Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cannabis use disorder (CUD) treatment prevalence decreased in the US between 2002 and 2019, yet structural mechanisms for this decrease are poorly understood. We tested associations between cannabis laws becoming effective and self-reported CUD treatment. Restricted-use 2004–2019 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health included people ages 12+ classified as needing CUD treatment (i.e., past-year DSM-5-proxy CUD or last/current specialty treatment for cannabis). Time-varying indicators of medical cannabis laws (MCL) with/without cannabis dispensary provisions differentiated state-years before/after laws using effective dates. Multi-level logistic regressions with random state intercepts estimated individual- and state-adjusted CUD treatment odds by MCLs and model-based changes in specialty CUD treatment state-level prevalence. Secondary analyses tested associations between CUD treatment and MCL or recreational cannabis laws (RCL). Using a broad treatment need sample definition in 2004–2014, specialty CUD treatment prevalence decreased by 1.35 (95 % CI = −2.51, −0.18) points after MCL without dispensaries and by 2.15 points (95 % CI = −3.29, −1.00) after MCL with dispensaries provisions became effective, compared to before MCL. Among people with CUD in 2004–2014, specialty treatment decreased only in MCL states with dispensary provisions (aPD = −0.91, 95 % CI = −1.68, −0.13). MCL were not associated with CUD treatment use in 2015–2019. RCL were associated with lower CUD treatment among people classified as needing CUD treatment, but not among people with past-year CUD. Policy-related reductions in specialty CUD treatment were concentrated in states with cannabis dispensary provisions in 2004–2014, but not 2015–2019, and partly driven by reductions among people without past-year CUD. Other mechanisms (e.g., CUD symptom identification, criminal-legal referrals) could contribute to decreasing treatment trends. • Specialty CUD treatment decreased in MCL states with dispensary provisions. • RCLs were associated with lower treatment among people needing CUD treatment. • Reductions were concentrated in 2004–2014, with lagged associations in 2015–2019. • CUD treatment remained low across the United States in 2004–2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The authors sought to determine the association of cannabis indicators with self-reported psychotic disorders in the U.S. general population.Methods: Participants were from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC; 2001-2002; N=43,093) and NESARC-III (2012-2013; N=36,309). Logistic regression was used to estimate standardized prevalences of past-year self-reported psychotic disorders within each survey and to evaluate the association of past-year self-reported psychotic disorders with indicators of nonmedical cannabis use (any use; frequent use [at least three times/week], daily/near-daily use, and DSM-IV cannabis use disorder) compared with those with no past-year nonmedical cannabis use. Whether the strength of associations differed between surveys was indicated by difference-in-difference tests (between-survey contrasts) and ratios of odds ratios between surveys.Results: Self-reported psychotic disorders were significantly more prevalent among participants with any nonmedical cannabis use than those without (2001-2002: 1.65% compared with 0.27%; 2012-2013: 1.89% compared with 0.68%). In 2001-2002, self-reported psychotic disorders were unrelated to either frequent use or daily/near-daily use. However, in 2012 - 2013, compared with nonusers, self-reported psychotic disorders were more common among participants with frequent use and those with daily/near-daily nonmedical cannabis use (2012-2013: 2.79% and 2.52%, respectively, compared with 0.68% among nonusers). Self-reported psychotic disorders were significantly more prevalent among participants with cannabis use disorder than nonusers in both surveys (2001-2002: 2.55% compared with 0.27%; 2012 - 2013: 3.38% compared with 0.68%). The strength of these associations did not change over time.Conclusions: Data from the U.S. general population, especially more recent data, suggest associations between self-reported psychotic disorder and frequent nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Clinicians and policy makers should consider these relationships when monitoring patients and formulating programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The authors sought to estimate the prevalence of past-12-month and lifetime cannabis use and cannabis use disorder among U.S. veterans; to describe demographic, substance use disorder, and psychiatric disorder correlates of nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder; and to explore differences in cannabis use and cannabis use disorder prevalence among veterans in states with and without medical marijuana laws.Methods: Participants were 3,119 respondents in the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III) who identified as U.S. veterans. Weighted prevalences were calculated. Logistic regression analyses tested associations of nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder with demographic and clinical correlates and examined whether prevalence differed by state legalization status.Results: The prevalences of any past-12-month cannabis use and cannabis use disorder were 7.3% and 1.8%, respectively. Lifetime prevalences were 32.5% and 5.7%, respectively. Past-12-month and lifetime cannabis use disorder prevalence estimates among nonmedical cannabis users were 24.4% and 17.4%, respectively. Sociodemographic correlates of nonmedical cannabis use and use disorder included younger age, male gender, being unmarried, lower income, and residing in a state with medical marijuana laws. Nonmedical cannabis use and use disorder were associated with most psychiatric and substance use disorders examined.Conclusions: Among veterans, the odds of nonmedical cannabis use and use disorder were elevated among vulnerable subgroups, including those with lower income or psychiatric disorders and among survey participants residing in states with medical marijuana laws. The study findings highlight the need for clinical attention (e.g., screening, assessment) and ongoing monitoring among veterans in the context of increasing legalization of cannabis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]