Exploring the substitution of cannabis for alcohol and other drugs among a large convenience sample of people who use cannabis DOI Creative Commons
Chris Wilkins, José S. Romeo, Marta Rychert

et al.

Harm Reduction Journal, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 21(1)

Published: Nov. 5, 2024

The substitution of cannabis for alcohol and other drugs has been conceptualised in a harm reduction framework as where is used to reduce the negative side-effects, addiction potential, social stigma drugs. There currently mixed evidence with recent reviews suggesting co-use patterns may vary by age ethnicity. Yet few studies have had large enough samples examine this demographic variation detail. To explore within subgroups sample people who use cannabis. Specifically: (1) whether being substituted drugs, (2), leads more, less or same level drug use. Online convenience survey promoted via Facebook™ completed 23,500 New Zealand respondents. Those any eight substances six-month period were asked if their impact on each substance ("a lot more", "little "no impact/same", less", "a less"). Frequency quantity was compared group. Generalised logistic regression models developed predict categories. Significant proportions reported led "less" (60%), synthetic cannabinoid morphine (44%) methamphetamine (40%) using lower frequency amount Approximately seven-out-ten impact" LSD, MDMA, cocaine One-in-five "more" tobacco Young adults (21–35-years) more likely report drinking Adolescent co-users (16–20 years) impacts. Māori resulted alcohol, tobacco, methamphetamine, LSD Students those living cities lowering substances. Cannabis are moderated life stages, lifestyles, cultural perspectives, urbanicity. Harm initiatives policy reforms should take account these moderating factors.

Language: Английский

Patterns of Cannabis and Alcohol Co-Use: Substitution Versus Complementary Effects DOI Open Access
Rachel L. Gunn, Elizabeth R. Aston, Jane Metrik

et al.

Alcohol research, Journal Year: 2022, Volume and Issue: 40(2)

Published: Feb. 18, 2022

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

Language: Английский

Citations

66
The adverse public health effects of non-medical cannabis legalisation in Canada and the USA DOI Creative Commons
Tesfa Mekonen Yimer,

Eva Hoch,

Benedikt Fischer

et al.

The Lancet Public Health, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 10(2), P. e148 - e159

Published: Feb. 1, 2025

SummaryCannabis consumption is legally prohibited in most countries the world. Several are legalising cannabis for adult consumption. It important to monitor public health effects of these policy changes. In this paper, we summarise evidence date on legalisation non-medical use Canada and USA. We describe regulatory models legalisation, changes products pricing, illicit market, use, cannabis-related physical mental harms. discuss challenges assessing outcomes emphasise importance continuous rigorous monitoring adverse inform design policies regulations.

Language: Английский

Citations

1
Cannabis and Alcohol Use by U.S. Young Adults, 2008–2019: Changes in Prevalence After Recreational Cannabis Legalization DOI Creative Commons
David Kerr, Natalie S. Levy, Harold Bae

et al.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 65(6), P. 983 - 992

Published: June 17, 2023

Language: Английский

Citations

13
Risk of motor vehicle collision associated with cannabis and alcohol use among patients presenting for emergency care DOI
Esther K. Choo, Stacy A. Trent, Daniel K. Nishijima

et al.

Accident Analysis & Prevention, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 198, P. 107459 - 107459

Published: Jan. 25, 2024

Language: Английский

Citations

4
Effects of legal access versus illegal market cannabis on use and mental health: A randomized controlled trial DOI Creative Commons
Lavinia Baltes‐Flueckiger,

Regine Steinauer,

Maximilian Meyer

et al.

Addiction, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown

Published: April 28, 2025

Abstract Aims We measured the effects of public health‐oriented cannabis access compared with illegal market on use and related mental health outcomes in adult users. Design This was a two‐arm, parallel group, open‐label, randomized controlled trial. Follow‐up outcome measurement took place after 6 months. Setting The study conducted Basel‐Stadt, Switzerland. Participants A total 378 (aged ≥18 years) users were enrolled between August 2022 March 2023, although only 374 who completed baseline measures could be included. Intervention Comparator randomly assigned to intervention group recreational pharmacies (regulated products, safer information, voluntary counseling, no advertisement; 189/188) or control (continued illicit sourcing; 189/186). Measurements primary self‐reported severity misuse months, as by Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test – Revised (range 0–32). Secondary involved depressive, anxiety, psychotic symptoms, consumption amount, alcohol, drug use. Findings Ten participants not followed (2.7%). Primary analysis included those complete data (182 vs. 182). There some evidence difference legal (mean [M] = 10.1) (M 10.9; β −0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.4 0.0, P 0.052). These results supported an intention‐to‐treat multiple imputation (n 374). Additional sub‐group whether participant used other drugs suggested that any reduction confined ( Interaction < 0.001). found statistically significant changes secondary outcomes. Conclusions Public may decrease cannabis‐related harms, especially among using drugs.

Language: Английский

Citations

0
Alcohol sales changes in a Canadian province after recreational cannabis legalization DOI Creative Commons
Michael J. Armstrong

International Journal of Drug Policy, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 142, P. 104840 - 104840

Published: May 16, 2025

Language: Английский

Citations

0
Associations of Local Cannabis Policy and Retail Availability in Northern California with Adverse Adolescent Mental Health Outcomes DOI
Lynn Silver, Natalie E. Slama, Huawei Dong

et al.

Substance Use & Misuse, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown, P. 1 - 6

Published: May 16, 2025

Local policies prohibiting cannabis sales and lower retail availability are associated with a prevalence of adolescent use. In this study, we examined whether local prohibitions on retailer proximity density adverse cannabis-related mental health outcomes among adolescents. Cross-sectional study 95,645 Northern California adolescents aged 13-17 who completed well-check questionnaire in 2021 during standard pediatric care. Exposures included bans storefront delivery retailers, relation to adolescents' geocoded residences. Past-year psychotic, depressive, anxiety disorders were identified using ICD codes; self-reported depression symptoms came from the questionnaire. Relative jurisdictions allowing retail, those only (aPR = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.32-0.85), or both 0.67; 0.48-0.92) had psychotic disorders. Greater (≥6 vs. 0 retailers within 15-min drive) was greater 1.11; 1.04-1.19), depressive 1.10; 1.02-1.19) 1.08; 1.01-1.15). Having ≥20-min (vs. <5-min) drive nearest 0.53; 0.33-0.86), 0.89; 0.82-0.97), 0.81-0.98) 0.91; 0.84-0.99). near residences anxiety, disorders, symptoms. Policies limiting may help reduce harms merit further assessment.

Language: Английский

Citations

0
Getting “The whole picture”: A review of international research on the outcomes of regulated cannabis supply DOI Creative Commons
Vendula Běláčková, Benjamin Petruželka, Jakub Čihák

et al.

International Journal of Drug Policy, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 142, P. 104796 - 104796

Published: May 19, 2025

Several jurisdictions have pursued reforms that regulate cannabis production and/or sale for adult (non-medical) use. Looking at outcomes of such across multiple may help to identify are inherent non-criminal supply, as well provide insight into the specific regulation models. We identified nine indicators policy and aggregated them three domains (social outcomes, in use, health-related outcomes). assessed these five with different models regulating supply (Netherlands, Spain, U.S. states legalized cannabis, Uruguay, Canada). used a three-level systematic literature review, prioritising studies quasi-experimental design (i.e. comparative longitudinal). categorised according their type outcome (increase, decrease, or no outcome). Across long-standing recent regimes, our review common outcomes: decrease cannabis-related arrests, an increase (but not adolescent) healthcare utilization (not traffic-related). Negative were most consistently found legalised non-medicinal use (there limitations nuancing states). In remaining (the Netherlands, Canada, Uruguay), time-frame was limited, on certain lacking. Regulating be associated benefits social area potential harms regarding public health; there though trade-offs depending choice model. Jurisdictions attempt mix match present achieve best ratio harms. More research parameters influencing is needed.

Language: Английский

Citations

0
Health, safety, and socioeconomic impacts of cannabis liberalization laws: An evidence and gap map DOI Creative Commons
Eric L. Sevigny,

Jared Greathouse,

Danye N. Medhin

et al.

Campbell Systematic Reviews, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 19(4)

Published: Oct. 30, 2023

Abstract Background Globally, cannabis laws and regulations are rapidly changing. Countries increasingly permitting access to under various decriminalization, medicalization, legalization laws. With strong economic, public health, social justice incentives driving these domestic policy reforms, liberalization trends bound continue. However, despite a large growing body of interdisciplinary research addressing the policy‐relevant safety, socioeconomic consequences liberalization, there is lack robust primary systematic that comprehensively investigates reforms. Objectives This evidence gap map (EGM) summarizes empirical on policies. Primary objectives were develop conceptual framework linking policies relevant outcomes, descriptively summarize evidence, identify areas concentration gaps. Search Methods We searched for eligible English‐language studies published across 23 academic databases 11 gray literature sources through August 2020. Additions pool potentially from supplemental made November Selection Criteria The this EGM draws upon legal epidemiological perspective highlighting causal effects law population‐level outcomes. Eligible interventions include create or expand decriminalized supply cannabis: comprehensive medical (MCLs), limited cannabidiol (CBDLs), recreational (RCLs), industrial hemp (IHLs), decriminalization cultivations (DCLs). outcomes intermediate responses (i.e., attitudes/behaviors markets/environments) longer‐term (health, outcomes) Data Collection Analysis Both dual screening data extraction performed with third person deconfliction. appraised using Maryland Scientific Scale reviews assessed AMSTAR 2. Main Results includes 447 studies, comprising 438 nine reviews. Most derives United States, little other countries. By far, most focuses MCLs RCLs. Studies targeting laws—including CBDLs, IHLs, DCLs—are relatively rare. Of 113 distinct we documented, use was single frequently investigated. More than half addressed by three fewer substantial gaps in literature. base small, just seven completed (3), opioid‐related harms alcohol‐related (1). Moreover, have confidence reviews, as five minimal quality two low quality. Authors’ Conclusions needed better understand longer‐term—and arguably more salient—health, Since concerns RCLs, critical need societal impacts production, CBD products, cultivation. Future should also prioritize understanding heterogeneous given differences specific provisions implementation jurisdictions.

Language: Английский

Citations

6
Latent profile analysis of college students’ alcohol and cannabis co-use patterns after recreational cannabis legalization DOI

Samantha E. Reed,

David Kerr, Frank Snyder

et al.

Addictive Behaviors, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 154, P. 108021 - 108021

Published: March 19, 2024

Language: Английский

Citations

2