Assessing New Zealand's Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill: prospects and challenges

Concerns Related to the Consequences of Pediatric Cannabis Use: A 360-Degree View

Cannabis, a plant known for its recreational use, has gained global attention due to its widespread use and addiction potential. Derived from the Cannabis sativa plant, it contains a rich array of phytochemicals concentrated in resin-rich trichomes. The main cannabinoids, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), interact with CB1 and CB2 receptors, influencing various physiological processes. Particularly concerning is its prevalence among adolescents, often driven by the need for social connection and anxiety alleviation. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of cannabis use, its effects, and potential health risks, especially in adolescent consumption. It covers short-term and long-term effects on different body systems and mental health and highlights the need for informed decision making and public health initiatives, particularly regarding adolescent cannabis use.

Why a distinct medical stream is necessary to support patients using cannabis for medical purposes

BACKGROUND

Since 2001, Canadians have been able to obtain cannabis for medical purposes, initially through the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR). The Cannabis Act (Bill C-45) came into force on October 17, 2018, replacing the ACMPR. The Cannabis Act enables Canadians to possess cannabis purchased from a licensed retailer without authorization for either medical or nonmedical purposes. The Cannabis Act is currently the guiding legislation which governs both medical and nonmedical access. The Cannabis Act contains some improvements for patients but is essentially the same as its previous legislation. Beginning in October 2022, the federal government is conducting a review of the Cannabis Act and is questioning whether a distinct medical cannabis stream is still required, given the ease of access to cannabis and cannabis products. Although there is overlap in the reasons for medical and recreational cannabis use, the distinct legislation of medical versus recreational use of cannabis in Canada may be under threat.

MAIN BODY

A large segment of the medical, academic, research, and lay communities agree that there is a need for distinct medical and recreational cannabis streams. Perhaps most importantly, separation of these streams is necessary to ensure that both medical cannabis patients and healthcare providers receive the required support needed to optimize benefits while minimizing risks associated with medical cannabis use. Preservation of distinct medical and recreational streams can help to ensure that needs of different stakeholders are met. For example, patients require guidance in the form of assessing the appropriateness of cannabis use, selection of appropriate products and dosage forms, dosing titration, screening for drug interactions, and safety monitoring. Healthcare providers require access to undergraduate and continuing health education as well as support from their professional organizations to ensure medical cannabis is appropriately prescribed. Although there are challenges in conducing research, as motives for cannabis use frequently straddle boundaries between medical versus recreational cannabis use, maintenance of a distinct medical stream is also necessary to ensure adequate supply of cannabis products appropriate for medical use, to reduce stigma associated with cannabis in both patients and providers, to help enable reimbursement for patients, to facilitate removal of taxation on cannabis used for medical purposes, and to promote research on all aspects of medical cannabis.

CONCLUSION

Cannabis products for medical and recreational purposes have different objectives and needs, requiring different methods of distribution, access, and monitoring. HCPs, patients, and the commercial cannabis industry would serve Canadians well to continue to advocate to policy makers to ensure the continued existence of two distinct streams and must strive to make ongoing improvements to the current programs.

Age-specific rates of onset of cannabis use in Mexico

BACKGROUND

Over the previous two decades, the lifetime prevalence of cannabis use has risen among Mexico's population.

AIMS

Estimate the sex- and age-specific rates of onset of cannabis use over time.

DESIGN

Five nationally representative cross-sectional surveys, the Mexican National Surveys of Addictions (1998, 2002, 2008, 2012) and the Mexican National Survey on Drugs, Alcohol, and Tobacco Consumption (2016).

SETTING

Mexico.

PARTICIPANTS

Pooled sample of 141,342 respondents aged between 12 and 65 years of which 43.6%(n = 61,658) are male and 56.4% (n = 79,684) are female.

MEASUREMENTS

We estimated the age-specific rates of onset of cannabis as the conditional rate of consuming cannabis for the first time at a specific age.

METHODS

Time-to-event flexible-parametric models with spline specifications of the hazard function. Stratified analysis by sex and control for temporal trends by year of data collection or decennial birth cohort.

FINDINGS

Age-specific rates of onset of cannabis use per 1,000 individuals increased over time for females and males. Peak rates of onset of cannabis use per 1,000 ranged from 0.935 (95%CI = [0.772, 1.148]) in 1998, to 5.391 (95%CI = [4.924, 5.971]) in 2016 for females; and from 7.513 (95%CI = [6.732, 10.063]) in 1998, to 26.107 (95%CI = [25.918,30.654]) in 2016 for males. Across decennial birth-cohorts, peak rates of onset of cannabis use per 1,000 individuals for females ranged from 0.234 (95%CI = [0.078, 0.768]) for those born in the 1930s, to 14.611 (95%CI = [13.243, 16.102]) for those born in the 1990s; and for males, from 4.086 (95%CI = [4.022, 7.857]) for those born in the 1930s, to 38.693 (95%CI = [24.847, 48.670]) for those born in the 1990s.

CONCLUSION

Rates of onset of cannabis increased over the previous two decades for both females and males but remained higher for males. Across recent cohorts, the rates of onset have increased at a faster rate among females than males.

Policy influence and the legalized cannabis industry: learnings from other addictive consumption industries

BACKGROUND AND AIM

New Zealand has recently legalized medicinal cannabis and has explored the possibility of legalizing large-scale recreational cannabis supply. In the process, concerns have emerged regarding whether corporations involved in the large-scale production and sale of legalized cannabis will invest in tactics of influence with policymakers and the public. This paper aimed to examine the various ways a legalized cannabis industry could seek to influence governments and the public in the New Zealand reform context.

METHOD

Based on the study of industry tactics with alcohol, tobacco and gambling, we applied a three-chain model of industry influence that breaks tactics into the 'public good', 'knowledge' and 'political' chains.

RESULTS

Exploratory analysis of the nascent cannabis industry's activity in New Zealand provided signs of industry influence strategies related to all three chains. The medicinal cannabis industry has associated the establishment of a legal cannabis sector with regional economic development and employment, supported lobbying for recreational law reform, funded NGOs involved in lobbying for law reform, established research partnerships with universities, invited ex-politicians on advisory boards, and participated in government public sector partnerships.

CONCLUSION

There is emerging evidence that the legal cannabis industry is using strategies to influence the regulatory environment in New Zealand.

Predictors of voter support for the legalization of recreational cannabis use and supply via a national referendum

BACKGROUND

A national referendum to legalise recreational cannabis use and supply in New Zealand via the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill (CLCB) was recently narrowly defeated. Understanding the underlying factors for this result can inform the cannabis legalisation debate in other countries.

AIMS

To investigate predictors of voter support for and opposition to the CLCB.

METHOD

A representative population panel of 1,022 people completed an online survey of intended voting on the CLCB referendum, which included questions on demographics, drug use history, medicinal cannabis, perceptions of the health risk and moral views of cannabis use, political affiliation, religiosity, community size and reading of the CLCB. Regression models were developed to predict support for the CLCB, with additional predictor variables added over successive iterations.

RESULTS

The most robust predictors of support for the CLCB were use of and policy support for medicinal cannabis use, voting for a left-wing political party, having a positive moral view of cannabis use, living in a small town and having read the CLCB. Predictors of opposing the CLCB were voting for right-wing parties, considering "frequent" cannabis use to be a high health risk, and lifetime use of other drugs. Age, ethnicity, education, employment status, religiosity and lifetime cannabis use were not significant predictors after controlling for other variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Support for cannabis legalization was not based on broad demographics, but rather specific views concerning the medicinal benefit, morality of cannabis use, health risk of frequent cannabis use, political party affiliation, and knowledge of the proposed regulatory controls of the CLCB. The influence of moral views of cannabis use on voting behaviour suggest the need to debate the right to use cannabis. The importance of knowledge of the proposed regulatory controls of the CLCB on voting underlines the need to raise awareness of proposed regulatory controls during debate.

Why did New Zealand's referendum to legalise recreational cannabis fail?

New Zealand recently held the world's first national referendum on cannabis legalisation involving a detailed bill to regulate retail sale and supply of cannabis for recreational (non-medical) adult use (i.e. the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill; CLCB). The referendum generated significant domestic debate and lobbying from both sides of the issue. The CLCB was narrowly defeated, with 48.4% voting to support versus 50.7% opposed. In this commentary, we discuss the referendum campaigns and other political and social factors that may have contributed to the result. Voting patterns appeared to largely follow traditional conservative-liberal, urban-rural and age divides. The referendum format created a public campaigning environment that encouraged persuasion and selective use of evidence rather than rational discussion of all the evidence and related knowledge gaps. The self-imposed neutrality of the centre left Labour Party and its popular leader may have been a decisive factor in the narrow defeat. It did not appear to be the case that anti-CLCB groups outspent the pro-CLCB movement in online promotional advertisements, and the leading digital media appeared largely neutral or mildly in favour of reform. The recent New Zealand experience illustrates the uncertainties of attempting to achieve cannabis law reform via a public referendum vote.