Search

Objective: Pregnant and postpartum people want more and higher quality information about the effects of perinatal cannabis use (PCU) on child health, and they turn to anonymous sources of information, such as online pregnancy forums, to make decisions about its use. This study characterized perceptions of the developmental impact of PCU on children via a narrative evaluation of a public forum on which people discuss a range of issues around cannabis use., Method: A random sample of 10 threads per month from June 2020 to May 2021 were scraped from the "Ganja Mamas" forum on Whattoexpect.com. Posts were analyzed if they discussed use of cannabis during pregnancy or lactation and children. A qualitative coding structure was developed from a literature review on PCU and was refined for inclusion of emergent topics. Posts were evaluated by two coders using applied thematic analysis and were assessed using an open coding process to identify key topics. Associated codes were grouped into themes., Results: Posters (a) discussed the negative and positive impact of PCU on child physical, cognitive, and socioemotional development; (b) garnered information about PCU from sources other than medical providers; and (c) discussed harm-reduction approaches to reduce impacts of PCU on child health., Conclusions: There is a need for stigma-free support around PCU decision-making for people who select into discussion forums designed for communication and support around parental cannabis use. This forum presents a fruitful opportunity for intervention to encourage health-promoting behaviors through the provision of evidence-based information.

Background: Young adults frequently use alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco together. Given the increased prevalence of e-cigarette use and recreational cannabis use, we investigated daily patterns of alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco use and distinguished combustible tobacco from e-cigarettes., Methods: Young adult college students (N=341) reporting past-month alcohol and cannabis use "at the same time so that their effects overlapped" completed two 28-day bursts of repeated daily surveys. Exposures were day- and person-level use of each substance. Outcomes were (1) same-day co-use of each remaining substance or (2) poly-use of the other substances., Results: Daily use of alcohol, cannabis, combustible cigarettes, and e-cigarettes increased the odds of same-day co-use of the other substances (except combustible tobacco with e-cigarettes) and each poly-use outcome. The influence of person-level substance use on daily substance use was less consistent. Only e-cigarette use increased the odds of daily alcohol use. Use of either tobacco product but not alcohol increased the odds of daily cannabis use. Person-level alcohol and cannabis use increased the odds of daily use of either tobacco product but use of one tobacco product was not associated with daily use of the other product., Conclusions: These findings increase our understanding of emerging daily patterns of alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco co-use, and the impact of different tobacco products. Future work is needed to extend this research into non-college samples and people who use tobacco but do not use alcohol and cannabis simultaneously, and examine daily chronologies of multiple substances that could serve as dynamic markers of risk., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest There are no interests to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: There is substantial evidence linking anxiety sensitivity and distress intolerance to depressive symptoms, and further evidence linking depressive symptoms to alcohol and cannabis use. However, the prospective indirect associations of anxiety sensitivity and distress intolerance with alcohol and cannabis use through depressive symptoms remain uncertain. Thus, the current study examined whether depressive symptoms mediated the associations between anxiety sensitivity and distress intolerance with alcohol and cannabis use frequency, quantity, and problems in a longitudinal sample of veterans., Method: Participants ( N = 361; 93% male; 80% White) were military veterans with lifetime cannabis use recruited from a Veterans Health Administration in the Northeastern United States. Eligible veterans completed three semi-annual assessments. Prospective mediation models were used to test for the effects of baseline anxiety sensitivity and distress intolerance on alcohol and cannabis use quantity, frequency and problems at 12 months via depressive symptoms at 6 months., Results: Baseline anxiety sensitivity was positively associated with 12-month alcohol problems. Baseline distress intolerance was positively associated with 12-month cannabis use frequency and quantity. Baseline anxiety sensitivity and distress intolerance significantly predicted increased alcohol problems and cannabis use frequency at 12 months through depressive symptoms at 6 months. There were no significant indirect effects of anxiety sensitivity and distress intolerance on alcohol use frequency or quantity, cannabis use quantity, or cannabis problems., Conclusions: Anxiety sensitivity and distress intolerance share a common pathway to alcohol problems and cannabis use frequency through depressive symptoms. Interventions focused on modulating negative affectivity may reduce cannabis use frequency and alcohol problems.

Objective: Co-use of alcohol and cannabis has been associated with more total negative consequences than single-substance use, but results have been mixed depending on whether the single substance was alcohol or cannabis. The present study used within-person analyses to examine whether co-use increased the risk for experiencing specific acute negative consequences., Method: College students who were co-users of alcohol and cannabis ( N = 341; M age = 19.8 years; 51.3% female; 74.8% White) completed 56 days of five daily surveys across two bursts. We used generalized linear mixed effects models to examine the effects of type of substance use day on specific negative consequences, controlling for consumption and covariates., Results: Relative to both alcohol-only and co-use days, cannabis-only days were associated with decreased likelihood of experiencing hangover, blackout, nausea/vomiting, injury, rude/aggressive behavior, and unwanted sex. Relative to alcohol-only days, cannabis-only and co-use days were associated with an increased likelihood of driving high/drunk. Finally, there was an increased likelihood of hangovers on alcohol-only days compared with co-use days., Conclusions: Days with different types of substance use differed in specific consequences. Most of the negative co-use consequences investigated here appear to be driven by alcohol consumption rather than cannabis use. The results also indicated that these young adults were more likely to endorse driving under the influence of cannabis than alcohol. Interventions for co-use should target alcohol consumption to reduce negative consequences such as blackout, injury, rude/aggressive behavior, and unwanted sex and highlight the dangers of driving under the influence of cannabis.

Background: The impact of alcohol and cannabis co-use on college student drinking and related outcomes is complex. Specific characteristics or patterns of co-use events beyond drinking quantity may be important to the experience of consequences. The present study used repeated daily surveys to examine the association between co-use (versus use of alcohol only) and drinking rate on negative consequences., Methods: The sample included 318 college students (M age  = 19.8, 47% female, 76% non-Hispanic White) who were co-users of alcohol and cannabis, recruited from three U.S. college campuses. Participants completed 56 days of data collection (number of drinking days ranged from 1 to 38). Two measures of drinking rate were examined: (1) daily rate (number of drinks divided by number of hours spent drinking per day); and (2) peak hour rate (maximum number of drinks consumed in a single hour) to account for anomalous drinking days of long duration. Generalized linear mixed models examined: (1) associations of co-use with peak hour rate (model 1a) and daily rate (model 1b); (2) associations of peak hour rate (model 2a) and daily rate (model 2b) with experiencing any negative consequence; and (3) interactions of co-use with peak hour rate (model 3a) and daily rate (model 3b) on experiencing a consequence., Results: Co-use was positively associated with peak hour rate but not daily rate. Both peak hour and daily rate positively predicted likelihood of experiencing a negative consequence. The interaction of both peak hour and daily rate by co-use was significant such that the association of rate with experiencing a consequence was stronger on alcohol-only days compared to co-use days., Conclusions: Daily drinking rate and peak hour drinking rate are unique and should be considered when discussing drinking patterns. Both predict negative consequences and may be important aspects of interventions for negative drinking-related outcomes among college students., (© 2022 Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Objective: Impulsivity is an established etiological risk factor for alcohol- and cannabis-related outcomes. However, limited work has focused on longitudinal associations between multiple trait impulsivity facets and indices of alcohol and cannabis use among military veterans-a contextually distinct population that evidence unique impulsive personality traits and substance use patterns., Method: A structural equation model (SEM) examined longitudinal associations between five UPPS-P impulsivity facets measured at baseline and six indices of alcohol and cannabis use (i.e., frequency, quantity, and problems) measured at 1-year follow-up among 361 returning Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND) veterans., Results: Findings indicated baseline sensation seeking was significantly positively associated with 1-year alcohol use frequency (β = .18); baseline negative urgency was positively associated with alcohol use problems (β = .31); and baseline lack of perseverance (β = .25) and sensation seeking (β = .21) were positively associated with 1-year cannabis use problems. None of the baseline impulsivity facets were associated with 1-year alcohol use quantity, cannabis use frequency, or cannabis use quantity., Conclusions: Results provide preliminary support that impulsivity may play a unique role in understanding alcohol- and cannabis-related problems over time among veterans. Further, results suggest that specific impulsivity facets are prospectively associated with cannabis problems (i.e., lack of perseverance and sensation seeking) and alcohol problems (i.e., negative urgency). Findings reinforce the importance of differentially evaluating impulsivity-substance use associations within contextually distinct populations (e.g., adolescent, veteran), and highlight potentially meaningful intervention targets among veterans. However, replication is needed with stronger temporal controls and more diverse veteran subsamples. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Substance use in young adulthood and polysubstance users (PSU), in particular, pose unique risks for adverse consequences. Prior research on young adult PSU has identified multiple classes of users, but most work has focused on college students. We examined PSU patterns by age and college attendance during young adulthood in two nationally representative samples. Using National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) Wave 1 and NESARC-III data sets, multigroup latent class analysis (MG-LCA) was employed to examine PSU patterns based on age (18-24 vs. 25-34) and determine whether solutions were similar (i.e., statistically invariant) by college attendance/graduation. Classes were estimated by binary past-year use of sedatives, tranquilizers, opioids/painkillers, heroin, amphetamines/stimulants, cocaine, hallucinogens, club drugs, and inhalants, and past-year frequency of alcohol, cigarette, and cannabis use. PSU patterns are largely replicated across waves. Model fit supported 3-class solutions in each MG-LCA: Low frequency-limited-range PSU (alcohol, cigarettes, and cannabis only), medium-to-high frequency limited-range PSU (alcohol, cigarettes, and cannabis only), and extended-range PSU (ER PSU; all substances). Apart from one model, MG-LCA solutions were not invariant by college attendance/graduation, suggesting important differences between these groups. Except for alcohol, cannabis, and cigarette use frequency, results showed that probabilities of illicit and prescription drug use declined in the older age group. Findings also supported examining college and noncollege youth separately when studying PSU. ER PSU may be uniquely vulnerable to coingesting substances, particularly for nongraduates, warranting future research to classify patterns of simultaneous PSU and identify predictors and consequences of high-risk combinations (e.g., alcohol and opioids). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use is common among college students and associated with more consumption and consequences compared to single-substance use. This study examined occasions of simultaneous use and compared planned occasions to unplanned occasions with respect to motives, contexts, consumption, and consequences., Method: College student simultaneous users ( N = 341; 53% women; 74% White) completed five daily surveys for 54 days. Mixed-effects models examined motives and contexts of simultaneous use occasions as a function of whether alcohol and cannabis use were (a) both planned versus (b) unplanned, no use planned, or (c) unplanned, single-substance use planned and whether alcohol and cannabis consumption and negative simultaneous use-related consequences varied across planned versus unplanned occasions., Results: Social and enhancement motives were related to planned simultaneous use; offered and coping motives were associated with planned single-substance use that became simultaneous use (vs. planned simultaneous use). Compared to unplanned use, planned simultaneous use was negatively associated with using at home or alone, and positively associated with using with others, more intoxicated people, and more people using cannabis. Planned simultaneous use was associated with more alcohol and cannabis consumption. No significant differences were found for negative consequences., Conclusions: Planned simultaneous use was motivated by social and enhancement reasons, whereas planned single-substance use that became simultaneous use was more likely motivated by offers or for coping. Planned simultaneous use resulted in greater consumption, but not negative consequences. Results provide specific motives and contexts associated with unplanned and planned simultaneous use to be incorporated into real-time interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Purpose: The purpose of this review is to discuss the literature regarding the concurrent use (co-use) of alcohol and cannabis and competing hypotheses as to whether cannabis acts as a substitute for (i.e., replacing the effects of alcohol, resulting in decreased use) or a complement to (i.e., used to enhance the effects of alcohol, resulting in increased use) alcohol. The impact of cannabis use on alcohol-related outcomes has received increased attention in the wake of ongoing legalization of cannabis for both medical and recreational purposes. Evidence for both hypotheses exists in the literature across a broad range of data collection methods and samples and is carefully reviewed here. In addition, various mechanisms by which cannabis may act as an alcohol substitute or complement are explored in depth with the goal of better understanding equivocal findings., Search Methods: This review includes articles that were identified from a search for studies on alcohol and cannabis co-use, with a specific focus on studies exploring complementary versus substitution aspects of co-use. Search terms were included in Google Scholar, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were those that measured alcohol and cannabis co-use in human samples in laboratory, survey, or ecological momentary assessment studies, or that directly referenced substitution or complementary patterns of use., Search Results: Search results returned 650 articles, with 95 meeting inclusion criteria., Discussion and Conclusions: Results of this review reveal compelling evidence for both substitution and complementary effects, suggesting nuanced yet significant distinctions across different populations examined in these studies. Several mechanisms for the impact of cannabis use on alcohol-related outcomes are identified, including patterns and context of co-use, timing and order of use, cannabinoid formulation, pharmacokinetic interactions, and user characteristics (including diagnostic status), all of which may influence substitution versus complementary effects. This review will inform future research studies examining this topic in both clinical and community samples and aid in the development of treatment and prevention efforts targeting those populations most vulnerable to negative consequences of co-use. Finally, this review highlights the need for additional research in more diverse samples and the use of mixed-methods designs to examine both pharmacological and contextual influences on co-use.

Cannabis refusal self-efficacy, defined as confidence in the ability to refuse cannabis or to avoid cannabis use, is associated with decreased cannabis use. Juvenile justice-involved youth are at high risk for cannabis use and may have lower refusal self-efficacy. While court-involved, non-incarcerated (CINI) and incarcerated youth are groups that are both at high-risk for cannabis use, the experience of incarceration may impact the measurement of refusal self-efficacy for cannabis. The factor structure, measurement invariance, and concurrent validity of the Brief Situational Confidence Questionnaire for Cannabis (BSCQ-M) was assessed among CINI (n = 148) and incarcerated (n = 199) youth (80.7% male, M age  = 16.3). Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that a correlated 3-factor model including positive/good times, negative internal, and negative external situational factors best fit the data. Multigroup measurement invariance testing revealed that the BSCQ-M demonstrated configural, metric, scalar, and residual invariance across CINI and incarcerated samples, indicating measurement invariance across the two groups. Negative binomial regressions revealed that BSCQ-M scores were significantly negatively associated with concurrent cannabis use. Results suggest that the BSCQ-M is a brief, psychometrically sound measure of refusal self-efficacy for cannabis among juvenile justice-involved youth that can be utilized with both CINI and incarcerated youth., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is the most highly co-occurring psychiatric disorder among veterans with cannabis use disorder (CUD). Despite some evidence that cannabis use prospectively exacerbates the course of PTSD, which in turn increases the risk for CUD, the causal nature of the relationship between cannabis and psychiatric comorbidity is debated. The longitudinal relationship between PTSD diagnosis and traumatic intrusion symptoms with cannabis use and CUD was examined using cross-lagged panel model (CLPM) analysis., Methods: Prospective data from a longitudinal observational study of 361 veterans deployed post-9/11/2001 included PTSD and CUD diagnoses, cannabis use, and PTSD-related traumatic intrusion symptoms from the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms., Results: A random intercept CLPM analysis that leveraged three waves (baseline, 6 months and 12 months) of cannabis use and PTSD-related intrusion symptoms to account for between-person differences found that baseline cannabis use was significantly positively associated with 6-month intrusion symptoms; the converse association was significant but reduced in magnitude (baseline use to 6-month intrusions: β = 0.46, 95% CI 0.155-0.765; baseline intrusions to 6-month use: β = 0.22, 95% CI -0.003 to 0.444). Results from the two-wave CLPM reveal a significant effect from baseline PTSD to 12-month CUD (β = 0.15, 95% CI 0.028-0.272) but not from baseline CUD to 12-month PTSD (β = 0.12, 95% CI -0.022 to 0.262)., Conclusions: Strong prospective associations capturing within-person changes suggest that cannabis use is linked with greater severity of trauma-related intrusion symptoms over time. A strong person-level directional association between PTSD and CUD was evident. Findings have significant clinical implications for the long-term effects of cannabis use among individuals with PTSD.

Use of alcohol and cannabis together so their effects overlap (simultaneous use) is common among college students and associated with numerous negative consequences. The aim of this study was to gain insight into college students' recent simultaneous use events in order to inform future studies (i.e., generate hypotheses, inform measures/assessments of simultaneous use, and identify factors influencing simultaneous use). Qualitative interviews of simultaneous use experiences among heavy drinking college students ( n = 38) were conducted to better understand reasons for simultaneous use, evaluations of simultaneous use events, and patterns of substance use during simultaneous use events. Findings indicated that students' reasons for simultaneous use included traditional four-factor motive types (i.e., social, conformity, enhancement, and coping), cross-fading motives, harm reduction motives (e.g., to drink less), and reactive/situational reasons (e.g., because it was offered/available). There was variability in participants' subjective evaluations of how positive versus negative simultaneous use events were and how this compared to single-substance events. Evaluation of simultaneous use events depended on patterns of use, external and internal context, and consequences experienced. Additionally, patterns of simultaneous use including order of substances, timing of using each substance, and quantities of substances used were highly variable across participants. Notably, participants endorsed patterns of use they perceived to reduce negative consequences during simultaneous use events. Further research on reasons for simultaneous use and patterns of use may help identify simultaneous use occasions that result in greater risk; identification of high-risk simultaneous use occasions and evaluation of these occasions can then help inform targeted interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Several studies suggest that alcohol and cannabis co-users are heavier drinkers and experience more alcohol-related consequences. However, day-level associations between co-use and drinking levels are mixed. One reason may be that individual characteristics moderate the daily impact of using alcohol alone or in conjunction with cannabis. The theory would suggest that highly impulsive individuals may drink more on co-use days, yet this assertion remains untested. Therefore, the current study tested whether impulsivity moderated the effect of co-use on same-day drinking quantity within veterans, a high-risk sample for substance use and impulsivity. Method: In a longitudinal observational study, co-using veterans ( N = 139) completed three semi-annual assessments reporting on their daily drinking quantity and cannabis use via Timeline Followback ( Observations = 19,245) and impulsivity via the UPPS-P. Mixed effect modeling was used to test hypotheses that co-use (compared to alcohol-only) days would be associated with heavier drinking for those high (but not low) in positive and negative urgency. Results: Significant interactions were found for positive urgency (PU) and lack of perseverance (LP), such that individuals at mean and low levels of PU and LP drank less on co-use (compared to alcohol-only) days. There were no significant interactions for other UPPS-P impulsivity facets. Conclusion: Findings are consistent with a substitution/compensatory effect for individuals at mean and low levels of both UPPS-P facets, and may be a byproduct of frequent cannabis use in veterans. In contrast, findings suggest that co-use and alcohol-only days may be characterized by similarly high levels of drinking for highly impulsive individuals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Simultaneous alcohol and cannabis (i.e., marijuana [SAM]) use is highly prevalent among young adults and college students and associated with a number of negative consequences compared to single substance use. The current study examined socio-contextual factors (e.g., physical, situational, social) associated with SAM use versus cannabis-only versus alcohol-only use. Method: Data were collected from college student SAM users ( N = 313, 53% women, M age = 19.79; 74% White; 10% Hispanic/Latinx) who completed two bursts (28 days) of online repeated daily surveys (RDS). RDS were collected five times per day during both bursts (3 months apart). Results: Results suggested that odds of being at home were greater for cannabis-only use compared to SAM and SAM compared to alcohol-only use. Odds of being at a friend's place were greater for SAM compared to alcohol-only and cannabis-only use. Odds of being at a party were greater for SAM compared to alcohol-only use and odds of being at a bar or restaurant were greater for alcohol-only compared to SAM use. Results also suggested that odds of having more people in a location consistently were greater for SAM compared to cannabis-only use, and alcohol-only compared to cannabis-only use. Conclusion: Physical and social contexts (parties, friend's homes, and being around more people) are significantly associated with SAM use occasions. These findings are well-aligned with a social-ecological framework and suggest intervention and prevention efforts should take a comprehensive approach to reduce harms associated with SAM use. Future work is needed to examine these associations in diverse samples. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Background: Alcohol and marijuana/cannabis are frequently used simultaneously (i.e., SAM use). SAM use is complex, and the ways in which alcohol and cannabis are simultaneously used may reveal differential effects. The purpose of this study was to examine day-level effects of distinct alcohol and cannabis product combinations on simultaneous use and consequences on that day., Methods: College student SAM users (N = 274; 50% women; M age  = 19.82 years) were recruited to complete 54 days of data collection, including 5 repeated daily surveys each day. We identified 12 distinct product combinations reported during SAM-use days. We tested 4 reference groups, with one reflecting the most common use pattern and 3 potentially risky use patterns. We considered 3 outcomes (negative consequences, number of drinks, and number of cannabis uses) and used generalized linear mixed-effects models disentangling within- from between-person effects in all analyses., Results: Using multiple products (≥2) of alcohol was consistently linked to higher odds of experiencing a negative consequence. Combining beer with only one cannabis product (leaf or concentrate) was consistently associated with lower odds of a consequence. Combining cannabis with multiple alcohol products was associated with heavier alcohol consumption. Using dual cannabis products also was associated with heavier cannabis consumption, but this pattern was not significantly different than using concentrate only on a given day., Conclusion: This is the first study to examine day-level influences of distinct alcohol and cannabis product combinations on consumption and consequences among young adult SAM users. Findings suggest that mixing alcohol products confers greater risk for negative consequences and heavier consumption, whereas there is little difference in cannabis consumption when using concentrate only vs. 2 cannabis products on a given day, except for concentrate + beer. Our findings support existing protective strategies of not mixing alcohol products and avoiding use of cannabis concentrate for SAM use as well., (© 2020 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Background: Historically, cannabis researchers have assumed a single mode and product of cannabis (e.g., smoking plant). However, patterns of use, products (e.g., concentrates, edibles), and modes (e.g. blunts, vaporizers) are diversifying. This study sought to: 1) classify cannabis users into groups based on their use of the full range of cannabis products, and 2) examine user group differences on demographics, cannabis consequences and cannabis use disorder (CUD) symptomatology., Methods: In a sample of college students (data collected in Fall 2017), who used cannabis in the past year (N = 1390), latent class analysis (LCA) was used to characterize cannabis users. We then added demographic characteristics, cannabis consequences, and CUD symptomatology scores separately to LCA models to examine class differences., Results: Five unique classes emerged: high-frequency all-product users, high-frequency plant/moderate-frequency edible and concentrate users, low-frequency plant users, moderate-frequency plant and edible users, and low-frequency edible users. Demographic characteristics, cannabis consequences, and CUD symptomatology differed across classes characterized by frequency as well as product., Conclusions: Results reflect the increasing variety of cannabis products, modes, and use patterns among college students. In this sample, frequency of use remains a strong predictor of cannabis-related consequences, in addition to type of product. As variation in cannabis use patterns continue to evolve, it is essential for researchers to conduct comprehensive assessments., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)