Search

Background: Ten U.S. states, Canada, and Uruguay have passed laws to legalize the production and sale of cannabis for non-medical purposes. Available research has documented rapidly falling prices and changing product mixes, but many details are not well understood: particularly, the popularity, prices, and product characteristics of different cannabis edibles and extract-based products - each offering different ways to consume cannabis, with unclear health consequences.Methods: This paper analyzes data from Washington's recreational cannabis market, which has recorded over 110 million retail item-transactions from July 2014 to October 2017. Previous research on price and product trends has focused mostly on herbal cannabis, which accounts for the majority, but a decreasing share, of sales. This paper applies advanced text-analytic methods to provide new insights, including (A) estimating potency data for edibles and (B) identifying extract sub-types. Patterns and trends are described, across product types, regarding THC and CBD profiles and price per THC.Results: Extracts accounted for 28.5% of sales in October 2017. Of extracts categorized to subtype, nearly half were identified as "dabs", and another half "cartridges". In October 2017, price per 10 mg THC was roughly $3 among edibles, 70 cents among extract cartridges, and 30-40 cents for other flower and other extracts; solid concentrates offered the lowest priced THC among extract products. Price declines continue but have slowed. High-CBD chemovars are becoming more common, but still are almost non-existent in flower marijuana and rare (1% of sales) among extract products.Conclusion: As Washington's recreational cannabis market has developed over three and a half years, trends identified in that market may serve as an early indication of potential issues in other states. Legislators and regulators in other jurisdictions with commercial non-medical cannabis markets may wish to establish policies responsive to these trends in product popularity, price, and potency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper includes the voices of people who are members of a peer-led drug user group (SNAP) in Canada who are receiving heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) outside of a clinical trial. Drawing from critical drug studies, we problematize the criteria for severe opioid use disorder (OUD) from the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, by exploring SNAP members' experiences in relation to heroin-assisted treatment, and examining how SNAP participants' narratives challenge conventional notions of what constitutes severe opioid use disorder.Method: Drawing on critical analysis and research guidelines developed by drug user unions and organizations, and critical methodological frameworks on ethical community-based-and-responsive research for social justice, in this paper we focus on semi-structured interviews conducted with 36 SNAP members at the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users site in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, Canada. We included opened ended questions about experiences prior to receiving HAT, experiences while receiving HAT, experiences of drug use and cessation, and future hopes.Results: Although SNAP participants were diagnosed as suffering from OUD, the DSM-5 criteria for OUD fails to encompass their diverse experiences of opioid use. Nor does the DSM diagnosis capture the complexities of their lived experience. The DSM OUD constructs an idea of addiction and the addicted person based on a list of symptoms thought to be associated with extended use of opioids. The problem with this is that many of these "symptoms" of drug use are, in the case of SNAP participants, tied to contextual issues of living in the DTES, experiencing structural vulnerability, and being the target of punitive drug policies and laws.Conclusion: To label someone as having a severe disorder shifts the focus from political and social issues, including the lived experiences of people who use heroin. The DSM-5 de-contextualizes drug use. How addiction and heroin are constituted has political implications that will determine what types of services and programs will be set up. Treating a disorder, or a person with a disorder, requires a much different approach than understanding heroin use as a habit. SNAP, and their allies, are rupturing conventional ideas about heroin and taken for granted assumptions about people who use heroin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]