Carlini BH, Garrett SB, Matos P, Nims LN, Kestens Y. Identifying policy options to regulate high potency cannabis: A multiple stakeholder concept mapping study in Washington State, USA.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DRUG POLICY 2024;
123:104270. [PMID:
38043404 DOI:
10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104270]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2023] [Revised: 10/31/2023] [Accepted: 11/01/2023] [Indexed: 12/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Cannabis legalization in some U.S.A. states has catapulted the mass production of concentrates, with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations ranging from 50-90%. A major public health concern is that these products will increase cannabis-related harms such as use disorders, psychotic symptoms, and accidental poisonings. This paper describes and contextualizes the results of a study requested by the WA State Legislature to understand perspectives of WA stakeholders on the topic.
METHODS
Concept Mapping (CM), a mixed-methods research approach that supports people-centered policy decisions was utilized. The goal of the study was to explore stakeholders' concern levels and support of policies to address the availability of high THC cannabis products. For analysis purposes, stakeholders were categorized into three groups: community, professionals, and cannabis advocates.
RESULTS
CM generated an inventory of policy ideas for regulating high-potency cannabis from a variety of stakeholders. Notably, stakeholders from community and professional groups supported environmental policy changes such as such as taxation, increasing minimum age for high concentration cannabis products, and advertising prohibition. Meanwhile, cannabis advocates (mostly industry actors) opposed taxation per THC content, proposed lowering taxes, and supported policies with low population impact such as educating parents, teachers, and youth.
CONCLUSION
Support for regulating high concentration THC products varied by stakeholder group. Consistent with how other health compromising industries have historically acted, cannabis industry stakeholders rejected regulation of their products. Future studies should explore non-cannabis industry stakeholders' willingness to work towards minimizing the influence of the cannabis industry in policy development processes to assure public health regulations prevail.
Collapse