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]

Background: Studies have found age-specific effects of medical cannabis laws (MCLs), particularly affecting adult cannabis use but not adolescent use. We examined whether age differences in MCL knowledge are in accordance with age differences in MCL effects on cannabis use.Methods: Data from the 2004-2013 repeated cross-sectional National Surveys on Drug Use and Health included people ages 12 and older in the United States. State-aggregated MCL knowledge was the proportion of people that correctly identified living in a state that did not allow medical cannabis prior to MCL enactment, or that allowed medical cannabis after MCL enactment. We regressed state-aggregated MCL knowledge on time-varying MCL enactment (i.e., no MCL by 2015, before MCL, after MCL), testing associations by age strata (12-17, 18-25, 26+), open dispensary status, and adjusting for time and state-level demographics.Results: Model-based MCL knowledge was significantly lower among adolescents than adults; after enactment, 36.8% of ages 12-17, 48.8% of ages 18-25, and 45.4% of ages 26+ were aware of their state's MCL status. Correct MCL status knowledge decreased across all age groups after MCL enactment (i.e., low knowledge of MCL changes at the time they occurred). Open cannabis dispensaries significantly increased correct MCL knowledge, with a 7.7-point increase for adolescents and a 17.5-point increase for adults 26 + .Conclusions: Lower MCL knowledge among adolescents than adults was in accordance with MCL effects on cannabis use previously observed among adults only. Studies should assess whether MCL knowledge is a consequence or predictor of individual-level cannabis use across age groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known on how perceived availability of marijuana is associated with medical marijuana laws. We examined the relationship between medical marijuana laws (MML) and the prevalence of past-month marijuana use, with perceived availability of marijuana.Methods: Data were from respondents included in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health restricted use data portal 2004-2013. Multilevel logistic regression of individual-level data was used to test differences between MML and non-MML states and changes in prevalence of past-month marijuana use and perceived availability from before to after passage of MML among adolescents, young adults and older adults controlling for demographics.Results: Among adults 26+, past-month prevalence of marijuana use increased from 5.87% to 7.15% after MML passage (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 1.24 [1.16-1.31]), but no change in prevalence of use was found for 12-17 or 18-25 year-olds. Perceived availability of marijuana increased after MML was enacted among those 26+ but not in younger groups. Among all age groups, prevalence of marijuana use and perception of it being easily available was higher in states that would eventually pass MML by 2013 compared to those that had not. Perceived availability was significantly associated with increased risk of past-month marijuana use in all age groups.Conclusion: Evidence suggests perceived availability as a driver of change in use of marijuana due to MML. To date, this has only occurred in adults 26+ and different scenarios that could explain this change need to be further explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]