws of 534 of California's 539 jurisdictions (99%) were successfully identified; 263 of these 534 jurisdictions (49%) allowed any retail sale of marijuana, covering 57% of the state's population. More than one-third of jurisdictions allow sales of marijuana for adult recreational use (203 of 534 [38%]); of those, 122 allow storefront dispensaries and 81 allow sales by delivery only. A total of 257 of 534 jurisdictions (48%) allow medical sales. Of 147 jurisdictions allowing medical or adult use dispensaries, 93 (63%) limited the number of licenses, with a mean of 1 store for every 19 058 residents (range, 154-355 143). The state imposed no limits on number of dispensaries or deliverers. Forty-two jurisdictions increased the state-specified distances required between dispensaries and schools. Only 8 jurisdictions allowing retail sales imposed restrictions on products exceeding state regulations; 1 prohibited sale of flavored products, 3 prohibited sale of marijuana-infused beverages, and 5 imposed additional restrictions on edible marijuana products. No jurisdictions limited potency of products sold, although 1 established a potency-linked tax. The state did not limit or tax potency, except for establishing a standard 10-mg dose of tetrahydrocannabinol for edible marijuana products, nor did they limit manufacturing or sale of flavored products. The state required only a health warning in 6-point font on packages. Twenty-seven jurisdictions required additional health warnings in stores or on packages, 27 allowed onsite consumption of marijuana products, and 13 allowed marijuana-related events. More than half of jurisdictions legalizing any cannabis commerce (154 of 289 [53%]) did not tax marijuana locally and little revenue was captured for prevention. Much of the state excise and cultivation taxes is slated for youth substance use prevention and treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In implementing legalization of marijuana in California, local policies varied widely. Where marijuana was legalized, many lessons from tobacco control to reduce demand, limit harm, and prevent youth use were not adopted, potentially creating greater risk of harm.

Understanding motivations for large US cannabis firms' participation in the cannabis space: Qualitative study exploring views of key decision-makers

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Large for-profit firms supply the majority of US state-legal cannabis stores and some firms have attempted to shape cannabis-related policies. Understanding firms' motivations for participation in the cannabis space is critical, given firms' possible links to cannabis usage patterns. Key decision-makers (KDM) in the cannabis space may have information unavailable to lower ranking staff, and may influence firm decision-making and consequently US cannabis usage practises. We present the findings of a qualitative study investigating the views of KDMs in the cannabis market, on large cannabis firms' motivations for participation in the space.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Data were collected through 37 semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of KDMs in the US cannabis space, representing both for-profit and non-profit organisations. Thematic analysis, with an inductive approach, was used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

KDMs reported three non-exclusive motivations for large cannabis firms' participation in the space; to seek profit, to mitigate social inequity and to provide cannabis as medicine. Within the theme relating to profit, findings suggest that for-profit and non-profit organisations in the space may be cognisant of the other's goals, representing a symbiotic relationship.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that firms may have reasons to enter the space not necessarily centred on increasing use. Although non-profits and for-profits have different agendas, the bottom line for both groups is to expand access. Policy-makers should be aware of that fact, and set policies which consider the two groups as a unified whole.

Sources of Information and Beliefs About the Health Effects of Marijuana

BACKGROUND

Marijuana is currently legal for recreational use in 10 states and Washington DC while a total of 34 states have implemented varying degrees of medical marijuana. The commercialization of marijuana has been accompanied by a proliferation of false claims regarding the therapeutic potential of marijuana, which are popularized by several different information sources. To date, no study has examined where US adults get their information regarding marijuana.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the sources of information associated with believing unsupported claims about marijuana.

DESIGN

Probability-based online survey PARTICIPANTS: 16,820 adults, with a response rate of about 55% (N = 9003) MAIN MEASURES: Most influential sources of information about marijuana and belief of statements consistent with misinformation, for example, smoking marijuana has preventative health benefits, secondhand marijuana smoke or use during pregnancy is completely or somewhat safe, and marijuana is not at all addictive.

KEY RESULTS

There were 9003 respondents (response rate 55%). Forty-three percent believed unsupported claims about marijuana. The most influential sources of information were health professionals, traditional media, friends/relatives, and social media/internet. Individuals reporting social media or the Internet (1.46 CI [1.30, 1.64]), the marijuana industry (e.g., advertisements, dispensaries) (2.88 CI [2.15, 3.88]), and friends or relatives (1.41 CI[1.26, 1.58]) as the most influential source of information about marijuana were more likely to believe any statement consistent with misinformation about marijuana in comparison with those who reported other sources as most influential.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals reporting the most significant source of information regarding marijuana was from social media or the Internet, the marijuana industry, or friends or relatives were more likely to believe unsupported claims about marijuana. Public health campaigns to counter the misinformation about marijuana to the public are needed.

Impacts of Medical Marijuana Laws on Young Americans Across the Developmental Spectrum

Introduction State legalization of marijuana for medical purposes could increase illicit marijuana use among young people. Medical marijuana laws may boost the availability of marijuana and reduce perceptions of its harmfulness, leading more young people to try it. Prior studies report little evidence that these laws are impacting marijuana consumption by young Americans, and none have systematically compared developmentally distinct age groups. Methods We performed multilevel, serial cross-sectional analyses on ten annual waves of U.S. National Survey on Drug Use and Health, from 2004 to 2013, comparing young people in states with and without medical marijuana laws. Disaggregated analyses compared multiple measures of marijuana use across approximately 450,300 individuals in early adolescence (12-14 years), late adolescence (15-17 years) and young adulthood (18-25 years). Results Dwelling in a state that had legalized medical marijuana was not associated with marijuana consumption in the past month among early adolescents, late adolescents or young adults. However, young adults living in medical marijuana states were significantly more likely to have initiated first use in the past year. Conclusions Medical marijuana laws increase the likelihood that young adults will start using marijuana but do not affect more vulnerable developmental groups in early and late adolescence. Delaying the age of first use into young adulthood can reduce the risk of a drug use disorder later in life. Young adults are in the peak years of engagement with illicit drugs and state medical marijuana laws appear to be leading larger numbers to try the drug.

An update on cannabis use disorder with comment on the impact of policy related to therapeutic and recreational cannabis use

Confusion and controversy related to the potential for cannabis use to cause harm, or alternatively to provide benefit, continues globally. This issue has grown in intensity and importance with the increased recognition of the public health implications related to the escalation of the legalization of cannabis and cannabinoid products. This selective overview and commentary attempt to succinctly convey what is known about one potential consequence of cannabis use, the development of cannabis use disorder (CUD). Such knowledge may help guide a reasonable and objective public health perspective on the potential impact of cannabis use and CUD. Current scientific data and clinical observation strongly support the contention that cannabis use, like the use of other substances such as alcohol, opioids, stimulants, and tobacco, can develop into a use disorder (addiction) with important clinical consequences. Epidemiological data indicate that the majority of those who use cannabis do not have problems related to their use, but a substantial subset (10-30%) do report experiencing symptoms and consequences consistent with a CUD. Treatment seeking for CUD comprises a substantial proportion of all substance use treatment admissions, yet treatment response rates show much room for improvement. Changing cannabis policies related to its therapeutic and recreational use are likely to impact the development of CUD and its course; however, definitive data on such effects are not yet available. Clearly, the development of more effective prevention and treatment strategies is needed for those vulnerable to developing a CUD and for those with a CUD.

Cannabis and mental illness: a review

With the increasing push to legalize cannabis in Western nations, there is a need to gage the potential impact of this policy change on vulnerable populations, such as those with mental illness, including schizophrenia, mood, and anxiety disorders. This is particularly important as there are strong motives in these individuals to seek short-term reward (e.g., "getting high"). Nonetheless, data to support the beneficial effects of cannabis use in psychiatric populations are limited, and potential harms in patients with psychotic and mood disorders have been increasingly documented. This article reviews the effects of cannabis in people with mental illness. Then, we provide a reconciliation of the addiction vulnerability and allostatic hypotheses to explain co-morbidity addiction in mentally ill cannabis users, as well as to further aid in developing a rational framework for the assessment and treatment of problematic cannabis use in these patients.

Contemporary Patterns of Marijuana Use and Attitudes Among High School Seniors: 2010-2016

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to examine changes in contemporary patterns of marijuana use and attitudes over time. Given shifts in state-by-state marijuana legislation, there is a reason to believe that the patterns of high school seniors' marijuana use behavior and attitudes about use have changed from 2010 to 2016.

METHODS

Data are from high school seniors in the 2010-2016 waves of Monitoring the Future, a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey in the United States. Latent class analysis was used to determine underlying patterns of marijuana use and related attitudes. Differences in latent class membership were examined across years, and gender and race/ethnicity were also examined.

RESULTS

Five latent classes were identified: Intolerant Nonusers (49% of the sample), Tolerant Nonusers (12%), Disapproving Users (7%), Experimenters (6%), and Marijuana Enthusiasts (26%). Class prevalences remained relatively stable from 2010 to 2013; beginning in 2014 a significant decrease in prevalence was observed for Intolerant Nonusers and significant increases in prevalence were observed for Tolerant Nonusers and Marijuana Enthusiasts. Membership in the Marijuana Enthusiasts class was consistently more likely for males; Hispanic and black adolescents were more likely to be Disapproving Users.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary patterns of marijuana use and attitudes have remained consistent over time, however, significant shifts in class prevalence emerged in 2014. Findings also suggest that a substantial subgroup of adolescents would benefit from prevention and intervention efforts targeting marijuana use and attitudes.

Co-use of cannabis, tobacco, and alcohol during adolescence: policy and regulatory implications

Legislative reforms have legalized use of cannabis for medical and recreational purposes. Efforts to evaluate the public health impact of these changes have predominantly focused on determining whether liberalizing cannabis policies has increased cannabis use patterns. Co-use of cannabis and other licit substances, namely tobacco and alcohol, is common during the developmental period of adolescence, which is generally characterized by an increase in risk-taking and novelty-seeking. However, limited research has sought to evaluate the potential implications of reforms to medical and recreational cannabis laws on concurrent and simultaneous use of cannabis, tobacco, and alcohol during adolescence. The current report reviews the extant literature detailing the prevalence and outcomes associated with concurrent and simultaneous cannabis-tobacco and cannabis-alcohol use, including recent work that has examined how concurrent and simultaneous use may be influenced by cannabis reform. This review details how the cannabis landscape and cannabis retail marketplace have evolved and briefly summarizes the corresponding policy and regulatory challenges that have emerged. The report concludes with a focused cannabis co-use research agenda that adopts different strategies including behavioural economic, self-administration, and survey research methods.

Cannabis regulatory science: risk-benefit considerations for mental disorders

The evolving legal cannabis landscape in the US continues to present novel regulatory challenges that necessitate the development of a Cannabis Regulatory Science. Two specific issues of concern within Cannabis Regulatory Science are (1) the impact that cannabis use has on the incidence, prevalence, and severity of mental disorders, and (2) how cannabis laws and regulations modify this impact. This paper first provides several conceptual points that are useful for evaluating the relationship between cannabis use and mental disorders. Second, it selectively reviews and comments on data relevant to the relationship between cannabis use and depression, several forms of anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. Next, regulatory and public health parallels between the nascent cannabis industry and the pharmaceutical, tobacco, and alcohol industries are discussed. The focus is on specific types of industry practices that may harm those with or at risk for mental disorders. Recommendations are then offered for legal cannabis regulations that could mitigate this harm. Last, future research goals are discussed for building the field of Cannabis Regulatory Science and addressing the potential negative impact of cannabis on those with mental disorders.

The epidemiology of lung cancer

The incidence and mortality from lung cancer is decreasing in the US due to decades of public education and tobacco control policies, but are increasing elsewhere in the world related to the commencement of the tobacco epidemic in various countries and populations in the developing world. Individual cigarette smoking is by far the most common risk factor for lung carcinoma; other risks include passive smoke inhalation, residential radon, occupational exposures, infection and genetic susceptibility. The predominant disease burden currently falls on minority populations and socioeconomically disadvantaged people. In the US, the recent legalization of marijuana for recreational use in many states and the rapid growth of commercially available electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) present challenges to public health for which little short term and no long term safety data is available.

Regulating Cannabis Manufacturing: Applying Public Health Best Practices from Tobacco Control

State legalization and regulation of cannabis, despite continued federal illegality, is a massive shift in regulatory approach. Manufactured cannabis, including concentrates, extracts, edibles, tinctures, topicals and other products, has received less attention than more commonly used dried flower, but represents emerging regulatory challenges due to additives, potency, consumption methods, and abuse and misuse potential. In November 2017, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) released initial cannabis manufacturing regulations as part of a new state regulatory structure. As the largest U.S. medical cannabis market (and largest legal adult use market in the world beginning in 2018), California's regulatory approach will potentially influence national and global policy. Comparing CDPH's initial regulations to tobacco control best practices reveals that, while the regulations recognize the need to protect public health, prioritizing public health over business interests requires stronger approaches to labeling, packaging, and product formulations. Based on tobacco best practices, we recommend that cannabis regulations incorporate large and proportionately sized informational labels, a prominent universal cannabis symbol, rotating and pictorial health warnings, mandatory plain packaging, a comprehensive ban on characterizing flavors and addictive additives, and strict limits on the potency of inhalable products and those easily confused with non-cannabis products.

Medical marijuana in pediatric oncology: A review of the evidence and implications for practice

Medical marijuana (MM) has become increasingly legal at the state level and accessible to children with serious illness. Pediatric patients with cancer may be particularly receptive to MM, given purported benefits in managing cancer-related symptoms. In this review, we examine the evidence for MM as a supportive care agent in pediatric oncology. We describe the current legal status of MM, mechanism of action, common formulations, and potential benefits versus risks for pediatric oncology patients. We offer suggestions for how providers might approach MM requests. Throughout, we comment on avenues for future investigation on this growing trend in supportive care.

Provider Perspectives on Use of Medical Marijuana in Children With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Although medical marijuana (MM) may have utility in the supportive care of children with serious illness, it remains controversial. We investigated interdisciplinary provider perspectives on legal MM use in children with cancer.

METHODS

We sent a 32-item, cross-sectional survey to 654 pediatric oncology providers in Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington characterizing MM practices, knowledge, attitudes, and barriers. Forty-eight percent responded; 44% (n = 288) were included in analyses. Providers were stratified by status as legally eligible to certify (ETC) for MM. We used Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank tests and univariate and multivariate logistic regression models for group comparisons.

RESULTS

The provider median age was 35 years (range 22-70 years); 33% were ETC (83 physicians; 13 Washington state advance practice providers). Thirty percent of providers received ≥1 request for MM in the previous month. Notably, only 5% of all providers knew state-specific regulations. ETC providers were more likely to know that MM is against federal laws (P < .0001). Whereas most providers (92%) reported willingness to help children with cancer access MM, in adjusted models, ETC providers were less likely to indicate approval of patient MM use by smoking, oral formulations, as cancer-directed therapy, or to manage symptoms (P < .005 for all). Forty-six percent of all providers cited the absence of standards around formulations, potency, or dosing to be the greatest barrier to recommending MM.

CONCLUSIONS

Most pediatric oncology providers are willing to consider MM use in children with cancer and receive frequent inquiries. However, ETC providers endorse less favorable attitudes overall. The absence of standards is an important barrier to recommending MM.

Legal cannabis laws, home cultivation, and use of edible cannabis products: A growing relationship?

BACKGROUND

Over half of U.S. states have enacted legal cannabis laws (LCL). In parallel, edible cannabis products (i.e., edibles) have presented new regulatory challenges. LCL provisions that dictate access to cannabis (e.g., home cultivation (HC) or dispensaries (DSP)) may impact edible production and use. This study examined relationships among HC and DSP provisions, cannabis cultivation, and edible use.

METHODS

An online cannabis use survey was distributed using Facebook. Data were collected from 1813 cannabis-using adults. U.S. states were classified as states without LCL (Non-LCL) or LCL states that: (1) only permit DSP (LCL DSP-only), (2) only permit HC (LCL HC-only), or (3) permit HC and DSP (LCL HC+DSP). Analyses tested associations among these classifications, cannabis growing, and edible use and procurement.

RESULTS

Individuals in LCL HC-only and LCL HC+DSP states were more likely to report currently growing cannabis at home (OR: 3.3, 95% CI: 1.7, 6.2; OR: 3.9, 95% CI: 2.4, 6.3, respectively) and past-month edible use (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.4, 3.4; OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 2.2, 3.9, respectively) than individuals in LCL DSP-only states. Regardless of state, those who had grown cannabis were more likely to have made edibles than those who had never grown cannabis (OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.8, 2.6). Individuals in LCL HC-only states were more likely to have made edibles in the past month than individuals from Non-LCL (OR: 2.75, 95% CI: 1.5, 5.3) and DSP-only states (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.0, 4.4). Individuals in LCL HC+DSP states were more likely to have purchased edibles in the past month than individuals from Non-LCL (OR: 3.7, 95% CI: 2.4, 5.6) and DSP-only states (OR: 3.2, 95% CI: 1.8, 5.5).

CONCLUSION

Specific LCL provisions may differentially affect individuals' propensity to grow cannabis and make, buy, and use edible cannabis products. Permitting home cultivation contributes to a greater likelihood of growing cannabis. Those who grow cannabis economize the plant by creating homemade edible cannabis products. Conversely, permitting dispensaries increases the likelihood of purchasing edibles. The psychoactive effects of edibles with unknown and variable cannabinoid content will be unpredictable. Policymakers should carefully consider how specific LCL provisions can affect patterns of cannabis edible product access and quality.

The potential impact of cannabis legalization on the development of cannabis use disorders

Specific provisions of legal cannabis legislation and regulation could influence cannabis initiation, frequency and quantity of use, and progression to cannabis use disorder. This brief essay highlights scientifically based principles and risk factors that underlie substance use and addiction that can be leveraged to inform policies that might mitigate the development and consequences of cannabis use disorder. Specifically, pharmacologic, access/availability, and environmental factors are discussed in relation to their influence on substance use disorders to illustrate how regulatory provisions can differentially affect these factors and risk for addiction. Relevant knowledge from research and experience with alcohol and tobacco regulation are also considered. Research designed to inform regulatory policy and to evaluate the impact of cannabis legislation on cannabis use and problems is progressing. However, definitive findings will come slowly, and more concerted efforts and resources are needed to expedite this process. In the meantime, policymakers should take advantage of the large body of scientific literature on substance use to foster empirically-guided, common sense approaches to cannabis policy that focus on prevention of addiction.

Considering marijuana legalization carefully: insights for other jurisdictions from analysis for Vermont

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In 2014 the legislature of Vermont, USA passed a law requiring the Secretary of Administration to report on the consequences of legalizing marijuana. The RAND Corporation was commissioned to write that report. This paper summarizes insights from that analysis that are germane to other jurisdictions.

METHOD

Translation of key findings from the RAND Corporation report to the broader policy debate.

RESULTS

Marijuana legalization encompasses a wide range of possible regimes, distinguished along at least four dimensions: which organizations are allowed to produce and supply the drug, the regulations under which they operate, the nature of the products that can be distributed and taxes and prices. Vermont's decriminalization had already cut its costs of enforcing marijuana prohibition against adults to about $1 per resident per year. That is probably less than the cost of regulating a legal market. Revenues from taxing residents' purchases after legalization could be many times that amount, so the main fiscal cost of prohibition after decriminalization relative to outright legalization may be foregone tax revenues, not enforcement costs. Approximately 40 times as many users live within 200 miles of Vermont's borders as live within the state; drug tourism and associated tax revenues will be important considerations, as will be the response of other states. Indeed, if another state legalized with lower taxes, that could undermine the ability to collect taxes on even Vermont residents' purchases.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of possible outcomes if Vermont, USA, legalized marijuana reveal that choices about how, and not just whether, to legalize a drug can have profound consequences for the effects on health and social wellbeing, and the choices of one jurisdiction can affect the options and incentives available to other jurisdictions.

A Public Health Framework for Legalized Retail Marijuana Based on the US Experience: Avoiding a New Tobacco Industry

Rachel Barry and Stanton Glantz argue that a public health framework that prioritizes public health over business interests should be used by US states and countries that legalize retail marijuana.

Modes of ever marijuana use among adult tobacco users and non-tobacco users-Styles 2014

BACKGROUND

Tobacco and marijuana use are related behaviors; therefore, it is important to identify how users consume marijuana, and how it varies with tobacco use status. We estimated the modes of ever marijuana use among current, former, and never adult tobacco users.

METHODS

Weighted data were analyzed for 4181 adults from 2014 Styles, an online consumer panel survey of US adults, to estimate proportions for modes of ever marijuana use. Differences in modes of ever marijuana use between categories of tobacco use status were assessed (p-value <0.05).

RESULTS

More than half of current (56.6%) and former tobacco users (50.9%) had ever used marijuana, whereas only 13.0% of never tobacco users had ever used marijuana. Among ever marijuana users, joint use was the most common mode of use among current (86.4%), former (92.5%), and never (79.8%) tobacco users. Similarly, other modes of marijuana use were significantly higher in current and former tobacco users compared to never tobacco users.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of all modes of ever marijuana use was higher in current and former tobacco users. These findings underscore the importance of considering the relationship between marijuana and tobacco use when developing programs and policies aimed at preventing and reducing marijuana use.

Dental treatment planning considerations for patients using cannabis: A case report

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

There is a deficit in clinical research on the potential risks involved in treating dental patients who use cannabis for either medicinal or recreational purposes. The aim of this case report is to illustrate the need for additional education for oral health care professionals so they can understand the wide variety of available cannabis options and their potential effects on dental treatment.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 27-year-old man sought care at the dental clinic with a nonrestorable molar requiring extraction. During the review of his medical history, the patient reported taking a "dab" of marijuana approximately 5 hours before his appointment. Because of the admission of recent illicit drug use, no treatment was rendered. The patient was offered an appointment the next day but he refused, citing bias in regard to his cannabis use.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The number of Americans using marijuana is increasing rapidly. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have laws legalizing cannabis to some degree, and Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington have legalized marijuana for recreational use. This drastic upswing in availability and usage will require dentists to address the possible effects of cannabis on dental practices. It is imperative that dental care providers make clinical decisions based on scientific evidence regarding the pharmacologic and psychological effects of marijuana, not on the societal stigma associated with illegal drug use. Dentists should be familiar with popular delivery systems and understand the differences between various marijuana options. Clinical guidelines may need to be developed to help providers assess the patient's degree of cognitive impairment. Dentists should be able to advise patients on the potential consequences of this habit on their oral health.

Does Cannabis Cause, Exacerbate or Ameliorate Psychiatric Disorders? An Oversimplified Debate Discussed

There have been extensive policy shifts in the legality of recreational and therapeutic use of cannabis in the United States, as well as a steady increase in the number of people using the drug on a regular basis. Given these rapid societal changes, defining what is known scientifically about the consequences of cannabis use on mental health takes on added public health significance. The purpose of this circumspectives piece is to discuss evidence of cannabis' effects on two psychiatric conditions: post-traumatic stress disorder and psychotic disorders. Dr Haney and Dr Evins will discuss two viewpoints regarding the benefit and harm of cannabis use for these conditions, while outlining what remains unproven and requires further testing to move the field forward.

Cannabinoids in Medical Practice

Many patients with chronic medical illnesses use cannabinoids. There are two FDA-approved cannabinoid products, whereas medical marijuana purchased at legal dispensaries is not FDA regulated and may contain uncertain concentrations of various compounds. Cannabinoids have shown efficacy in treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, poor appetite in advanced HIV, some pain states, and multiple sclerosis-associated spasticity. Recreational cannabinoid use has many known potential serious harms. Physicians should be knowledgeable about cannabinoids and should inquire with their patients about cannabinoid use. Practical suggestions for clinical approaches are included.

Is the medical use of cannabis a therapeutic option for children?

Cannabis is a psychoactive compound with a long history of recreational and therapeutic use. Current considerations regarding cannabis use for medical purposes in children have been stimulated by recent case reports describing its beneficial effect with refractory epilepsy. Overall, there are insufficient data to support either the efficacy or safety of cannabis use for any indications in children, and an increasing body of data suggests possible harm, most importantly in specific conditions. The potential for cannabis as a therapeutic agent must be evaluated carefully for both efficacy and safety in treating specific paediatric health conditions. Smoking is not an acceptable mode of drug delivery for children. The use of cannabis for medical purposes in specific cases should not be construed as a justification for recreational cannabis use by adolescents. Recommendations for therapeutic use in exceptional paediatric cases are offered, always providing that this treatment course is carefully evaluated in individuals and in ongoing, well-designed research studies to determine safety and efficacy.

Public opinion and medical cannabis policies: examining the role of underlying beliefs and national medical cannabis policies

Background

Debate about medical cannabis legalization are typically informed by three beliefs: (1) cannabis has medical effects, (2) medical cannabis is addictive and (3) medical cannabis legalization leads to increased used of cannabis for recreational purposes (spillover effects). We examined how strongly these beliefs are associated with public support for medical cannabis legalization and whether this association differs across divergent medical cannabis policy regimes.

Methods

Robust regression analysis was used to analyse data derived from two nationally representative samples of adults participating in comparable cross-sectional online surveys in one country where medical cannabis smoking is illegal (Norway, n = 2175, 51 % male) and in one country where medical cannabis smoking is legal (Israel, n = 648, 49 % male).

Results

The belief that cannabis has medical benefits was more strongly related to support for medical cannabis legalization than were beliefs about addiction and spillover effects. While the support for medical cannabis legalization was stronger in Israel than in Norway (78 vs. 51 %, p < 0.01), the belief variables had, in general, more impact on the policy stand in Norway.

Conclusion

The belief that cannabis has medical benefits is particularly salient for support for medical cannabis legalization. It is possible that the recent surge in evidence supporting the medical benefits of cannabis will increase the belief about medical benefits of cannabis in the general population which may in turn increase public support for medical cannabis legalization. Results also suggest that once medical cannabis is legalized, factors beyond cannabis-specific beliefs will increasingly influence medical cannabis legalization support. These conclusions are, however, only suggestive as the current study is based on cross-sectional data. Hopefully, future research will be able to capitalize on changes in medical cannabis policies and conduct longitudinal studies that enable an examination of the causal relation between public opinion and medical cannabis policy changes.

Medical marijuana: review of the science and implications for developmental-behavioral pediatric practice

Marijuana policy is rapidly evolving in the United States and elsewhere, with cannabis sales fully legalized and regulated in some jurisdictions and use of the drug for medicinal purposes permitted in many others. Amidst this political change, patients and families are increasingly asking whether cannabis and its derivatives may have therapeutic utility for a number of conditions, including developmental and behavioral disorders in children and adolescents. This review examines the epidemiology of cannabis use among children and adolescents, including those with developmental and behavioral diagnoses. It then outlines the increasingly well-recognized neurocognitive changes shown to occur in adolescents who use cannabis regularly, highlighting the unique susceptibility of the developing adolescent brain and describing the role of the endocannabinoid system in normal neurodevelopment. The review then discusses some of the proposed uses of cannabis in developmental and behavioral conditions, including attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder. Throughout, the review outlines gaps in current knowledge and highlights directions for future research, especially in light of a dearth of studies specifically examining neurocognitive and psychiatric outcomes among children and adolescents with developmental and behavioral concerns exposed to cannabis.

Cannabis for therapeutic purposes and public health and safety: a systematic and critical review

BACKGROUND

The use of Cannabis for Therapeutic Purposes (CTP) has recently become legal in many places. These policy and legal modifications may be related to changes in cannabis perceptions, availability and use and in the way cannabis is grown and sold. This may in turn have effects on public health and safety. To better understand the potential effects of CTP legalization on public health and safety, the current paper synthesizes and critically discusses the relevant literature.

METHODS

Twenty-eight studies were identified by a comprehensive search strategy, and their characteristics and main findings were systematically reviewed according to the following content themes: CTP and illegal cannabis use; CTP and other public health issues; CTP, crime and neighbourhood disadvantage.

RESULTS

The research field is currently limited by a lack of theoretical and methodological rigorous studies. The review shows that the most prevalent theme of investigation so far has been the relation between CTP and illegal cannabis use. In addition, the literature review shows that there is an absence of evidence to support many common concerns related to detrimental public health and safety effects of CTP legalization.

CONCLUSION

Although lack of evidence provides some reassurance that CTP legalization may not have posed a substantial threat to public health and safety, this conclusion needs to be examined in light of the limitations of studies conducted so far. Furthermore, as CTP policy continues to evolve, including incorporation of greater commercialization, it is possible that the full effects of CTP legalization have yet to take place. Ensuring study quality will allow future research to better investigate the complex role that CTP plays in relation to society at large, and public health and safety in particular.