Medical Marijuana Legalization and Co-use in Adult Cigarette Smokers

Nicotine and Alcohol Use as Predictors of Recreational Cannabis Use in Adolescence: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

Background: The prevalence of recreational cannabis use among adolescents is a growing public health concern due to its link to short- and long-term adverse effects on adolescents' wellbeing, physical health, mental health, and interpersonal behaviors. Method: Five databases were searched from inception to March 17, 2023, for exposure (nicotine product, alcohol) and outcome (recreational cannabis) in adolescents (persons aged 10-19 years). The studies were screened independently by two reviewers, and the quality of the studies was assessed with Newcastle Ottawa and AXIS tool. PRISMA guidelines were employed in this review. Result: Twenty-one (21) studies involving 2,778,406 adolescents were included in the appraisal and heterogeneity was found among these studies. Ascertainment bias was commonly detected in thirteen (13) of the included studies. Among the substances examined as potential exposures, nicotine-product use emerged as a significant factor associated with future cannabis use among adolescents, particularly in mid-adolescence and in places where recreational cannabis use has been legalized. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests an association between nicotine-product use and subsequent recreational cannabis use among adolescents. However, further research is needed to establish causality between exposure to nicotine substances and the use of recreational cannabis within this age demographic. Additionally, there is a need for the development of prevention programs and targeted policies that continuously inform and update this vulnerable sub-population about the risks associated with cannabis use for leisure.

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.

Unknown population-level harms of cannabis and tobacco co-use: if you don't measure it, you can't manage it

BACKGROUND

Nationally representative data of cannabis-tobacco co-use have shown that these substances are closely entwined and have significant adverse health consequences, although population-level harms of co-use are largely unknown. Current epidemiological research does not assess co-use in a manner that has yielded the necessary data to draw conclusions regarding health effects. This has given rise to a hidden population of co-users who go under-served. Therefore, this paper has two aims: (1) to review new challenges in the collection of co-use data due to rapidly changing regulations of cannabis and nicotine products and (2) to provide recommendations for the terminology and assessment of co-use.

ARGUMENT

We argue that: (1) the prevalence of co-use is not being assessed accurately at a population level and (2) changes in legalization have created novel challenges, but without proper monitoring the impact on co-use will go undetected. We propose a three-level tiered set of recommendations for co-use assessments, which includes assessments of cannabis, tobacco and co-use metrics ranging from least burdensome (self-report of co-administered products) to most burdensome (assays, event-level data).

CONCLUSIONS

We propose that clinical studies begin to incorporate cannabis-tobacco co-use assessments to justify better their inclusion in clinical trials and national surveillance surveys. Integration of co-use assessments will aid in understanding the true impact on co-use of the changing cannabis and tobacco/nicotine regulatory environments. Co-use is prevalent and problematic, and the ability to make conclusions about its health outcomes is hindered by lack of nuance in data collection. If you do not measure it, you cannot manage it.

Relationship between Comorbid Drug Use Disorders, Affective Disorders, and Current Smoking

This study aimed to identify subgroups of adults based on comorbid psychiatric disorders and to examine the relationship with current smoking. Method: The National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III, 2012-2013, sampled, recruited, and assessed 36,309 adults, with interviews on drug use and other characteristics. The Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule DSM-5 Version (AUDADIS-5) was used to identify psychiatric conditions. Latent class models were developed based on various psychiatric diagnoses. Multinomial logistic regression estimated the significance of covariates in predicting class membership. Results: Four latent classes optimally distinguished the population: no comorbid conditions (63%), comorbid affective disorders (16%), those with alcohol use disorder (AUD; 17%), and a highly comorbid subgroup (i.e., co-occurring affective and drug use disorders; 4%). Current smoking was about twice as prevalent in the classes defined by psychiatric conditions compared to the group with no comorbid conditions. The highly comorbid class was more likely to be current smokers than the comorbid affective disorders class and the AUD class. Furthermore, the highly comorbid class was younger and had lower income, and the AUD class had a higher proportion of males than the other classes. Conclusions: Cigarette smoking was higher in the nearly 40% of respondents characterized by psychiatric disorders, particularly those with drug use disorders. Correlates of membership in these classes were consistent with known vulnerabilities for smoking, highlighting the need for mental health interventions and future research to explicitly address tobacco cessation in clinical settings based on psychiatric diagnoses.

Tobacco quitline engagement and outcomes among primary care patients reporting use of tobacco or dual tobacco and cannabis: An observational study

Background: Dual use of tobacco and cannabis is increasingly common, but it is unclear how it impacts individuals' interest in or ability to stop smoking. If dual users fail to engage in treatment or have worse treatment outcomes, it would suggest that tobacco treatment programs may need to be tailored to the specific needs of those using cannabis and tobacco. Methods: We conducted an observational study using electronic treatment records from adults (18 years and older) who (a) were enrolled in a regional healthcare system in Washington state, (b) sought tobacco cessation treatment through an insurance-covered quitline from July 2016 to December 2018 and (c) had cannabis use frequency during the period of their quitline enrollment documented in their electronic health record (EHR) (n = 1,390). Treatment engagement was defined by the total number of quitline counseling calls and web-logins completed. Point prevalent self-reported tobacco abstinence was assessed 6 months post-quitline enrollment. Results: Thirty-two percent of participants (n = 441) reported dual use of tobacco and any cannabis during the observation period; 9.4% (n = 130) reported daily cannabis use. Among dual users reporting daily cannabis use, 13.9% had a diagnosed cannabis user disorder in the EHR. Neither engagement with quitline counseling nor long-term tobacco abstinence rates differed between those using tobacco-only and either dual-use group (i.e., persons using any cannabis or daily cannabis). Conclusions: Dual use of tobacco and cannabis is common among smokers seen in primary care and those enrolling in quitline care, but it may not undermine tobacco quitline engagement or smoking cessation. Opportunities exist in the US to leverage quitlines to identify and intervene with dual users of tobacco and cannabis.HIGHLIGHTSTobacco quitline care was equally engaging and effective among tobacco users and dual users of tobacco and cannabisMany daily cannabis users calling tobacco quitlines likely have a cannabis use disorderTobacco quitlines can be leveraged to identify and intervene with dual users of tobacco and cannabis.

Correlates of lifetime blunt/spliff use among cigarette smokers in substance use disorders treatment

BACKGROUND

Co-use of tobacco and cannabis has been associated with greater dependence on and lower quit rates for both substances. Tobacco/cannabis co-use among individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs), a population with high rates of cigarette smoking, may hinder the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions. We examined rates of lifetime (i.e., ever vs. never) cannabis use among current cigarette smokers in SUD treatment, and we identified the subgroup who had used tobacco and cannabis together in the form of blunts and/or spliffs. We then examined variables associated with lifetime use of blunts and/or spliffs.

METHODS

We surveyed 562 clients in 20 residential SUD treatment programs in California, USA, in 2019. Measures included demographics, lifetime use of any cannabis product, lifetime use of blunt/spliffs, patterns of tobacco use, and smoking cessation-related questions. We asked current cigarette smokers who also reported lifetime cannabis use whether they had ever used blunts and/or spliffs. We then assessed relationships of demographic, tobacco use, use of cannabis/tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in e-cigarettes/vape pens, and smoking cessation-related variables with ever use versus never use of blunts/spliffs.

RESULTS

Among 340 current cigarette smokers, 93.2% (n = 317) reported lifetime use of any cannabis product. Among current cigarette smokers with lifetime cannabis use, 64.4% reported lifetime blunt/spliff use. Compared to those who had never used blunts/spliffs, lifetime blunt/spliff users were more likely to be younger (OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.90-0.95), more likely to report lifetime use of cigars/cigarillos (OR = 2.95, CI 1.37-6.32), and to have ever used cannabis/THC in e-cigarettes/vape pens (OR = 4.26, CI 1.54-11.80). They were less often ready to quit smoking within 30 days (OR = 0.37, CI 0.23-0.60), but more likely to want help with smoking cessation (OR = 2.39, CI 1.52-3.77).

CONCLUSION

Current cigarette smokers in SUD treatment reported a high prevalence of lifetime cannabis use. Smokers with a history of blunt/spliff use were more likely to report lifetime use of e-cigarettes/vape pens for cannabis/THC delivery. They wanted help to quit smoking, but felt less prepared to quit in the next 30 days. Cannabis co-use may warrant clinicians' attention when providing smoking cessation interventions during SUD treatment.

Research on Youth and Young Adult Tobacco Use, 2013-2018, From the Food and Drug Administration-National Institutes of Health Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science

The Tobacco Regulatory Science Program is a collaborative research effort between the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In 2013, the NIH funded 14 Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS), which serve as partners in establishing research, training, and professional development programs to guide FDA. Each of the fourteen TCORS, and two other NIH-funded research programs, the Center for the Evaluation of Nicotine in Cigarettes (CENIC) and the Consortium on Methods Evaluating Tobacco (COMET), pursued specific research themes relevant to FDA's priorities. A key mandate for FDA is to reduce tobacco use among young people. This article is a review of the peer-reviewed research, including published and in-press manuscripts, from the TCORS, CENIC, and COMET, which provides specific data or other findings on youth (ages 10-18 years) and/or young adults (ages 18-34 years), from 2013 to 2018. Citations of all TCORS, CENIC, and COMET articles from September 2013 to December 2017 were collected by the TCORS coordinating center, the Center for Evaluation and Coordination of Training and Research. Additional citations up to April 30, 2018 were requested from the principal investigators. A scoring rubric was developed and implemented to assess study type, primary theme, and FDA priority area addressed by each article. The major subareas and findings from each priority area are presented. There were 766 articles in total, with 258 (34%) focusing on youth and/or young adults. Findings relevant to FDA from this review concern impact analysis, toxicity, health effects, addiction, marketing influences, communications, and behavior.

IMPLICATIONS

The Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science, CENIC, and COMET have had a high output of scientific articles since 2013. These Centers are unique in that the FDA supports science specifically to guide future regulatory actions. The 258 articles that have focused on youth and/or young adults are providing data for regulatory actions by the FDA related to the key priority areas such as the addictiveness of non-cigarette products, the effects of exposure to electronic cigarette marketing on initiation and cessation, and the impact of flavored products on youth and young adult tobacco use. Future regulations to reduce tobacco use will be guided by the cumulative evidence. These Centers are one innovative mechanism to promote important outcomes to advance tobacco regulatory science.

Inclusion of Cannabis Users in Alcohol Research Samples: Screening In, Screening Out, and Implications

BACKGROUND

Alcohol and cannabis are frequently co-used, as 20-50% of those who drink alcohol report co-using cannabis. This study is based on the argument that alcohol researchers should enroll cannabis users in human laboratory studies of alcohol use disorder (AUD) to strengthen generalizability. This study examines how heavy drinking cannabis users differ from non-cannabis using heavy drinkers.

METHODS

In a community sample of non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers (n = 551, 35% female), cannabis users were identified through: (a) self-reported cannabis use in the past 6 months and (b) positive urine toxicology test for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Cannabis users, identified as described previously, were compared with non-cannabis users on demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Those who endorsed cannabis use in the past 6 months reported more binge drinking days. Participants who tested positive for THC had higher Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test scores and more binge drinking days. Younger age and being a tobacco smoker were associated with an increased likelihood of cannabis use in the past 6 months, whereas male gender and being a tobacco use were associated with a greater likelihood of testing positive for THC. Individuals with cannabis use disorder (CUD) endorsed more depression and anxiety and had higher AUD symptom counts than cannabis users without CUD.

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of cannabis users in AUD samples allows for increased clinical severity. Excluding cannabis users from AUD studies may limit representativeness and expend unnecessary study resources. Lastly, tobacco use may explain a large portion of the effects of cannabis use on sample characteristics.

SHORT SUMMARY

Alcohol and cannabis are frequently co-used substances. In a sample of non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers (n = 551, 35% female), cannabis users reported higher alcohol use and higher likelihood of tobacco use than non-cannabis users. Including cannabis users in alcohol research studies will improve representativeness and likely increase clinical severity.

Guidelines for public health and safety metrics to evaluate the potential harms and benefits of cannabis regulation in Canada

ISSUES

Canada recently introduced a public health-based regulatory framework for non-medical cannabis. This review sought to identify a comprehensive set of indicators to evaluate the public health and safety impact of cannabis regulation in Canada, and to explore the ways in which these indicators may be expected to change in the era of legal non-medical cannabis.

APPROACH

Five scientific databases were searched to compile a list of cannabis-related issues of interest to public health and safety. A set of indicators was developed based on topics and themes that emerged. Preliminary evidence from other jurisdictions in the USA and Canada that have legalised medical and/or non-medical cannabis (e.g. Colorado, Washington) was summarised for each indicator, wherever possible.

KEY FINDINGS

In total, 28 indicators were identified under five broad themes: public safety; cannabis use trends; other substance use trends; cardiovascular and respiratory health; and mental health and cognition. Preliminary trends from other legalised jurisdictions reveal little consensus regarding the effect of cannabis legalisation on public health and safety harms and an emerging body of evidence to support potential benefits (e.g. reductions in opioid use and overdose).

IMPLICATIONS

In addition to indicators of commonly discussed challenges (e.g. cannabis-related hospitalisations, cannabis-impaired driving), this review led to the recommendation of several indicators to monitor for possible public health and safety improvements.

CONCLUSION

In preparing a comprehensive public health and safety monitoring and evaluation system for cannabis regulation, this review underscores the importance of not only measuring the possible risks but also the potential benefits.

Cannabis and tobacco use and co-use: Trajectories and correlates from early adolescence to emerging adulthood

BACKGROUND

Cannabis and tobacco co-use is a growing concern, yet little is known about its developmental course or associated outcomes during emerging adulthood. This study examines developmental trajectories of cannabis and tobacco co-use from adolescence to emerging adulthood, associations of co-use trajectories with four domains of functioning, and differences across racial/ethnic groups.

METHODS

Survey data come from a racially/ethnically diverse and predominantly California-based cohort that completed 10 surveys from 2008 (wave 1: mean age 11.5; n = 6,509) to 2018 (wave 10: mean age 20.7; n = 2,429). Co-use was defined as use of both cannabis and tobacco (cigarettes or smokeless tobacco) in the past 30 days. Trajectories of use were examined using latent growth modeling in a structural equation modeling framework.

RESULTS

Prevalence of cannabis and tobacco co-use increased from 0.3% at wave 1 to 9.5% at wave 10, with average probabilities of co-use higher among non-Hispanic white versus Hispanic or Asian participants. Higher average probability of co-use was associated with greater delinquency, more mental health symptoms, and poorer physical health during emerging adulthood. Higher rate of change in the probability of co-use over time was associated with greater delinquency, but better social functioning and less physical ailments. There was some evidence of racial/ethnic disparities in functioning, even at similar levels of co-use.

CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis and tobacco co-use deserves greater attention, especially regarding its effects on functioning during emerging adulthood. Results also emphasize the need for future research to focus on racial/ethnic disparities related to co-use and associated outcomes.

Alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana consumption is associated with increased odds of same-day substance co- and tri-use

BACKGROUND

Little is known about event-level patterns of marijuana co- or tri-use with alcohol and tobacco. Thus, the study goal was to examine patterns of same-day alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana co- and tri-use at the individual level in non-treatment-seeking alcohol users.

METHODS

Participants (N = 551) completed an in-person interview for alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use over the previous 30 days, and the event-level substance use patterns of n = 179 participants who reported using each of these substances at least once per month were analyzed.

RESULTS

The use of alcohol, marijuana, or cigarettes independently increased the probability of subsequent, simultaneous co-use of one of the two remaining substances. The co-use of alcohol with cigarettes and marijuana with cigarettes produced generally additive effects on the odds of same day tri-use of marijuana and alcohol, respectively. Conversely, the co-use of alcohol and marijuana produced sub-additive effects on likelihood of cigarette use. Sex moderated several of the observed patterns of co- and tri-use: the relationship between alcohol or cigarette use predicting marijuana co-use was stronger in men, whereas the observed additive relationships between drug co-use leading to tri-use was stronger in women.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented results may aid in the understanding of how simultaneous co-use of marijuana with alcohol and/or tobacco relates to the etiology, maintenance, and treatment of comorbid and trimorbid substance use disorder. Replication and extension of the results in treatment seeking populations using more fine-grained analysis approaches, e.g. ecological momentary assessment, is needed.

Is Cannabis Use Associated With Increased Risk of Cigarette Smoking Initiation, Persistence, and Relapse? Longitudinal Data From a Representative Sample of US Adults

OBJECTIVE

The current study prospectively investigated the relationship between cannabis use and cigarette smoking initiation, persistence, and relapse during a 3-year period among adults in the United States.

METHODS

Analyses included respondents who completed Waves 1 (2001-2002) and 2 (2004-2005) of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions and responded to questions about cannabis use and smoking status (n = 34,639). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to calculate the odds of cigarette use at Wave 2 among Wave 1 daily smokers, nondaily smokers, former smokers, and nonsmokers by Wave 1 cannabis use.

RESULTS

In unadjusted analyses, Wave 1 cannabis use was associated with increased odds of Wave 2 daily and nondaily smoking for Wave 1 nonsmokers (daily OR = 2.90; 95% CI, 2.10-4.00; nondaily OR = 4.45; 95% CI, 3.97-5.00) and Wave 2 relapse to daily and nondaily smoking for Wave 1 former smokers (daily OR = 4.18, 95% CI, 3.01-5.81; nondaily OR = 5.24; 95% CI, 3.74-7.34). Wave 1 cannabis use was associated with decreased odds of Wave 2 smoking cessation for Wave 1 daily cigarette smokers (OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.51-0.64). The associations remained significant for daily smoking initiation (OR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.06-1.93), daily smoking relapse (OR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.00-2.16), and smoking cessation (OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69-0.87) after adjusting for demographics and psychiatric disorders. Associations remained significant for nondaily smoking initiation (OR = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.59-2.16) and nondaily smoking relapse (OR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.05-2.54) after adjusting for these covariates as well as for alcohol and substance use disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis use was associated with increased initiation of, persistence of, and relapse to cigarette smoking. Additional attention to cannabis use in tobacco control efforts and in clinical settings aimed at reducing cigarette smoking and smoking-related negative consequences may be warranted.

Cigarette smoking quit ratios among adults in the USA with cannabis use and cannabis use disorders, 2002-2016

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of cigarette smoking is nearly three times higher among persons who use cannabis and have cannabis use disorders (CUDs), relative to those who do not. The current study examined cigarette quit ratios from 2002 to 2016 among US adults with and without cannabis use and CUDs.

METHODS

The current study analysed US adults aged 18 years and older from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, an annual cross-sectional study. Quit ratios (ie, proportion of former smokers among ever-smokers) were calculated annually from 2002 to 2016. Time trends in quit ratios by cannabis use/CUDs were tested using logistic regression.

RESULTS

In 2016, the quit ratios for people with any cannabis use (23%) and CUDs (15%) were less than half the quit ratios of those without cannabis use and CUDs (51% and 48%, respectively). After controlling for demographics and substance use disorders, the quit ratio did not change from 2002 to 2016 among persons with CUD, though it non-linearly increased among persons with cannabis use, without cannabis use and without CUDs. Quit ratios increased more rapidly among those who reported past-month cannabis use compared with those without past-month cannabis use.

CONCLUSIONS

Cigarette smoking quit ratios remain dramatically lower among people who use cannabis and have CUDs and quit ratios did not change significantly from 2002 to 2016 among those with CUDs. Public health and clinical attention are needed to increase quit ratios and reduce harmful cigarette smoking consequences for persons with cannabis use and CUDs.

Sequential and simultaneous treatment approaches to cannabis use disorder and tobacco use

Tobacco smoking among those seeking treatment for cannabis use disorder (CUD) is common and is a negative predictor of cannabis outcomes. Quitting tobacco may be beneficial for those seeking to quit cannabis use. This initial proof of concept, controlled trial was designed to compare a simultaneous versus sequential tobacco intervention among those seeking treatment for CUD. Sixty-seven adults received either a simultaneous (SIM) or sequential (SEQ) approach to tobacco cessation in the context of outpatient treatment for CUD. A tobacco intervention (TI) that combined web-based counseling with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was provided during weeks 1-12 for SIM and was delayed until weeks 13-24 for SEQ. During weeks 1-12, no between-condition significant differences were observed on treatment participation or cannabis use outcomes. The majority of SIM participants initiated TI counseling (62%), 50% made at least one quit attempt and 41% initiated NRT. Interestingly, 39% in SEQ made tobacco quit attempts and 18% initiated NRT on their own before the TI was offered to them. However, only 30% of those in SEQ continued treatment during weeks 13-24, which compromised between-condition comparisons following the TI, but illustrated a potential clinical concern with delaying the TI. Tobacco cessation outcomes generally were poor and did not differ between conditions. This initial controlled trial suggests that addressing tobacco use during CUD treatment is acceptable and generates action towards tobacco cessation. Additional trials testing more intensive TI models may be necessary to identify more efficacious interventions for co-use of cannabis and tobacco.

Marijuana and Prescription Pain Reliever Use among Cigarette Smokers

Due to marijuana's analgesic effects and its growing national legal status, it is likely that marijuana's rising prevalence will impact prescription pain reliever (PPR) use. The present study investigates the relationship between marijuana and PPR use among U.S. adult current cigarette smokers. Data were analyzed from the Tobacco and Attitudes Beliefs Survey II, with 348 current cigarette smokers, aged 24-88. Logistic regression was used to examine the likelihood of current (past 30 days) PPR use by marijuana use (never, ever, and current) among cigarette smokers. Among PPR users (N = 76), we also investigated whether marijuana use frequency predicted current PPR use. Compared to never marijuana users, participants were more likely to report past 30-day PPR use if they have ever used marijuana (AOR: 2.58, 95% CI: 1.51-4.43) or have used marijuana in the past 30 days (AOR: 3.38, CI: 1.76-6.49). No significant relationship was found between marijuana use frequency and PPR use. Thus, in this sample of adult cigarette smokers, past and current marijuana users were two to three times more likely to report PPR use than never marijuana users. These findings can help inform policymakers and healthcare providers in their fight against the opioid epidemic.

Medical marijuana legalization and cigarette and marijuana co-use in adolescents and adults

BACKGROUND

Medical marijuana legalization is associated with a higher prevalence of marijuana use which may affect cigarette use and nicotine dependence in co-users. In the present study, we examined relationships between statewide legalization of medical marijuana and prevalence of cigarette and marijuana co-use and nicotine dependence in co-using adolescents and adults.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. We compared cigarette and marijuana co-use in the past 30days across age categories (12-64 years) by statewide medical marijuana legalization. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of having nicotine dependence among current cigarette smokers who also reported past 30-day marijuana use and "ever but not current" marijuana use (vs. "never" use) adjusting for covariates including statewide legalization of medical marijuana.

RESULTS

Overall, 5.1% of the sample reported past 30-day cigarette and marijuana co-use and a higher proportion of co-users resided in states where medical marijuana was legal compared to illegal (5.8% vs. 4.8%; p=0.0011). Co-use was associated with greater odds of having nicotine dependence compared to cigarette-only use across age categories. Odds were highest and up to 3-times higher in adolescents aged 12-17 years (OR=3.54; 95%CI: 1.81-6.92) and adults aged 50-64 years (OR=3.08; CI: 1.45-6.55).

CONCLUSION

Marijuana policy could inadvertently affect cigarette and marijuana co-use and pose challenges to tobacco cessation.