Older, Less Regulated Medical Marijuana Programs Have Much Greater Enrollment Rates Than Newer 'Medicalized' Programs

Data Quality in State Registry Reports of Medical Cannabis Patients in the United States

Objectives. To investigate characteristics of data reported in US medical cannabis registries across states. Methods. Data included 2021 medical cannabis registry reports from 34 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (hereafter, states) with active medical cannabis programs. The data from the reports were manually coded into domains and subcategories, including information related to patients (e.g., number, demographics), authorizing clinicians, sales (e.g., content, revenue), license tracking, and health and safety outcomes. Results. Among 36 states, 97% reported total patient number and 75% reported number of authorizing clinicians. Least reported subcategories included patient race/ethnicity (8%), adverse events (11%), therapeutic benefits (6%), and product recalls (6%). States that recently legalized medical cannabis (2013-2018) reported a higher number of subcategories overall, with a median of 11 versus 8 for early adopting states (1996-2012). More medical-use states reported data on authorizing clinicians compared with nonmedical adult-use states but were otherwise similar. Conclusions. Medical cannabis state registries generally reported data on consumers, clinicians, and sales rather than health and safety outcomes. More comprehensive and uniform medical cannabis public health surveillance is needed. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(S8):S685-S693. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307728).

Factors Associated with Medical Cannabis Use After Certification: A Three-Month Longitudinal Study

Background: Over the past decade, there has been increased utilization of medical cannabis (MC) in the United States. Few studies have described sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with MC use after certification and more specifically, factors associated with use of MC products with different cannabinoid profiles. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of adults (N=225) with chronic or severe pain on opioids who were newly certified for MC in New York State and enrolled in the study between November 2018 and January 2022. We collected data over participants' first 3 months in the study, from web-based assessment of MC use every 2 weeks (unit of analysis). We used generalized estimating equation models to examine associations of sociodemographic and clinical factors with (1) MC use (vs. no MC use) and (2) use of MC products with different cannabinoid profiles. Results: On average, 29% of the participants used predominantly high delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) MC products within the first 3 months of follow-up, 30% used other MC products, and 41% did not use MC products. Non-Hispanic White race, pain at multiple sites, and past 30-day sedative use were associated with a higher likelihood of MC use (vs. no MC use). Current tobacco use, unregulated cannabis use, and enrollment in the study during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with a lower likelihood of MC use (vs. no MC use). Among participants reporting MC use, female gender and older age were associated with a lower likelihood of using predominantly high-THC MC products (vs. other MC products). Conclusion: White individuals were more likely to use MC after certification, which may be owing to access and cost issues. The findings that sedative use was associated with greater MC use, but tobacco and unregulated cannabis were associated with less MC use, may imply synergism and substitution that warrant further research. From the policy perspective, additional measures are needed to ensure equitable availability of and access to MC. Health practitioners should check patients' history and current use of sedative, tobacco, and unregulated cannabis before providing an MC recommendation and counsel patients on safe cannabis use. clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03268551).

Medical marijuana laws and mental health in the United States

The consequences of legal access to medical marijuana for individuals' well-being are controversially assessed. We contribute to the discussion by evaluating the impact of the introduction of medical marijuana laws across US states on self-reported mental health considering different motives for cannabis consumption. Our analysis is based on BRFSS survey data from close to eight million respondents between 1993 and 2018 that we combine with information from the NSDUH to estimate individual consumption propensities. We find that eased access to marijuana through medical marijuana laws reduce the reported number of days with poor mental health for individuals with a high propensity to consume marijuana for medical purposes and for those individuals who likely suffer from frequent pain.

Prescribed safer supply during dual public health emergencies: a qualitative study examining service providers perspectives on early implementation

BACKGROUND

Within North America and worldwide, drug related overdoses have increased dramatically over the past decade. COVID-19 escalated the need for a safer supply to replace unregulated substances and to reduce toxicity and overdoses. Service providers play an integral role in the delivery of safer supply but there is little empirical evidence that conceptualizes effective safer supply from their perspectives. This study explored early implementation and impacts of a safer supply program, capturing the perspectives of an interdisciplinary team of service providers on tensions and issues encountered in the development of the SAFER program.

METHODS

Using a community-based participatory approach, we conducted individual interviews with program providers (n = 9). The research team was composed of researchers from a local drug user organization, a local harm reduction organization, and academic researchers. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) informed the interview guide. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

There are six themes describing early implementation: (1) risk mitigation prescribing as context for early implementation; (2) developing SAFER specific clinical protocols; (3) accessibility challenges and program innovations; (4) interdisciplinary team and wraparound care; (5) program tensions between addiction medicine and harm reduction; (6) the successes of safer supply and future visions.

CONCLUSION

Early implementation issues and tensions included prescriber concerns about safer supply prescribing in a highly politicized environment, accessibility challenges for service users such as stigma, encampment displacement, OAT requirements, program capacity and costs, and tensions between addiction medicine and harm reduction. Navigating these tensions included development of clinical protocols, innovations to reduce accessibility challenges such as outreach, wraparound care, program coverage of medication costs and prescribing safer supply with/without OAT. These findings contribute important insights for the development of prescribed safer supply programs.

Cannabis and Cannabinoids in the Perioperative Period

Cannabis use is increasingly common, and with a growing number of jurisdictions implementing legalization frameworks, it is likely that providers will encounter more patients who use cannabis. Therefore, it is important for providers to understand the implications of cannabis use and practical considerations for the perioperative period. Cannabis affects multiple organ systems and may influence intraoperative anesthesia, as well as postoperative pain management. The effects of cannabis and key anesthetic considerations are reviewed here.

Adult Medical Cannabinoid Use and Changes in Prescription Controlled Substance Use

Introduction: Nonopioid-based strategies for managing chronic noncancer pain are needed to help reduce overdose deaths. Although lab studies and population-level data suggest that cannabinoids could provide opioid-sparing effects, among medical cannabis participants they may also impact overdose risk by modifying other controlled substance use such as sedative hypnotics. However, no study has combined observational data at the individual level to empirically address interactions between the use of cannabinoids and prescribed controlled substances. Methods: Electronic health records, including prescription drug monitoring program data, from a large multisite medical cannabis program in New York State were abstracted for all participants with noncancer pain and recently prescribed noncannabinoid controlled substances who completed a new intake visit from April 15, 2018-April 14, 2019 and who remained actively in treatment for >180 days. Participants were partitioned into two samples: those with recent opioid use and those with active opioid use and co-use of sedative hypnotics. A patient-month level analysis assessed total average equivalent milligrams by class of drug (i.e., cannabinoid distinguishing tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] vs. cannabidiol [CBD], opioids, and sedative-hypnotics) received as a time-varying outcome measure across each 30-day "month" period postintake for at least 6 months for all participants. Results: Sample 1 of 285 opioid users were 61.1 years of age (±13.5), 57.5% female, and using an average of 49.7 (±98.5) morphine equivalents daily at intake. Unadjusted analyses found a modest decline in morphine equivalents to 43.9 mg (±94.1 mg) from 49.7 (±98.5) in month 1 (p=0.047) while receiving relatively low doses of THC (2.93 mg/day) and CBD (2.15 mg/day). Sample 2 of 95 opioid and sedative-hypnotic users were 60.9 years of age (±13.1), 63.2% female, and using an average of 86.6 (±136.2) morphine equivalents daily, and an average of 4.3 (±5.6) lorazepam equivalents. Unadjusted analyses did not find significant changes in either morphine equivalents (p=0.81) or lorazepam equivalents (p=0.980), and patients similarly received relatively low doses of THC (2.32 mg/day) and CBD (2.24 mg/day). Conclusions: Findings demonstrated minimal to no change in either opioids or sedative hypnotics over the 6 months of medical cannabis use but may be limited by low retention rates, external generalizability, and an inability to account for nonprescribed substance use.

Medical Cannabis Program Sustainability in the Era of Recreational Cannabis

PURPOSE

Since October 2022, a total of 21 states have enacted both medical-use and adult-use cannabis legalization, each with their own unique set of laws, regulations, implementation, structures, and enforcement ("policies"). Unlike adult-use programs, medical-use programs often represent a safer and affordable option for patients with diverse needs; however, current evidence suggests that medical-use program activity decreases after implementation of adult-use retail. The current study compares medical patient registration data and medical- and adult-use retail data from 3 distinct medical- and adult-use states (Colorado, Massachusetts, and Oregon) in the time after adult-use retail implementation in each state.

METHODS

To investigate changes in medical cannabis programs with simultaneous adult-use legalization, correlation and linear regression analyses were used to assess outcome measures: (1) medical-use retail sales; (2) adult-use retail sales; and (3) number of registered medical patients in all fiscal quarters after adult-use retail sales were implemented in each state to September 2022.

FINDINGS

Adult-use cannabis sales increased significantly over time in all 3 states. However, both medical-use sales and number of medical patients registered in the states increased only in Massachusetts.

IMPLICATIONS

Results indicate that states' preexisting medical-use programs may undergo critical changes after adult-use cannabis legalization is enacted and implemented. Key policy and program differences, such as regulatory differences in the implementation of adult-use retail sales, may have differential impacts on medical-use programs. For continued patient access, it is critical that future research assess the differences within and between states' medical-use and adult-use programs that permit sustainability of medical-use programs alongside adult-use legalization and implementation.

Recreational marijuana laws and the misuse of prescription opioids: Evidence from National Survey on Drug Use and Health microdata

Several studies have concluded that legalizing medical marijuana can reduce deaths from opioid overdoses. Drawing on micro data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, a survey uniquely suited to assessing patterns of substance use, we examine the relationship between recreational marijuana laws (RMLs) and the misuse of prescription opioids. Using a standard difference-in-differences (DD) regression model, we find that RML adoption reduces the likelihood of frequently misusing prescription opioids such as OxyContin, Percocet, and Vicodin. However, using a two-stage procedure designed to account for staggered treatment and dynamic effects, the DD estimate of relationship between RML adoption and the likelihood of frequently misusing prescription opioids becomes positive. Although event study estimates suggest that RML adoption leads to a decrease in the frequency of prescription opioid abuse, this effect appears to dissipate after only 2 or 3 years.

Cannabis use, risk behaviours and harms in Brazil: A comprehensive review of available data indicators

ISSUES

Cannabis use and related health/social outcome indicator data for Brazil-where non-medical cannabis is generally illegal-are limited.

APPROACH

Towards a comprehensive overview of relevant indicators, we searched primary databases by combining MeSH-index terms related to cannabis, geographic location and subtopic terms (e.g., use, health, mortality) focusing on cannabis use and key outcome indicators in Brazil since 2010. In addition, relevant 'grey literature' (e.g., survey reports) was identified. Key indicator data were mainly narratively summarised.

KEY FINDINGS

Overall, cannabis use has increased somewhat since pre-2010, with (past-year) use rates measured at 2-3% for general population adults, yet 5% or higher among youth and/or (e.g., post-secondary) student populations. For key risk behaviours, the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol-positivity among motor-vehicle drivers has been measured at <2%. While the prevalence of cannabis use disorder appears to have decreased, the relative proportion of treatment provided for cannabis-related problems increased. National- and local-based studies indicated an association of cannabis use with mental health harms, including depression and suicidality. Although some non-representative and/or local studies contain information, other monitoring data, including cannabis-related risks and harms (e.g., cannabis-related driving, mortality, hospitalisations), are limited in availability.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

The prevalence of cannabis use in Brazil is comparably low (e.g., relative to elsewhere in the Americas). Data on numerous key cannabis-related indicators is absent, or limited in scope for Brazil. Considering ongoing evolutions in cannabis control and its status as the most common illicit drug, more comprehensive surveillance of cannabis use and related outcomes is advised.

The role of cannabis clinics in the health system: a qualitative study of physicians' views in New Zealand

BACKGROUND

Privately-owned cannabis clinics have sprung up in many jurisdictions where medicinal cannabis has been legalised and provide an alternative pathway for patients who are unable or unwilling to access a prescription for cannabis-based medicinal products from their usual healthcare providers.

AIMS

This study aimed to explore physicians' views on cannabis clinics, including their perceptions of the role cannabis clinics play in the wider health system.

METHODS

A qualitative study using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with thirty-one physicians affiliated with private and community clinics in New Zealand (including cannabis clinicians, GPs, and specialist doctors). The interviews were conducted from July to December 2021. Data were transcribed and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Cannabis clinicians positioned themselves as (1) "service providers", facilitating consumer access to cannabis prescriptions and products, and (2) "educators", providing advice to patients and the wider physician community. While general practitioners and specialists recognised the benefits of specialised cannabis clinics (i.e., knowledge of products and a non-judgmental environment), they questioned the limited evidence of clinical efficacy for cannabis, potential financial conflicts of interests of cannabis clinicians that may blur their clinical judgement, and the risk of compartmentalising patients' healthcare.

CONCLUSIONS

Our paper raises a number of challenges with attempting to integrate cannabis clinics into the wider health system.

The Cannabis Policy Scale: A New Research and Surveillance Tool for U.S. States

OBJECTIVE

Rapid shifts toward cannabis liberalization in the United States have created immense policy variability that is challenging to measure. We developed composite measures to characterize the restrictiveness of U.S. state cannabis policy environments.

METHOD

Nine panelists, consisting of four research team members and five expert policy consultants, nominated distinct cannabis policies pertaining to cannabis prohibition, medicalization, and legalization for recreational use. For each of the 17 nominated policies, panelists developed implementation ratings and rated each policy's relative efficacy for reducing excessive cannabis use by adults, youth use, and impaired driving. Cannabis Policy Scale scores were then calculated for each state-year for all 50 states from 1999 to 2019 by weighting policies by their efficacy and implementation ratings, and then summing over policies.

RESULTS

Median Cannabis Policy Scale scores remained stable until 2008, when they started declining (representing policy liberalization), with steeper declines after 2012. In 2019, state Cannabis Policy Scale scores targeting excessive use among the general population ranged from 29.6 to 66.7 for recreational cannabis legalization states, and from 72.4 to 93.4 for medical cannabis legalization states. Cannabis Policy Scale scores using youth-specific and driving-specific efficacy ratings showed similar trends.

CONCLUSIONS

The Cannabis Policy Scale reflects trends toward liberalization of cannabis policy in many U.S. states. Even within crude policy phenotypes (e.g., medical cannabis programs), Cannabis Policy Scale scores varied considerably between states and over time. The Cannabis Policy Scale is a new measure that can add nuance to cannabis policy research and help assess cannabis policy-outcome relationships.

Medical cannabis and automobile accidents: Evidence from auto insurance

While many states have legalized medical cannabis, many unintended consequences remain under-studied. We focus on one potential detriment-the effect of cannabis legalization on automobile safety. We examine this relationship through auto insurance premiums. Employing a modern difference-in-differences framework and zip code-level premium data from 2014 to 2019, we find that premiums declined, on average, by $22 per year following medical cannabis legalization. The effect is more substantial in areas near a dispensary and in areas with a higher prevalence of drunk driving before legalization. We estimate that existing legalization has reduced health expenditures related to auto accidents by almost $820 million per year with the potential for a further $350 million reduction if legalized nationally.

U.S. Trends in Registration for Medical Cannabis and Reasons for Use From 2016 to 2020 : An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Cannabis policy liberalization has increased cannabis availability for medical or recreational purposes. Up-to-date trends in medical cannabis licensure can inform clinical policy and care.

OBJECTIVE

To describe recent trends in medical cannabis licensure in the United States.

DESIGN

Ecological study with repeated measures.

SETTING

State registry data via state reports and data requests on medical cannabis licensure from 2016 to 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Medical cannabis patients (persons with medical cannabis licenses) in the United States.

MEASUREMENTS

Total patient volume, patients per 10 000 of total population, and patient-reported qualifying conditions (that is, symptoms or conditions qualifying patients for licensure)-including whether these symptoms align with current therapeutic evidence of cannabis-cannabinoid efficacy.

RESULTS

In 2020, 26 states and Washington, DC reported patient numbers, and 19 states reported patient-reported qualifying conditions. Total enrolled patients increased approximately 4.5-fold from 678 408 in 2016 to 2 974 433 in 2020. Patients per 10 000 total population generally increased from 2016 to 2020, most dramatically in Oklahoma (927.1 patients per 10 000 population). However, enrollment increased in states without recreational legalization (that is, medical-only states), whereas enrollment decreased in 5 of 7 with recreational legalization (that is, recreational states). In 2020, 68.2% of patient-reported qualifying conditions had substantial or conclusive evidence of therapeutic value versus 84.6% in 2016. Chronic pain was the most common patient-reported qualifying condition in 2020 (60.6%), followed by posttraumatic stress disorder (10.6%).

LIMITATION

Missing state data; lack of rationale for discontinuing medical cannabis licensure.

CONCLUSION

Enrollment in medical cannabis programs approximately increased 4.5-fold from 2016 to 2020, although enrollment decreased in recreational states. Use for conditions or symptoms without a strong evidence basis increased from 15.4% (2016) to 31.8% (2020). Thoughtful regulatory and clinical strategies are needed to effectively manage this rapidly changing landscape.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Marijuana Policy Bundles in the American States Over Time and Their Impact on the Use of Marijuana and Other Drugs

American states have used different approaches in adoption of cannabis policies and continue to modify those policies after approval. States also differ in how long it takes to implement such policies, and this influences the availability of legal marijuana. Such policy differences and implementation timelines could influence usage of marijuana and other illicit drugs by adolescents, young adults, and older adults. We develop an original coding scheme for marijuana legalization policies by classifying policy bundles characterized by three views of marijuana: as a pharmaceutical; as a permissive drug, or as a state fiscal revenue source. We test the impact of state legal marijuana policy characteristics on age group rates of marijuana use with panel regression models including control variables and fixed effects for 2000-2019. This design moves beyond a dichotomous construct of marijuana legalization and accounts for the dynamic adaptation of policies beyond their initial adoption. States with a higher pharmaceutical score experienced lower marijuana usage rates for adolescents and young adults while states with a permissive approach or fiscal approach experienced higher rates of marijuana use for all age groups. We find no consistent spillover effect of the pharmaceutical or permissive marijuana policy bundles on other illicit drug use for any age group, but fiscal bundles show some association with greater illicit drug use for adults. These more nuanced measures better reflect state policies as implemented and provide more clarity of the policy impact on target populations' marijuana usage.

The relationship between cannabis use and legalization frameworks: A cross-sectional analysis using a nationally representative survey

State policies related to cannabis have rapidly evolved but the impact of current legislative frameworks on usage is not well characterized. This study explored cannabis use patterns under different legalization statuses in the United States. The dataset included individuals from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey in 2017 and 2018. Respondents were categorized into limited medical use, full medical use, or full legalization groups based on their state's cannabis policies. The primary outcome was cannabis use in the past 30 days. Among users, we characterized frequency, method, and reason for use. Logistic regression models were estimated to assess associations between legal status and these outcome measures. The study sample included 168,299 respondents. The unweighted proportion of respondents reporting cannabis use were: 4.96% in states with limited medical use, 6.50% in states with full medical use, and 12.33% in states with full legalization. Adjusted odds of use were greater for the full medical use group (1.13, 95%CI:1.02-1.25) and the full legalization group (2.53, 95%CI:2.28-2.82) compared to the limited medical use group. Users were more likely to use non-smoking methods in the full legalization group compared to the limited medical use group (1.77, 95%CI:1.41-2.22). A greater proportion of users in the full legalization group reported medical usage than in the other two groups. Policymakers should consider these findings in order to allow for use while safeguarding public health.

Heterogeneous health effects of medical marijuana legalization: Evidence from young adults in the United States

Legalizing marijuana for medical purposes is a longstanding debate. However, evidence of marijuana's health effects is limited, especially for young adults. We estimate the health impacts of medical marijuana laws (MML) in the U.S. among young adults aged 18-29 years using the difference-in-differences method and data from the Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System. We find that having MMLs with strict regulations generate health gains, but not in states with lax regulations. Our heterogeneity analysis results indicate that individuals with lower education attainments, with lower household income and without access to health insurance coverage gain more health benefits from MML with strict regulations than from MML with lax regulations. The findings suggest greater net health gains under strict controls concerning marijuana supply and access.

Association between fatal opioid overdose and state medical cannabis laws in US national survey data, 2000-2011

AIMS

Most information on the relationship between medical cannabis laws (MCL) and the risk for opioid overdose fatality has been based on studies with ecological designs. To contribute additional information, we used a novel case-control design and individual-level data from national surveys to assess whether state medical cannabis laws were associated with reduced risk of fatal opioid overdose between 2000-2011.

METHODS

Data from participants surveyed in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) between 1986-2011 were included. For those sampled between 1986-2009, detailed mortality follow-up data were available from the National Death Index up to 12/31/2011. Opioid overdose decedents (n = 791) were classified as cases. Between 2000-2011, all cases arising in a given year were matched to adult controls who were surveyed the same year and eligible for mortality follow-up (n = 723,920). The distribution of exposure to state MCL was contrasted between cases and controls, providing an approximation of the rate ratio of fatal opioid overdose associated with MCLs. Due to a NHIS sample redesign, we stratified analysis using timeframes before and after 2005.

RESULTS

Overall, compared to controls, cases were more likely to be male, middle-aged, non-Hispanic White, separated/divorced; less educated, and have a family income below the poverty threshold. No overall association between state MCLs and the rate of opioid overdose was observed between 2000-2005 (aOR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.83-1.79) or between 2006-2011 (aOR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.60-1.25). No significant difference between sampling timeframes was observed (ratio of aOR's = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.49-1.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no overall protective relationship between state MCLs and opioid overdose. Future research with more recent mortality data and more refined cannabis policy classifications would be useful. The importance of the study is two-fold. First, the findings provide an additional source of information countering claims of a protective effect of MCLs on opioid overdoses, suggesting that other solutions to the opioid overdose crisis are needed. Second, the study offers a potentially useful design to answer important population-level public health questions.

Legalization of Medical Cannabis and Site of Death: Evidence From National Vital Statistics Mortality Data

We examined whether Medical Marijuana Legislation (MML) was associated with site of death. Using state-level data (1992-2018) from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), we employed difference-in-differences method to compare changes in death rate among older adults at four sites-nursing home (NH), hospital, home, hospice/other-over time in states with and without MML. Heterogeneity analyses were conducted by timing of MML adoption, and by decedent characteristics. Results show a negative association between MML implementation and NH deaths. Among early adopters (states with weakly regulated programs) and decedents with musculoskeletal disorders, there was a positive association between MML implementation and hospital deaths, whereas among late adopters (states with "medicalized" programs), there was a positive association between MML implementation and hospice deaths. Decline in NH deaths may reflect increased likelihood of transfers due to threat of Federal enforcement, penalties for poor outcomes, and liability concerns. Future studies should examine these associations further.

Are recreational cannabis laws associated with declining medical cannabis program enrollment in the U.S.? An analysis of cardholder enrollment and demographic characteristics from 2013 to 2020

BACKGROUND

There is speculation that enrollment in U.S. state medical cannabis programs differs depending on whether adult recreational cannabis use is legal. If true, this could have implications for public health and policy.

METHODS

Using medical cannabis registry data from U.S. states with a mandatory registry between 2013 and 2020 (N = 23 states), this study examined time-trends in medical cannabis cardholder enrollment and tested whether enrollment trends differed depending on adult recreational cannabis legalization.

RESULTS

Multilevel models showed that time-trends for registered active medical cardholders differed during years when adult recreational cannabis use was legal versus not legal (time*recreational cannabis law interaction: b = -0.004, p < 0.01, 95% CI = -0.005, -0.003). The population prevalence of registered active medical cardholders increased over time in years when recreational cannabis was not legal (i.e., medical-only years; b = 0.004, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.003, 0.004, corresponding to an increase of 380 cardholders per 100,000 people per year), and decreased in years when recreational cannabis was legal (i.e., recreational years; b = -0.001, p < 0.001, 95% CI = -0.002, -0.001, corresponding to a decrease of 100 cardholders per 100,000 people per year). Time-trends were similar for each sex (male, female) and age group (18-30/35, 30/35+), with each cardholder group showing increases in medical-only years and decreases in recreational years. In medical-only years, there were no differences in enrollment time-trends across sex, but older cardholder (30/35+) enrollment increased at a faster rate than younger cardholder enrollment (18-30/35) (F = 16.199, p < 0.001). In recreational years, male cardholder enrollment decreased at a faster rate than female cardholder enrollment (F = 7.347, p < 0.01), but there was no difference in trends across age. Three states, all with medical-only years, provided data on ethnicity/race. Results showed significant increases from 2016 to 2020 in enrollment of White, African-American, and Hispanic individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that recreational cannabis legalization is associated with decreasing enrollment in medical cannabis programs, particularly for males.

Trends in cannabis use among adults with children in the home in the United States, 2004-2017: impact of state-level legalization for recreational and medical use

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cannabis use among parents may be increasing with legalization, but perception of associated risk has declined. The study investigated the association between cannabis legalization and cannabis use among adults with children in the home over time in the United States (US).

DESIGN

A difference-in-difference approach was applied to public and restricted-use data from the 2004-2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an annual cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

A representative sample of the United States.

PARTICIPANTS/CASES

Respondents ages 18+ with children living in the home drawn from the NSDUH (n = 287,624), which is administered to non-institutionalized civilians in the 50 states and District of Columbia.

MEASUREMENTS

Exposures were year and state-level cannabis policy in state of residence annually. Outcomes were past-30-day cannabis use and daily cannabis use. Sociodemographic variables included age, gender, marital status, annual family income, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and strength of state-level tobacco control.

FINDINGS

In 2017, past-month cannabis use (11.9%, 9.3%, and 6.1%) and daily cannabis use (4.2%, 3.2%, and 2.3%) were more common in states with recreational marijuana laws (RML), followed by states with medical marijuana laws (MML) and without legal cannabis use, respectively. RML and MML were associated with significantly higher prevalence of past-month cannabis use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12-1.46; AOR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.03-1.22) and daily cannabis use (AOR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.03-1.51; AOR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.02-1.32), respectively. The impact of MML was particularly salient among adults ages 50+ and the highest income and education subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adults with children living in the home, cannabis use appears to be more common in US states with legalized cannabis use compared with states with no legal cannabis use. Recreational legalization appears to increase use among adults with children in the home broadly across nearly all sociodemographic groups, whereas the effect of legalization for medical use is heterogeneous by age and socioeconomic status.

The effect of medical cannabis laws on pharmaceutical marketing to physicians

Although cannabis is federally prohibited, a majority of U.S. states have implemented medical cannabis laws (MCLs). As more individuals consider the drug for medical treatment, they potentially substitute away from prescription drugs. Therefore, an MCL signals competitor entry. This paper exploits geographic and temporal variation in MCLs to examine the strategic response in direct-to-physician marketing by pharmaceutical firms as cannabis enters the market. Using office detailing records from 2014-2018 aggregated to the county level, we find weak evidence of a relatively small and delayed response in substitute prescription drug- and opioid-related detailing. While these effects on detailing dollars are more pronounced among smaller pharmaceutical firms, the magnitudes are economically small and likely muted at aggregate levels by the small percent of doctors that actively recommend cannabis for medical treatment.

Trends over time in adult cannabis use: A review of recent findings

In the United States, policies regarding the medical and nonmedical use of cannabis are changing rapidly. In 2021, a total of 34 US states have legalized cannabis for adult medical use, and 15 of these states have legalized adult non-medical use. These changing policies have raised questions about increasing prevalences of cannabis use, changing perceptions regarding frequent use, and potentially related outcomes such as comorbid psychiatric illness or driving under the influence of cannabis. Research regarding the correlates of any and frequent cannabis use is also developing quickly. This article reviews recent empirical studies concerning (1) adult trends in cannabis use, (2) state cannabis laws and related outcomes, and (3) emerging evidence regarding how the global coronavirus 19 pandemic may impact cannabis use patterns. We summarize recent findings and conclude with suggestions to address unanticipated effects of rapidly changing cannabis laws and policies.

How medical are states' medical cannabis policies?: Proposing a standardized scale

BACKGROUND

There are important differences in medical cannabis laws across the U.S.. However, prior studies investigating the effect of medical cannabis laws on outcomes disregard this heterogeneity. Findings from the body of literature using a simple dichotomous assessment of whether a particular state has enacted a medical cannabis law are equivocal or conflicting. To advance the science, a national advisory group of experts in medical cannabis developed and utilized a systematic methodology, the "medicalization of cannabis laws standardized scale" (MCLaSS), to characterize and quantify state laws' degree of medicalization, the extent to which medical cannabis is treated similarly to pharmaceutical medications.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of state-level medical cannabis laws in the U.S. Using the novel MCLaSS, we calculated seven domain scores (patient-clinician relationship, manufacturing and testing, product labeling, types of products, supply and dose limit, prescription drug monitoring program, and dispensing practices) and a summary score for each state which had enacted medical cannabis laws as of July 2019.

RESULTS

There is substantial heterogeneity in the degree of medicalization of states' medical cannabis laws, as demonstrated by the MCLaSS summary score, which ranged from 23 (least medicalized) to 86 (most medicalized).

CONCLUSION

This methodology will advance the evidence base about the impact of medical cannabis laws on patient and public health outcomes, which is urgently needed to ensure the development of policies that minimize the risks and maximize the benefits of medical cannabis.

The importance of psychology for shaping legal cannabis regulation

Different patterns of cannabis use can be traced directly back to different interactions between 2 types of variables: pharmacological and environmental. As legal cannabis expands in the U.S. and around the world, state and national regulatory agencies are gaining control over these variables. Specifically, regulatory agencies are increasingly capable of altering (a) the pharmacological properties of cannabis products and (b) the way these products are distributed to the population. Consequently, cannabis regulatory agencies are in a unique position to use evidence from psychological science to alter cannabis consumption patterns in ways that mitigate potential harm to public health. However, most state-level legal cannabis regulatory systems in the U.S. are not yet evidence-based or public health-oriented. This applied review and commentary draws on evidence from the psychological science literature to help regulators better understand the types of behaviors they must address and guide empirically supported regulation of THC-laden cannabis, whether used putatively for medical or recreational reasons. This review is organized into 3 parts that correspond to the 3 primary agents within the cannabis regulation ecosystem: (a) the cannabis consumer, (b) the cannabis industry, and (c) the cannabis regulatory agency. Within this structure, the review addresses critical psychological variables that drive cannabis consumer and industry behaviors and discusses how regulatory agencies can use this information to protect public health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Protocol: mixed-methods study of how implementation of US state medical cannabis laws affects treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and adverse opioid outcomes

BACKGROUND

Thirty-three US states and Washington, D.C., have enacted medical cannabis laws allowing patients with chronic non-cancer pain to use cannabis, when recommended by a physician, to manage their condition. However, clinical guidelines do not recommend cannabis for treatment of chronic non-cancer pain due to limited and mixed evidence of effectiveness. How state medical cannabis laws affect delivery of evidence-based treatment for chronic non-cancer pain is unclear. These laws could lead to substitution of cannabis in place of clinical guideline-discordant opioid prescribing, reducing risk of opioid use disorder and overdose. Conversely, state medical cannabis laws could lead to substitution of cannabis in place of guideline-concordant treatments such as topical analgesics or physical therapy. This protocol describes a mixed-methods study examining the implementation and effects of state medical cannabis laws on treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. A key contribution of the study is the examination of how variation in state medical cannabis laws' policy implementation rules affects receipt of chronic non-cancer pain treatments.

METHODS

The study uses a concurrent-embedded design. The primary quantitative component of the study employs a difference-in-differences design using a policy trial emulation approach. Quantitative analyses will evaluate state medical cannabis laws' effects on treatment for chronic non-cancer pain as well as on receipt of treatment for opioid use disorder, opioid overdose, cannabis use disorder, and cannabis poisoning among people with chronic non-cancer pain. Secondary qualitative and survey methods will be used to characterize implementation of state medical cannabis laws through interviews with state leaders and representative surveys of physicians who treat, and patients who experience, chronic non-cancer pain in states with medical cannabis laws.

DISCUSSION

This study will examine the effects of medical cannabis laws on patients' receipt of guideline-concordant non-opioid, non-cannabis treatments for chronic non-cancer pain and generate new evidence on the effects of state medical cannabis laws on adverse opioid outcomes. Results will inform the dynamic policy environment in which numerous states consider, enact, and/or amend medical cannabis laws each year.

Impact of state-level cannabis legalization on poly use of alcohol and cannabis in the United States, 2004-2017

BACKGROUND

Cannabis policy has shifted toward legalization in many parts of the United States (US). While attention has been focused on whether legalization will lead to changes in cannabis use, it is conceivable that legalization will also affect use of substances that individuals frequently use with cannabis. This study assessed whether cannabis legalization impacted the prevalence of poly use of cannabis and alcohol from 2004 to 2017 and estimated the prevalence of cannabis and alcohol poly use in 2017.

METHODS

Public and restricted-use data from the US 2004-2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health were analyzed. Data on past-month cannabis and alcohol use were assessed each year. Cannabis legalization was determined by the presence or absence of medical marijuana laws (MML) and recreational marijuana laws (RML) in each state. Difference-in-difference approach was used to estimate the association of MML and RML on cannabis and alcohol use overall and by sociodemographic subgroups (e.g., age, income, education).

RESULTS

Between 2004 and 2017, poly use of cannabis and alcohol increased while alcohol-only use decreased. MML were associated with increases in poly use only among adults over age 50 and among those with higher annual incomes and higher education, while RML were associated with increases in poly use broadly among adults across sociodemographic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Legalization of cannabis was associated with increases in cannabis-alcohol poly use in the US. RML were associated with increases across demographics, while the impact of MML was more limited to certain sociodemographic groups.

Care of the Patient Using Cannabis

The past 2 decades have seen a revolution in legal access to cannabis, driven largely by activists and business interests. As a result, the population of cannabis users nationwide-especially daily users-has grown significantly. An estimated 4.5-7 million persons in the United States now meet criteria for cannabis use disorder annually. This article focuses on the effects of cannabis use, intoxication, and withdrawal while also reviewing the developmental pathways of cannabis use disorder as well as evidence-based pharmacologic and psychosocial treatments.

Implications of Medical and Recreational Marijuana Laws for Neuroscience Research: a Review

Purpose of Review

Review of US medical and recreational marijuana laws (MML and RML), their effects on cannabis potency, prevalence of non-medical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder (CUD) in adolescents and adults, and implications for neuroscience research, given what is known about the relationship of cannabis to neurocognitive impairments and underlying brain functioning.

Recent Findings

Cannabis potency may be increasing faster in states with MML or RML than in other states. MML and RML have not impacted prevalence in adolescents but have consistently been shown to increase rates of adult non-medical use and CUD.

Summary

Recent neurocognitive or neuroimaging studies may be more impacted by cannabis than studies conducted when MML and RML were less common. Neurocognitive or neuroimaging studies conducted in MML or RML states should carefully test potential participants for recent cannabis use. More research is needed on cannabis and cognition in medical marijuana patients.

Qualifying Conditions Of Medical Cannabis License Holders In The United States

The evidence for cannabis's treatment efficacy across different conditions varies widely, and comprehensive data on the conditions for which people use cannabis are lacking. We analyzed state registry data to provide nationwide estimates characterizing the qualifying conditions for which patients are licensed to use cannabis medically. We also compared the prevalence of medical cannabis qualifying conditions to recent evidence from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on cannabis's efficacy in treating each condition. Twenty states and the District of Columbia had available registry data on patient numbers, and fifteen states had data on patient-reported qualifying conditions. Chronic pain is currently and historically the most common qualifying condition reported by medical cannabis patients (64.9 percent in 2016). Of all patient-reported qualifying conditions, 85.5 percent had either substantial or conclusive evidence of therapeutic efficacy. As medical cannabis use continues to increase, creating a nationwide patient registry would facilitate better understanding of trends in use and of its potential effectiveness.

Facing the option for the legalisation of cannabis use and supply in New Zealand: An overview of relevant evidence, concepts and considerations

ISSUES

Non-medical cannabis policies are changing, including towards legalisation-with-regulation frameworks. New Zealand will hold a public referendum on cannabis legalisation in 2020. We reviewed data on cannabis use and health/social harms; policy reform options; experiences with and outcomes of reforms elsewhere; and other relevant considerations towards informing policy choices in the upcoming referendum.

APPROACH

Relevant epidemiological, health, social, criminal justice and policy studies and data were identified and comprehensively reviewed.

KEY FINDINGS

Cannabis use is common (including in New Zealand) and associated with risks for health and social harms, mainly concentrated in young users; key harms are attributable to criminalisation. 'Decriminalisation' reforms have produced ambivalent results. Existing cannabis legalisation frameworks vary considerably in main parameters. Legalisation offers some distinct advantages, for example regulated use, products and user education, yet outcomes depend on essential regulation parameters, including commercialisation, and policy ecologies. While major changes in use are not observed, legalisation experiences are inconclusive to date, including mixed health and social outcomes, with select harms increasing and resilient illegal markets. It is unclear whether legalisation reduces cannabis exposure or social harms (e.g. from enforcement) for youth.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

No conclusive overall evidence on the outcomes of legalisation elsewhere exists, nor is evidence easily transferable to other settings. Legalisation offers direct social justice benefits for adults, yet overall public health impacts are uncertain. Legalisation may not categorically improve health or social outcomes for youth. Legalisation remains a well-intended, while experimental policy option towards more measured and sensible cannabis control and overall greater policy coherence, requiring close monitoring and possible adjustments depending on setting-specific outcomes.

The trajectory of "medical cannabis" in Israel: Driving medicalization in different directions

BACKGROUND

Although researchers, laypersons and policymakers have been debating about the "medicalization of cannabis" for years, few have attempted to unpack this phrase and clarify what it actually means. The present qualitative research addresses this issue by tracing the trajectory of "medical cannabis" (MC) in Israel.

METHODS

This article draws on multiple sources, including in-depth interviews, parliamentary protocols, conference observations, policy documents, and media coverage.

RESULTS

The analysis shows that while patients, growers, and certain physicians advocated for a more inclusive type of cannabis medicalization, other physicians and sick funds strove to curtail this medicalization; for its part, the Ministry of Health (MoH) attempted to find a pathway that would bridge their conflicting standpoints. In the first phase of medicalization patients' and regulators' trajectories coincided; however, they diverged in the second phase as regulators sought to transform MC into a standardized medication in line with the biomedical model. Patients and physicians criticized the new policy reform and highlighted some of its negative effects on patient care. The trajectories of patients and regulators then intersected in a way that led to some alterations in the MC trajectory.

CONCLUSION

This study enhances our understanding of how MC was, and is still being, incorporated into medicine in Israel. The study illuminates the plurality of meanings that have been assigned to the concept of medicalization and the contingent nature of MC. Additionally, this study sheds light on the under-investigated role of regulators as drivers of the medicalization of "solutions," and it shows how different engines of medicalization may drive the process in diverging directions.

Cannabis as a Gateway Drug for Opioid Use Disorder

Cannabis use in some individuals can meaningfully introduce de novo risk for the initiation of opioid use and development of opioid use disorder. These risks may be particularly high during adolescence when cannabis use may disrupt critical periods of neurodevelopment. Current research studying the combination of genetic and environmental factors involved in substance use disorders is poorly understood. More research is needed, particularly to identify which adolescents are most at risk and to develop effective interventions addressing contributing factors such as trauma and psychiatric comorbidity.

Out-of-state cannabis purchases in the United States

BACKGROUND

Cannabis legalization at the US state level may have implications for cross-border purchases and diversion of legal products. The current study examined the association between out-of-state purchases and 1) cannabis regulations; and 2) the length of time a state has had recreational retail sales.

METHODS

Data come from US respondents who participated in Wave 1 of the International Cannabis Policy Study (ICPS), conducted in August-October 2018. Respondents were aged 16-65 years who had used cannabis in the past 12 months (n = 4320). Respondents were recruited using the Nielsen Consumer Insights Global Panel. Binary logistic regression models examined likelihood of any out-of-state cannabis purchases in the prior year, including differences by cannabis regulations, and time since recreational cannabis retail sales began.

RESULTS

Overall, 15.0 % of US cannabis users had made any out-of-state cannabis purchases in the past 12 months. Respondents in states where recreational cannabis was legal were less likely to make any out-of-state purchases than respondents in states where only medical cannabis was legal (AOR = 0.45, 95 % CI: 0.34-0.60, p < 0.001) and where all cannabis was prohibited (AOR = 0.36, 95 % CI: 0.26-0.50, p < 0.001). Among respondents in 'legal' states, a longer history of legal sales was associated with a lower likelihood of out-of-state cannabis purchases (AOR = 0.82, 95 % CI: 0.72-0.93, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The findings demonstrate that consumers in states where recreational cannabis is legal were less likely to purchase cannabis out-of-state than consumers in states where recreational cannabis is not legal. Future research should examine which states people travel to purchase cannabis and why.

Changes in alcohol and cigarette consumption in response to medical and recreational cannabis legalization: Evidence from U.S. state tax receipt data

BACKGROUND

Whether medical or recreational cannabis legalization impacts alcohol or cigarette consumption is a key question as cannabis policy evolves, given the adverse health effects of these substances. Relatively little research has examined this question. The objective of this study was to examine whether medical or recreational cannabis legalization was associated with any change in state-level per capita alcohol or cigarette consumption.

METHODS

Dependent variables included per capita consumption of alcohol and cigarettes from all 50 U.S. states, estimated from state tax receipts and maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, respectively. Independent variables included indicators for medical and recreational legalization policies. Three different types of indicators were separately used to model medical cannabis policies. Indicators for the primary model were based on the presence of active medical cannabis dispensaries. Secondary models used indicators based on either the presence of a more liberal medical cannabis policy ("non-medicalized") or the presence of any medical cannabis policy. Difference-in-difference regression models were applied to estimate associations for each type of policy.

RESULTS

Primary models found no statistically significant associations between medical or recreational cannabis legalization policies and either alcohol or cigarette sales per capita. In a secondary model, both medical and recreational policies were associated with significantly decreased per capita cigarette sales compared to states with no medical cannabis policy. However, post hoc analyses demonstrated that these reductions were apparent at least two years prior to policy adoption, indicating that they likely result from other time-varying characteristics of legalization states, rather than cannabis policy.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence of a causal association between medical or recreational cannabis legalization and changes in either alcohol or cigarette sales per capita.

Indications and administration practices amongst medical cannabis healthcare providers: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

The medical use of cannabis has been legislatively restricted for decades in the US and abroad. In recent years, changing local and national policies have given rise to a community of healthcare providers who may be recommending the medical use of cannabis without the benefit of formal clinical practice guidelines or sufficient training and education. In addition, a citizen science movement has emerged whereby unlicensed and untrained individuals are acting as healthcare provider proxies, offering cannabis-specific clinical care to "patients". This study sought to characterize the clinical practice characteristics of these provider groups.

METHODS

An anonymous, online survey was designed to describe levels of cannabis-specific education, practice characteristics, indications for medical use, dose, administration forms and adverse effects related to cannabis use. The questionnaire was disseminated via professional medical cannabis associations and by word-of-mouth. It was accessed between June 31-December 31, 2018. A self-selecting sample of respondents (n = 171) completed the survey.

RESULTS

Formal education or training in the medical use of cannabis was significantly more common among licensed respondents than unlicensed respondents (95.5% vs 76.9% respectively, OR, 6.3, 95% CI, 1.2-32.3, p = 0.03). The vast majority (n = 74, 83.15%) of licensed respondents reported having recommended cannabis as an adjunct to an existing prescription drug. Almost two-thirds (n = 64, 71.9%) reported having recommended it as a substitute. When delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the principal therapeutic constituent of interest, vaporization is the most common method of administration recommended (n = 94 responses, 71.4% of respondents). In contrast, when cannabidiol (CBD) is the principal therapeutic constituent of interest, oral administration (sublingual or oromucosal absorption) is the most common method (n = 70 responses, 71.4% of respondents).

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals who recommend the medical use of cannabis appear to be self-generating a community standard of practice in the absence of formal clinical guidelines on dosing, interactions and other characteristics. Reducing barriers to clinical research on cannabis products is needed, not only to better understand their risks and benefits, but also to augment the evidence-base for informing clinical practice.

Early evidence of the impact of cannabis legalization on cannabis use, cannabis use disorder, and the use of other substances: Findings from state policy evaluations

Background: The past decade has seen unprecedented shifts in the cannabis policy environment, and the public health impacts of these changes will hinge on how they affect patterns of cannabis use and the use and harms associated with other substances.Objectives: To review existing research on how state cannabis policy impacts substance use, emphasizing studies using methods for causal inference and highlighting gaps in our understanding of policy impacts on evolving cannabis markets.Methods: Narrative review of quasi-experimental studies for how medical cannabis laws (MCLs) and recreational cannabis laws (RCLs) affect cannabis use and use disorders, as well as the use of or harms from alcohol, opioids, and tobacco.Results: Research suggests MCLs increase adult but not adolescent cannabis use, and provisions of the laws associated with less regulated supply may increase adult cannabis use disorders. These laws may reduce some opioid-related harms, while their impacts on alcohol and tobacco use remain uncertain. Research on RCLs is just emerging, but findings suggest little impact on the prevalence of adolescent cannabis use, potential increases in college student use, and unknown effects on other substance use.Conclusions: Research on how MCLs influence cannabis use has advanced our understanding of the importance of heterogeneity in policies, populations, and market dynamics, but studies of how MCLs relate to other substance use often ignore these factors. Understanding effects of cannabis laws requires greater attention to differences in short- versus long-term effects of the laws, nuances of policies and patterns of consumption, and careful consideration of appropriate control groups.

Cannabinoids, Pain, and Opioid Use Reduction: The Importance of Distilling and Disseminating Existing Data

The high prevalence of chronic pain conditions combined with an over-reliance on opioid prescriptions has resulted in an opioid epidemic and a desperate need for solutions. There is some debate about whether cannabis might play a role in addressing chronic pain conditions as well as the opioid epidemic. Recent surveys suggest that a large number of people are using cannabis as a treatment for pain and to reduce use of opioids, and cannabis-derived products demonstrate at least modest efficacy in the treatment of pain in randomized controlled trials. In addition, surveillance studies from countries that have approved the use of Sativex, which is a cannabis-based product, have demonstrated that a combination of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol has low potential for harm, is well tolerated, and is helpful to patients. Given the number of people in the United States who are already using cannabis to manage pain and opioid use in state-regulated markets, it is imperative to conduct additional research in these areas, and to disseminate information on how to minimize harm and maximize any benefits of using cannabinoids to mitigate pain and reduce opioid use. The purpose of this article is to call attention to the fact that cannabis is being used in the management of chronic pain. Thus, this article also provides a set of guidelines on how to approach using cannabis to treat pain.

Does cannabis legalisation change healthcare utilisation? A population-based study using the healthcare cost and utilisation project in Colorado, USA

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of cannabis legalisation on health effects and healthcare utilisation in Colorado (CO), the first state to legalise recreational cannabis, when compared with two control states, New York (NY) and Oklahoma (OK).

DESIGN

We used the 2010 to 2014 Healthcare Cost and Utilisation Project (HCUP) inpatient databases to compare changes in rates of healthcare utilisation and diagnoses in CO versus NY and OK.

SETTING

Population-based, inpatient.

PARTICIPANTS

HCUP state-wide data comprising over 28 million individuals and over 16 million hospitalisations across three states.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We used International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Edition codes to assess changes in healthcare utilisation specific to various medical diagnoses potentially treated by or exacerbated by cannabis. Diagnoses were classified based on weight of evidence from the National Academy of Science (NAS). Negative binomial models were used to compare rates of admissions between states.

RESULTS

In CO compared with NY and OK, respectively, cannabis abuse hospitalisations increased (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.28 and RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.17; both p<0.0005) post-legalisation. In CO, there was a reduction in total admissions but only when compared with OK (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98, p<0.0005). Length of stay and costs did not change significantly in CO compared with NY or OK. Post-legalisation changes most consistent with NAS included an increase in motor vehicle accidents, alcohol abuse, overdose injury and a reduction in chronic pain admissions (all p<0.05 compared with each control state).

CONCLUSIONS

Recreational cannabis legalisation is associated with neutral effects on healthcare utilisation. In line with previous evidence, cannabis liberalisation is linked to an increase in motor vehicle accidents, alcohol abuse, overdose injuries and a decrease in chronic pain admissions. Such population-level effects may help guide future decisions regarding cannabis use, prescription and policy.

Cannabis and the Current State of Treatment for Cannabis Use Disorder

Although the opioid epidemic may command more national headlines, the past two decades have seen a revolution in cannabis policy driven largely by the public and by business interests. As a result, the population of cannabis users nationwide-especially of heavy users-has grown yearly. Although less visible than patients admitted to the emergency department for opioid-related overdose or to treatment for opioid use disorder, an estimated 4.5-7 million individuals in the United States are thought to meet criteria for cannabis use disorder in a given year. This article focuses on the developmental pathways of cannabis use disorder, the epidemiology of cannabis use among adolescents and adults in the context of rapidly changing state laws, and evidence-based treatment for the general psychiatrist. The authors provide an overview of pharmacological and psychosocial behavioral treatments for patients with the disorder while emphasizing aspects of clinical management unique to this patient population.

Cannabis decriminalization: A study of recent policy change in five U.S. states

BACKGROUND

A number of public health professional organizations support the decriminalization of cannabis due to adverse effects of cannabis-related arrests and legal consequences, particularly on youth. We sought to examine the associations between cannabis decriminalization and both arrests and youth cannabis use in five states that passed decriminalization measures between the years 2008 and 2014: Massachusetts (decriminalized in 2008), Connecticut (2011), Rhode Island (2013), Vermont (2013), and Maryland (2014).

METHODS

Data on cannabis possession arrests were obtained from federal crime statistics; data on cannabis use were obtained from state Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) surveys, years 2007-2015. Using a "difference in difference" regression framework, we contrasted trends in decriminalization states with those from states that did not adopt major policy changes during the observation period.

RESULTS

Decriminalization was associated with a 75% reduction in the rate of drug-related arrests for youth (95% CI: 44%, 89%) with similar effects observed for adult arrests. Decriminalization was not associated with any increase in the past-30 day prevalence of cannabis use overall (relative change=-0.2%; 95% CI: -4.5%, 4.3%) or in any of the individual decriminalization states.

CONCLUSIONS

Decriminalization of cannabis in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maryland resulted in large decreases in cannabis possession arrests for both youth and adults, suggesting that the policy change had its intended consequence. Our analysis did not find any increase in the prevalence of youth cannabis use during the observation period.

Medical marijuana laws and workplace fatalities in the United States

AIMS

The aim of this research was to determine the association between legalizing medical marijuana and workplace fatalities.

DESIGN

Repeated cross-sectional data on workplace fatalities at the state-year level were analyzed using a multivariate Poisson regression.

SETTING

To date, 29 states and the District of Columbia have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Although there is increasing concern that legalizing medical marijuana will make workplaces more dangerous, little is known about the relationship between medical marijuana laws (MMLs) and workplace fatalities.

PARTICIPANTS

All 50 states and the District of Columbia for the period 1992-2015.

MEASUREMENTS

Workplace fatalities by state and year were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Regression models were adjusted for state demographics, the unemployment rate, state fixed effects, and year fixed effects.

FINDINGS

Legalizing medical marijuana was associated with a 19.5% reduction in the expected number of workplace fatalities among workers aged 25-44 (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.805; 95% CI, .662-.979). The association between legalizing medical marijuana and workplace fatalities among workers aged 16-24, although negative, was not statistically significant at conventional levels. The association between legalizing medical marijuana and workplace fatalities among workers aged 25-44 grew stronger over time. Five years after coming into effect, MMLs were associated with a 33.7% reduction in the expected number of workplace fatalities (IRR, 0.663; 95% CI, .482-.912). MMLs that listed pain as a qualifying condition or allowed collective cultivation were associated with larger reductions in fatalities among workers aged 25-44 than those that did not.

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide evidence that legalizing medical marijuana improved workplace safety for workers aged 25-44. Further investigation is required to determine whether this result is attributable to reductions in the consumption of alcohol and other substances that impair cognitive function, memory, and motor skills.