Search

Aims: To measure the association between state cannabis policies and use among adults and youth in the United States from 2002 to 2019, given rapid policy liberalization and complex state cannabis policy environments., Design: Repeated cross-sectional time series analysis. Three sets of models assessed the linear association between the Cannabis Policy Scale (CPS), an aggregate measure of 17 state cannabis policy areas that weights each policy by its efficacy and implementation rating, and prevalence of cannabis use. The first included year and state fixed effects; the second added state-level controls; the third replaced state fixed effects with state random effects. Standard errors were clustered at the state level in all models., Setting and Participants: United States., Measurements: Past-month prevalence of cannabis use is from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health Small Area Estimates, a nationally and state-representative cross-sectional survey of household population ages 12 and older for years 2002-2003 to 2018-2019. Exposure data include the CPS., Findings: A 10 percentage-point increase in the CPS (i.e. greater cannabis policy restrictiveness) was associated with lower past-month use prevalence by 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.05 to -0.56) to 0.97 (95% CI = -1.19 to -0.75) percentage-points for the population ages 12 years and older. When models were stratified by age, a 10 percentage-point increase in the CPS was associated with a 0.87 (95% CI = -1.13 to -0.61) to 1.04 percentage-point (95% CI = -1.03 to -0.84) reduction in past-month use prevalence for adults ages 18 years and older, and a 0.17 (95% CI = -0.24 to -0.09) to 0.21 percentage-point (95% CI = -0.35 to -0.07) reduction for youth ages 12-17 years., Conclusions: More restrictive US cannabis policies appear to be associated with reduced cannabis use for both adults and youth., (© 2024 RAND Corporation and The Author(s). Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Objective: A crucial question regarding the public health impacts of cannabis legalization is its impact on alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm. However, little is known about whether these changing cannabis policies are occurring in liberal or in restrictive alcohol policy environments, either of which likely affect public health outcomes. We constructed comprehensive state-level alcohol and cannabis policy indices and explored relationships between them., Method: We assessed relationships between the Alcohol Policy Scale (APS) and the Cannabis Policy Scale (CPS) from 1999 to 2019. The APS and CPS were based on 29 and 17 state-level policies, respectively, and each policy was weighted for its relative efficacy and degree of state-year implementation., Results: From 1999 to 2019, average state APS scores increased modestly (became more restrictive) by 4.11 points (2019 M = 43.23, range: 24.44-66.31) and average CPS scores decreased (became less restrictive) by 15.33 points (2019 M = 76.40, range: 29.40-95.74) on a 100-point scale. In 2019, average APS scores were similar among states that prohibited (criminalized) possession of cannabis (42.00), decriminalized possession (41.33), legalized medical cannabis (44.36), and legalized recreational cannabis (43.32). Across states, there was no correlation between the restrictiveness of state-level alcohol and cannabis policies ( r = .03, p = .37) in unadjusted models, although there was some variation by time, geographic region, and political party, with a weak negative correlation in state fixed-effects models., Conclusions: Although cannabis policies liberalized rapidly from 1999 to 2019, alcohol policies stayed relatively stable and did not differ by degree of cannabis policy liberalization. In general, there were weak associations between cannabis and alcohol policies among states; however, there was some temporal, regional, and political variation.

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., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

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., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors declare no competing financial or nonfinancial interests.

Importance: Federal and state governments implemented temporary strategies for providing access to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Advocates hope many of these policies become permanent because of their potential to expand access to care., Objective: To consider the multitude of ways access to and utilization of treatment for individuals with OUD might have been expanded by state and federal policy so researchers can do a better job evaluating the effectiveness of specific policy approaches, which will depend on the interaction with other state policies., Evidence Review: We summarize state-level policy data reported by government and nonprofit agencies that track health care regulations, specifically the Kaiser Family Foundation, Federation of State Medical Boards, American Association of Nurse Practitioners, American Academy of Physician Assistants, and the National Safety Council. Data were collected by these sources from September 2020 through January 2021. We examine heterogeneity in policy elements adopted across states during the COVID-19 pandemic in 4 key areas: telehealth, privacy, licensing, and medication for opioid use disorder. The analysis was conducted from March 2020 through January 2021., Findings: This cross-sectional study found that federal and state governments have taken important steps to ensure OUD treatment availability during the COVID-19 pandemic, but few states are comprehensive in their approach. Although all states and Washington, DC have adopted at least 1 telehealth policy, only 17 states have adopted telehealth policies that improve access to OUD treatment for new patients. Furthermore, only 9 states relaxed privacy laws, which influence the ability to use particular technology for telehealth visits. Similarly, all states have adopted at least 1 policy related to health care professional licensing permissions, but only 35 expanded the scope of practice laws for both physician assistants and nurse practitioners. Forty-four states expanded access to initiation and delivery of medication for OUD treatment. Together, no state has implemented all of these policies to comprehensively expand access to OUD treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic., Conclusions and Relevance: With considerable policy changes potentially affecting access to treatment and treatment retention for patients with OUD during the pandemic, evaluations must account for the variation in state approaches in related policy areas because the interactions between policies may limit the potential effectiveness of any single policy approach.