Marijuana Decriminalization, Medical Marijuana Laws, and Fatal Traffic Crashes in US Cities, 2010-2017

The effect of opioid use on traffic fatalities

We use a difference-in-differences design to study the effect of opioid use on traffic fatalities. Following Alpert et al., we focus on the 1996 introduction and marketing of OxyContin, and we examine its long-term impacts on traffic fatalities involving Schedule II drugs or heroin. Based on the national fatal vehicle crash database, we find that the states heavily targeted by the initial marketing of OxyContin (i.e., non-triplicate states) experienced 2.4 times more traffic fatalities (1.6 additional deaths per million individuals) involving Schedule II drugs or heroin during 2011-2019, when overdose deaths from heroin and fentanyl became more prominent. We find no difference in traffic fatalities until after the mid-2000s between states with and without a triplicate prescription program. The effect is mainly concentrated in fatal crashes with drug involvement of drivers ages between 25 and 44. Our results highlight additional long-term detrimental consequences of the introduction and marketing of OxyContin.

Designing Difference-in-Difference Studies with Staggered Treatment Adoption: Key Concepts and Practical Guidelines

Difference-in-difference (DID) estimators are a valuable method for identifying causal effects in the public health researcher's toolkit. A growing methods literature points out potential problems with DID estimators when treatment is staggered in adoption and varies with time. Despite this, no practical guide exists for addressing these new critiques in public health research. We illustrate these new DID concepts with step-by-step examples, code, and a checklist. We draw insights by comparing the simple 2 × 2 DID design (single treatment group, single control group, two time periods) with more complex cases: additional treated groups, additional time periods of treatment, and treatment effects possibly varying over time. We outline newly uncovered threats to causal interpretation of DID estimates and the solutions the literature has proposed, relying on a decomposition that shows how the more complex DIDs are an average of simpler 2 × 2 DID subexperiments.

Cannabis legalization and driving under the influence of cannabis and driving under the influence of alcohol among adult and adolescent drivers in Ontario, Canada (2001-2019)

BACKGROUND

The impacts of cannabis legalization on driving under the influence of cannabis and driving under the influence of alcohol among adults and adolescents were examined in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

Data were sourced from adult (N=38,479) and adolescent (N=23,216) populations-based surveys (2001-2019). The associations between cannabis legalization and driving within an hour of using cannabis and driving within an hour of drinking two or more drinks of alcohol were quantified using logistic regression, with testing of multiplicative interactions between cannabis legalization and age and sex. All analyses were conducted separately for adults and adolescents and restricted to participants with a valid driver's license.

RESULTS

Cannabis legalization was not associated with driving within an hour of using cannabis among adults (OR, 95% CI: 1.21, 0.69-2.11). However, a multiplicative interaction indicated that there was an increased likelihood of driving within an hour of using cannabis among adults ≥55 years of age (4.23, 1.85-9.71) pre-post cannabis legalization. Cannabis legalization was not associated with driving within an hour of using cannabis among adolescents (0.92, 0.72-1.16), or with driving within an hour of consuming two or more drinks of alcohol among adults (0.78, 0.51-1.20) or adolescents (0.87, 0.42-1.82).

CONCLUSIONS

An increased likelihood of driving under the influence of cannabis among adults ≥55 years of age was detected in the year following cannabis legalization, suggesting the need for greater public awareness and education and police monitoring and enforcement concerning driving under the influence of cannabis, particularly among older adults.

Health, safety, and socioeconomic impacts of cannabis liberalization laws: An evidence and gap map

Background

Globally, cannabis laws and regulations are rapidly changing. Countries are increasingly permitting access to cannabis under various decriminalization, medicalization, and legalization laws. With strong economic, public health, and social justice incentives driving these domestic cannabis policy reforms, liberalization trends are bound to continue. However, despite a large and growing body of interdisciplinary research addressing the policy-relevant health, safety, and socioeconomic consequences of cannabis liberalization, there is a lack of robust primary and systematic research that comprehensively investigates the consequences of these reforms.

Objectives

This evidence and gap map (EGM) summarizes the empirical evidence on cannabis liberalization policies. Primary objectives were to develop a conceptual framework linking cannabis liberalization policies to relevant outcomes, descriptively summarize the empirical evidence, and identify areas of evidence concentration and gaps.

Search Methods

We comprehensively searched for eligible English-language empirical studies published across 23 academic databases and 11 gray literature sources through August 2020. Additions to the pool of potentially eligible studies from supplemental sources were made through November 2020.

Selection Criteria

The conceptual framework for this EGM draws upon a legal epidemiological perspective highlighting the causal effects of law and policy on population-level outcomes. Eligible interventions include policies that create or expand access to a legal or decriminalized supply of cannabis: comprehensive medical cannabis laws (MCLs), limited medical cannabidiol laws (CBDLs), recreational cannabis laws (RCLs), industrial hemp laws (IHLs), and decriminalization of cultivations laws (DCLs). Eligible outcomes include intermediate responses (i.e., attitudes/behaviors and markets/environments) and longer-term consequences (health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes) of these laws.

Data Collection and Analysis

Both dual screening and dual data extraction were performed with third person deconfliction. Primary studies were appraised using the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale and systematic reviews were assessed using AMSTAR 2.

Main Results

The EGM includes 447 studies, comprising 438 primary studies and nine systematic reviews. Most research derives from the United States, with little research from other countries. By far, most cannabis liberalization research focuses on the effects of MCLs and RCLs. Studies targeting other laws-including CBDLs, IHLs, and DCLs-are relatively rare. Of the 113 distinct outcomes we documented, cannabis use was the single most frequently investigated. More than half these outcomes were addressed by three or fewer studies, highlighting substantial evidence gaps in the literature. The systematic evidence base is relatively small, comprising just seven completed reviews on cannabis use (3), opioid-related harms (3), and alcohol-related outcomes (1). Moreover, we have limited confidence in the reviews, as five were appraised as minimal quality and two as low quality.

Authors’ Conclusions

More primary and systematic research is needed to better understand the effects of cannabis liberalization laws on longer-term-and arguably more salient-health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes. Since most research concerns MCLs and RCLs, there is a critical need for research on the societal impacts of industrial hemp production, medical CBD products, and decriminalized cannabis cultivation. Future research should also prioritize understanding the heterogeneous effects of these laws given differences in specific provisions and implementation across jurisdictions.

Driving-related behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions among Australian medical cannabis users: results from the CAMS 20 survey

Road safety is an important concern amidst expanding worldwide access to legal cannabis. The present study reports on the driving-related subsection of the Cannabis as Medicine Survey 2020 (CAMS-20) which surveyed driving-related behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions among Australian medical cannabis (MC) users. Of the 1063 respondents who reported driving a motor vehicle in the past 12 months, 28% (297/1063) reported driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC). Overall, 49-56% of respondents said they typically drive within 6 h of MC use, depending on the route of administration (oral or inhaled). Non-medical cannabis (NMC) was perceived to be more impairing for driving than MC. Binary logistic regression revealed associations between likelihood of DUIC and (1) inhaled routes of cannabis administration, (2) THC-dominant products, (3) illicit rather than prescribed use, (4) believing NMC does not impair driving, and (5) not being deterred by roadside drug testing. Overall, these findings suggest there is a relatively low perception of driving-related risk among MC users. Targeted education programs may be needed to highlight the potential risks associated with DUIC, and further research is needed to determine whether driving performance is differentially affected by MC and NMC.

Medical cannabis laws lower individual market health insurance premiums

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the impact of medical cannabis laws (MCLs) on health insurance premiums. We study whether cannabis legalization significantly impacts aggregate health insurer premiums in the individual market. Increases in utilization could have spillover effects to patients in the form of higher health insurance premiums.

METHODS

We use 2010-2021 state-level U.S. private health insurer financial data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. We examined changes to individual market health insurance premiums after the implementation of medical cannabis laws. We employed a robust difference-in-differences estimator that accounted for variation in policy timing to exploit temporal and geographic variation in state-level medical cannabis legalization.

RESULTS

Seven years after the implementation of Medical Cannabis laws, we observe lower health insurer premiums in the individual market. Starting seven years post-MCL implementation, we find a reduction of $-1662.7 (95% confidence interval [CI -2650.1, -605.7]) for states which implemented MCLs compared to the control group, a reduction of -$1541.8 (95% confidence interval [CI 2602.1, -481.4]) in year 8, and a reduction of $-1625.8, (95% confidence interval [CI -2694.2, -557.5]) in year 9. Due to the nature of insurance pooling and community rating, these savings are appreciated by cannabis users and non-users alike in states that have implemented MCLs.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of MCLs lowers individual-market health insurance premiums. Health insurance spending, including premiums, comprises between 16% and 34% of household budgets in the United States. As healthcare costs continue to rise, our findings suggest that households that obtain their health insurance on the individual (i.e., not employer sponsored) market in states with MCLs appreciate significantly lower premiums.

Collisions and cannabis: Measuring the effect of recreational marijuana legalization on traffic crashes in Washington State

OBJECTIVE

Washington State was among the first states in the US to legalize recreational consumption and retail sales of marijuana. Recreational use of cannabis was legalized December 6, 2012, following the passage of Initiative 502 30 days prior. Roughly 19 months later the first retail cannabis stores opened their doors for public sales ("commercialization"). I measure the impact of cannabis legalization and commercialization on traffic collisions in Washington State.

METHODS

With county-level vehicle crash data from the Washington State Department of Transportation collected monthly, I utilize an interrupted time-series framework with Poisson estimation to compare traffic collisions with recreational retail cannabis sales revenue from 2011 (three years pre-commercialization) through 2017 (three years post-commercialization). First, I measure the shift in collisions brought about by Washington's 2012 cannabis legalization. Then, I compare retail cannabis sales-a measure of commercialization-to traffic collisions based on severity of injury (fatal, severe injury, minor injury, non-injury, and all).

RESULTS

After controlling for confounding factors, evidence suggests that recreational cannabis legalization led to fewer fatal and serious injury collisions. Retail cannabis sales generally correlate with more traffic collisions, particularly for less severe (minor injury) crashes. These findings are robust to the inclusion of additional control variables pertaining to county-level cannabis usage and driving behavior while intoxicated.

CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis legalization led to fewer fatal, serious, and minor injury collisions. Commercialization (cannabis sales) correlated with an increase in less severe crashes. Although cannabis use generally increased in Washington State following legalization/commercialization, survey data suggest that driving behavior while under the influence of cannabis did not change significantly over the post-commercialization period. Future research should focus on measuring the dose-dependent impact of cannabis consumption on traffic collisions. This should include recognition of the importance of cannabis dosing, timing, and route of consumption. Lastly, the dangers of poly-drug driving-particularly cannabis and alcohol-are well established and should be high priority for further research.

Adult use of highly-potent Δ9-THC cannabis concentrate products by U.S. state cannabis legalization status, 2021

BACKGROUND

Compared to plant/flower cannabis products, cannabis concentrates have higher average potency of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), which may be associated with greater likelihood of cannabis-related harms. Information on factors associated with use of cannabis concentrates is needed.

METHODS

Respondents were 4,328 adult past-7-day cannabis users from all 50 U.S. states and Washington DC (DC) who participated in an online 2021 survey. Using logistic regression to generate adjusted odds ratios (aOR), we investigated whether participants in states that enacted recreational cannabis laws (RCL, 12 states plus DC [treated as a state], n = 1,236) or medical cannabis laws (MCL-only, 23 states, n = 2,030) by December 31, 2020 were more likely than those in states without cannabis laws (no-CL, 15 states, n = 1,062) to use cannabis concentrate products in the prior 7 days.

RESULTS

Most participants (92.4%) used plant material in the prior 7 days; 57.0% used cannabis concentrates. In RCL, MCL and no-CL states, concentrate use was reported by 61.5%, 56.6%, and 52.5%, respectively. Compared to participants in no-CL states, odds of using cannabis concentrate products were greater among those in RCL states (aOR = 1.47; CI = 1.17-1.84) and MCL-only states (aOR = 1.29; CI = 1.08-1.55). Whether states had legally-authorized dispensaries had little effect on results.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that individuals in MCL-only and RCL states are more likely to use cannabis concentrate products. Determining mechanisms underlying these results, e.g., commercialization, could provide important information for prevention. Clinicians should be alert to patient use of concentrates, especially in MCL-only and RCL states. Continued monitoring is warranted as additional states legalize cannabis use.

The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalization and Legalization on Road Safety Outcomes: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

There is substantial debate concerning the impact of cannabis decriminalization and legalization on road safety outcomes.

METHODS

Seven databases were systematically searched: Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO through Ovid as well as Web of Science Core Collection, SafetyLit, Criminal Justice Database (ProQuest), and Transport Research International Documentation (from inception to June 16, 2021). Eligible primary studies examined group-level cannabis decriminalization or legalization and a road safety outcome in any population.

RESULTS

A total of 65 reports of 64 observational studies were eligible, including 39 that applied a quasi-experimental design. Studies examined recreational cannabis legalization (n=50), medical cannabis legalization (n=22), and cannabis decriminalization (n=5). All studies except 1 used data from the U.S. or Canada. Studies found mixed impacts of legalization on attitudes, beliefs, and self-reported driving under the influence. Medical legalization, recreational legalization, and decriminalization were associated with increases in positive cannabis tests among drivers. Few studies examined impacts on alcohol or other drug use, although findings suggested a decrease in positive alcohol tests among drivers associated with medical legalization. Medical legalization was associated with reductions in fatal motor-vehicle collisions, whereas recreational legalization was conversely associated with increases in fatal collisions.

DISCUSSION

Increased cannabis positivity may reflect changes in cannabis use; however, it does not in itself indicate increased impaired driving. Subgroups impacted by medical and recreational legalization, respectively, likely explain opposing findings for fatal collisions. More research is needed concerning cannabis decriminalization; the impacts of decriminalization and legalization on nonfatal injuries, alcohol and other drugs; and the mechanisms by which legalization impacts road safety outcomes.

Does expanding access to cannabis affect traffic crashes? County-level evidence from recreational marijuana dispensary sales in Colorado

This article examines the effect of recreational cannabis dispensary sales on traffic crashes by employing difference-in-differences model that exploits the variation in the timing of recreational marijuana dispensary entry across counties within Colorado. Using marijuana-related hospital discharge as a measure of marijuana abuse/misuse, the results indicate a sizable rise in marijuana-related hospital discharges after the entry of retail cannabis stores. However, there is a lack of evidence that traffic crash incidents are affected by the entry. The preferred estimate suggests that, at 90% confidence level, a large increase in traffic crashes by more than 5% can be ruled out.

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.

Admissions to substance use treatment facilities for cannabis use disorder, 2000-2017: Does legalization matter?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A growing number of US states have legalized marijuana use in the past decade. We examined if marijuana legalization is associated with increased marijuana-related admissions to substance use treatment facilities between 2000 and 2017.

METHODS

Data from the Treatment Episode Data Set-Admissions were used to examine the relationship between marijuana-related admissions among adults aged ≥18 by year and legalization status (i.e., fully legalized, medical use only [partially legalized], and illegal) (N = 35,457,854). Using interaction analyses, we further examined whether certain patient characteristics were associated with residence in states that legalized marijuana use as compared to those in which marijuana remained illegal.

RESULTS

Overall, the proportion of marijuana-related admissions in states with legalization decreased by 2.3% from 31.7% in 2000-2005 to 29.4% in 2012-2017 (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.89-0.90) with little difference from states where marijuana use remained illegal, in which marijuana use as any reason for admissions decreased by 0.3% from 39.8% in 2000-2005 to 39.5% in 2012-2017 (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99). We did not find any striking patient characteristics (e.g., referral by the police) associated with admissions in states that legalized compared to those that had not.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

While earlier studies suggested that marijuana legalization is associated with increased levels of use, emergency department visits, and traffic fatalities, our findings suggest that marijuana legalization did not increase marijuana-related treatment use in the United States.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

This is the first study to examine the association of marijuana legalization with marijuana-related treatment use.

Changes in Traffic Crash Rates After Legalization of Marijuana: Results by Crash Severity

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the effects of marijuana legalization and the subsequent onset of retail sales on injury and fatal traffic crash rates in the United States during the period 2009-2019.

METHOD

State-by-state quarterly crash rates per mile of travel were modeled as a function of time, unemployment rate, maximum posted speed limit, seat belt use rate, alcohol use rate, percent of miles driven on rural roads, and indicators of legalized recreational marijuana use and sales.

RESULTS

Legalization of the recreational use of marijuana was associated with a 6.5% increase in injury crash rates and a 2.3% increase in fatal crash rates, but the subsequent onset of retail marijuana sales did not elicit additional substantial changes. Thus, the combined effect of legalization and retail sales was a 5.8% increase in injury crash rates and a 4.1% increase in fatal crash rates. Across states, the effects on injury crash rates ranged from a 7% decrease to an 18% increase. The effects on fatal crash rates ranged from a 10% decrease to a 4% increase.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimated increases in injury and fatal crash rates after recreational marijuana legalization are consistent with earlier studies, but the effects varied across states. Because this is an early look at the time trends, researchers and policymakers need to continue monitoring the data.

Changes in Traffic Crash Rates After Legalization of Marijuana: Results by Crash Severity

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the effects of marijuana legalization and the subsequent onset of retail sales on injury and fatal traffic crash rates in the United States during the period 2009-2019.

METHOD

State-by-state quarterly crash rates per mile of travel were modeled as a function of time, unemployment rate, maximum posted speed limit, seat belt use rate, alcohol use rate, percent of miles driven on rural roads, and indicators of legalized recreational marijuana use and sales.

RESULTS

Legalization of the recreational use of marijuana was associated with a 6.5% increase in injury crash rates and a 2.3% increase in fatal crash rates, but the subsequent onset of retail marijuana sales did not elicit additional substantial changes. Thus, the combined effect of legalization and retail sales was a 5.8% increase in injury crash rates and a 4.1% increase in fatal crash rates. Across states, the effects on injury crash rates ranged from a 7% decrease to an 18% increase. The effects on fatal crash rates ranged from a 10% decrease to a 4% increase.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimated increases in injury and fatal crash rates after recreational marijuana legalization are consistent with earlier studies, but the effects varied across states. Because this is an early look at the time trends, researchers and policymakers need to continue monitoring the data.

Do opioid prescriptions lead to fatal car crashes?

Widespread opioid misuse suggests a potential for increased fatal car crashes. However, opioid use may not necessarily lead to additional crashes if drivers respond to opioid prevalence by substituting away from more inebriating intoxicants like alcohol. Combining data on local opioid prescription rates and car crashes from the Fatality Analysis and Reporting System, we use two-way fixed effects models to test the direction of the association between prescribing intensity and crash fatalities between 2007 and 2016. We estimate that a 10 percent increase in the local prescription rate is associated with a 1 percent increase in the number of driver deaths in motor vehicle accidents. The association is robust to several model specifications, and isolated to drivers most affected by the opioid crisis: males and 25 to 34 year-olds.

Relationships of Cannabis Policy Liberalization With Alcohol Use and Co-Use With Cannabis: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE

The liberalization of cannabis policies has the potential to affect the use of other substances and the harms from using them, particularly alcohol. Although a previous review of this literature found conflicting results regarding the relationship between cannabis policy and alcohol-related outcomes, cannabis policies have continued to evolve rapidly in the years since that review.

SEARCH METHODS

The authors conducted a narrative review of studies published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, that assessed the effects of cannabis policies on the use of alcohol in the United States or Canada.

SEARCH RESULTS

The initial search identified 3,446 unique monographs. Of these, 23 met all inclusion criteria and were included in the review, and five captured simultaneous or concurrent use of alcohol and cannabis.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Associations between cannabis policy liberalization and alcohol use, alcohol-related outcomes, and the co-use of alcohol and cannabis were inconclusive, with studies finding positive associations, no associations, and negative associations. Although several studies found that cannabis policy liberalization was associated with decreases in alcohol use measures, these same studies showed no impact of the cannabis policy on cannabis use itself. The lack of a consistent association was robust to subject age, outcome measure (e.g., use, medical utilization, driving), and type of cannabis policy; however, this may be due to the small number of studies for each type of outcome. This paper discusses several notable limitations of the evidence base and offers suggestions for improving consistency and comparability of research going forward, including a stronger classification of cannabis policy, inclusion of measures of the alcohol policy environment, verification of the impact of cannabis policy on cannabis use, and consideration of mediation effects.

Societal Costs and Outcomes of Medical and Recreational Marijuana Policies in the United States: A Systematic Review

Significant support exists in the United States for legalization of marijuana/cannabis. As of 2021, 36 states and four territories approved the legalization of medical cannabis via medical marijuana laws (MMLs), and 15 states and District of Columbia (DC) have adopted recreational marijuana laws (RMLs). We performed structured and systematic searches of articles published from 2010 through September 2021. We assess the literature pertaining to adolescent marijuana use; opioid use and opioid-related outcomes; alcohol use; tobacco use; illicit and other drug use; marijuana growing and cultivation; employment, earnings, and other workplace outcomes; academic achievement and performance; criminal activity; perceived harmfulness; traffic and road safety; and suicide and sexual activity. Overall, 113 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. Except for opioids, studies on use of other substances (illicit drugs, tobacco, and alcohol) were inconclusive. MMLs and RMLs do not generate negative outcomes in the labor market, lead to greater criminal activity, or reduce traffic and road safety.

Use of highly-potent cannabis concentrate products: More common in U.S. states with recreational or medical cannabis laws

BACKGROUND

Highly-potent cannabis products, e.g., concentrates, entail greater risks of cannabis-related harms than lower-potency products such as plant or flower material. However, little information is available on whether individuals in U.S. states with recreational cannabis laws (RCL) or medical cannabis laws (MCL) are more likely than individuals in U.S. states without cannabis legalization (no-CL) to use highly-potent forms of cannabis.

METHODS

Cannabis-using adults in a 2017 online survey (N = 4064) provided information on state of residence and past-month cannabis use, including types of products used, categorized as low-potency (smoked or vaped plant cannabis) or high-potency (vaping or dabbing concentrates). Multivariable logistic regression models generated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for use of high-potency cannabis products by state cannabis legalization status (RCL, MCL, no-CL).

RESULTS

Compared to participants in no-CL states, participants in RCL states had greater odds of using high-potency concentrate products (aOR=2.61;CI=1.77-3.86), as did participants in MCL-only states (aOR=1.55;CI=1.21-1.97). When participants in RCL states and MCL states were directly compared, those in RCL states had greater odds of using high-potency concentrate products (aOR=1.69;CI=1.27-2.42).

DISCUSSION

Although the sample was not nationally representative and the cross-sectional data precluded determining the direction of effect, results suggest that use of high-potency cannabis concentrates is more likely among those in RCL states. Clinicians in RCL states should screen cannabis users for harmful patterns of use. Policymakers in states that do not yet have RCL should consider these findings when drafting new cannabis laws, including the specific products permitted and how best to regulate them.

Trends in Cannabis Involvement and Risk of Alcohol Involvement in Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities in the United States, 2000‒2018

Objectives. To assess cannabis and alcohol involvement among motor vehicle crash (MVC) fatalities in the United States. Methods. In this repeated cross-sectional analysis, we used data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System from 2000 to 2018. Fatalities were cannabis-involved if an involved driver tested positive for a cannabinoid and alcohol-involved based on the highest blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of an involved driver. Multinomial mixed-effects logistic regression models assessed cannabis as a risk factor for alcohol by BAC level. Results. While trends in fatalities involving alcohol have remained stable, the percentage of fatalities involving cannabis and cannabis and alcohol increased from 9.0% in 2000 to 21.5% in 2018, and 4.8% in 2000 to 10.3% in 2018, respectively. In adjusted analyses, fatalities involving cannabis had 1.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.48, 1.65), 1.62 (95% CI = 1.52, 1.72), and 1.46 (95% CI = 1.42, 1.50) times the odds of involving BACs of 0.01% to 0.049%, 0.05% to 0.079%, and 0.08% or higher, respectively. Conclusions. The percentage of fatalities involving cannabis and coinvolving cannabis and alcohol doubled from 2000 to 2018, and cannabis was associated with alcohol coinvolvement. Further research is warranted to understand cannabis- and alcohol-involved MVC fatalities. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(11):1976-1985. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306466).

Medicinal cannabis and driving: the intersection of health and road safety policy

BACKGROUND

Recent shifting attitudes towards the medical use of cannabis has seen legal access pathways established in many jurisdictions in North America, Europe and Australasia. However, the positioning of cannabis as a legitimate medical product produces some tensions with other regulatory frameworks. A notable example of this is the so-called 'zero tolerance' drug driving legal frameworks, which criminalise the presence of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) in a driver's bodily fluids irrespective of impairment. Here we undertake an analysis of this policy issue based on a case study of the introduction of medicinal cannabis in Australia.

METHODS

We examine the regulatory approaches used for managing road safety risks associated with potentially impairing prescription medicines and illicit drugs in Australian jurisdictions, as well as providing an overview of evidence relating to cannabis and road safety risk, unintended impacts of the 'zero-tolerance' approach on patients, and the regulation of medicinal cannabis and driving in comparable jurisdictions.

RESULTS

Road safety risks associated with medicinal cannabis appear similar or lower than numerous other potentially impairing prescription medications. The application of presence-based offences to medicinal cannabis patients appears to derive from the historical status of cannabis as a prohibited drug with no legitimate medical application. This approach is resulting in patient harms including criminal sanctions when not impaired and using the drug as directed by their doctor, or the forfeiting of car use and related mobility. Others who need to drive are excluded from accessing a needed medication and associated therapeutic benefit. 'Medical exemptions' for medicinal cannabis in comparable jurisdictions and other drugs included in presence offences in Australia (e.g. methadone) demonstrate a feasible alternative approach.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that in medical-only access models there is little evidence to justify the differential treatment of medicinal cannabis patients, compared with those taking other prescription medications with potentially impairing effects.

Demographic and policy-based differences in behaviors and attitudes towards driving after marijuana use: an analysis of the 2013-2017 Traffic Safety Culture Index

OBJECTIVE

Marijuana policies in the United States have become more permissive, motivating research on demographic and policy-based differences in behaviors and attitudes towards driving after marijuana use. The Traffic Safety Culture Index is an annual survey with national scope and multiple measures relevant to driving after marijuana use. We tabulated responses to questions about driving after marijuana use from the Traffic Safety Culture Index based on demographic factors, recreational and medical marijuana policies, and per-se marijuana laws.

RESULTS

Male, younger, lower-income, and lower-education respondents self-reported driving after marijuana use more than their demographic counterparts, more often reported such behavior to be personally acceptable, and exhibited lower support per-se laws. Drivers in states that legalized medical marijuana self-reported driving after marijuana use slightly more than drivers in states where both medical and recreational were illegal. Support for per-se laws was higher among those in states that legalized recreational marijuana and in states with per-se laws. Demographic differences in our outcomes were consistent and cohesive. On the other hand, we found no predominant pattern suggesting that those in states with liberal marijuana policies were more tolerant of driving after marijuana use.

Expanding legal treatment options for medical marijuana in the State of Louisiana

Background: The use of cannabis for ‘medical’ purposes has expanded throughout the USA. Despite the limited peer-reviewed medical research, medical marijuana therapy has been to treat chronic pain, stimulate appetite, treat nausea, and ameliorate muscle spasticity.

Challenge: In the state of Louisiana, this potential treatment is strictly controlled. The ability of the individual patient to receive this therapy is limited since any prescribing provider had to be both licensed by the state medical board and registered with the board to prescribe medical marijuana. Medical cannabis could be used only for limited medical disorders. The ‘Medical Marijuana’ HB819 bill authorizes the recommendation of medical marijuana for additional conditions and allows any state-licensed physician to recommend/prescribe medical marijuana.

Alternative options: The government may consider working with the state medical board to lessen its regulation allowing a collaborative effort to formalize protocols for safe prescribing of medical marijuana. A more liberal option would be to make it available to the consumer over the counter, while a state tracking mechanism is set in place to limit the amount purchased.

Conclusions: Two stakeholders pertaining to this new legislation to focus on are the Louisiana State government and healthcare providers. This law probably has the biggest impact on healthcare providers and their relationship to patients. This legislation may allow providers to have more ‘freedom in medical marijuana treatment plans’. These benefits would be monitored using such criteria as cost, access to care, as well as patient and healthcare provider satisfaction.

Legalizing Medical Cannabis in Lebanon: the Complex Interface Between Medicine, Law, Ethics, and Economics

In April 2020, after decades of discussions and controversy, the Lebanese parliament voted a law legalizing the cultivation, production, and sale of cannabis for medicinal purposes. Although the law leaves several unanswered questions and awaits implementation, the symbolic nature of this step in recognizing a positive role of cannabis in the local economy is significant on a regional level. The Arab world has traditionally been conservative when it comes to all drugs-related policies. Cannabis is largely demonized with heavy sentences served to anyone suspected of using selling, let alone planting cannabis. Despite a few countries considered producers and consumers of substances, governing authorities have remained immune to the liberalization trend encountered in western countries. The social experiment taking place in Lebanon is fraught with risks, given the unstable political situation and chronic economic challenges. The reactions to the law have been mixed with several scientific bodies such as the Lebanese Psychiatric Society criticizing the absence of proper consultation of stakeholders. The absence of consistency in enforcing established drugs policies or seriously debating the decriminalization of cannabis use raises concerns over the establishment of a two-tier approach toward drugs, driven solely by economic imperatives.

Self-reported driving after marijuana use in association with medical and recreational marijuana policies

BACKGROUND

A common concern surrounding increasingly permissive marijuana policies in the US is that they will lead to more dangerous behavior, including driving after marijuana use. Although there is considerable research on the effects of marijuana policies on behaviours, few studies have examined self-reported driving after marijuana use. In this study, we use data from the Traffic Safety Culture Index (TSCI) to model self-reported past-year driving after marijuana use in association with medical and recreational marijuana policies.

METHODS

We analysed individual responses to annual administrations of TSCI from years 2013-2017 using a multiple logistic regression model. Our outcome variable was self-reported past-year driving after marijuana use (at least once vs. never), and our primary explanatory variable was the respondents' state medical marijuana (MM) and recreational marijuana (RM) policy. Additional explanatory variables include policies that specify thresholds for marijuana-intoxicated driving, year, and demographic factors.

RESULTS

Drivers in states that legalized MM but not RM had marginally higher odds of self-reporting driving after marijuana use compared to drivers in states where both RM and MM were illegal (adjusted OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.98, 1.70; p = 0.075). However, we found little evidence that drivers in states that legalized both RM and MM had higher odds of driving after marijuana use compared to drivers in states where both RM and MM were illegal (adjusted OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.71, 1.56; p = 0.784). Per-se or THC threshold laws were associated with lower self-reported driving after marijuana use (adjusted OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.57, 0.95; p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

Although we found some evidence of an association between MM legalization and self-reported driving after marijuana use, our results provide only mixed support for the hypothesis that permissive marijuana policies are associated with higher odds of self-reported driving after marijuana use.

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.

Acute Effects of Cannabis Concentrate on Motor Control and Speed: Smartphone-Based Mobile Assessment

Background: The use of cannabis concentrate is dramatically rising and sparking major safety concerns. Cannabis concentrate contains tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) potencies up to 90%, yet there has been little research on motor impairment after concentrate use (commonly referred to as "dabbing"). This study measured postural control and motor speed after the use of high potency concentrates in males and females. Methods: Experienced concentrate users (N = 65, Female: 46%, 17 ± 11 days/month of concentrate use) were assessed for motor performance in a mobile laboratory before, immediately after, and 1 h after ad-libitum cannabis concentrate use. Plasma levels of THC were obtained via venipuncture at each timepoint. We used a remotely deployable motor performance battery to assess arm and leg movement speed, index finger tapping rate, and balance. The sensors on a smart device (iPod Touch) attached to the participant provided quantitative measures of movement. Results: Arm speed slowed immediately after concentrate use and remained impaired after 1 h (p < 0.001), leg speed slowed 1 h after use (p = 0.033), and balance decreased immediately after concentrate use (eyes open: p = 0.017, eyes closed: p = 0.013) but not at 1 h post-use. These effects were not different between sexes and there was no effect of concentrate use on finger tapping speed. Acute changes in THC plasma levels after use of concentrates were minimally correlated with acute changes in balance performance. Conclusions: Use of cannabis concentrates in frequent users impairs movement speed and balance similarly in men and women. The motor impairment is largely uncorrelated with the change in THC plasma levels. These results warrant further refinement of cannabis impairment testing and encourage caution related to use of cannabis concentrates in work and driving settings.