Recreational cannabis legalization presents an opportunity to reduce the harms of the US medical cannabis industry

Possible opioid-saving effect of cannabis-based medicine using individual-based data from the Norwegian Prescription Database

Some ecological studies have shown that areas with higher use of cannabis may have lower opioid use and fewer opioid-related problems. Newer studies are questioning this finding. Few individually based studies have been performed. Using data from the Norwegian Prescription Database, this study investigated the individual level effect of prescribed cannabis extract (Sativex®) in prescription opioid users on their opioid use in the following year. Looking at all those filling a prescription for Sativex®, opioid use was only marginally lowered in the follow-up period. Some Sativex® users, however, filled more prescriptions for Sativex® and were able to reduce their opioid use substantially. Further studies are needed to elucidate more details on these patients, so as to know who can benefit from such cannabis-based extracts in reducing their opioid use.

Evaluation of State Cannabis Laws and Rates of Self-harm and Assault

Importance

State cannabis laws are changing rapidly. Research is inconclusive about their association with rates of self-harm and assault. Existing studies have not considered variations in cannabis commercialization across states over time.

Objective

To evaluate the association of state medical and recreational cannabis laws with self-harm and assault, overall and by age and sex, while considering varying degrees of commercialization.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Using a cohort design with panel fixed-effects analysis, within-state changes in claims for self-harm and assault injuries before and after changes in cannabis laws were quantified in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. Comprehensive claims data on commercial and Medicare Advantage health plan beneficiaries from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2017, grouped by state and month, were evaluated. Data analysis was conducted from January 31, 2020, to January 21, 2021.

Exposures

Categorical variable that indexed the degree of cannabis legalization in each state and month based on law type (medical or recreational) and operational status of dispensaries (commercialization).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Claims for self-harm and assault injuries based on International Classification of Diseases codes.

Results

The analysis included 75 395 344 beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 47 [22] years; 50% female; and median follow-up, 17 months [interquartile range, 8-36 months]). During the study period, 29 states permitted use of medical cannabis and 11 permitted recreational cannabis. Point estimates for populationwide rates of self-harm and assault injuries were higher in states legalizing recreational cannabis compared with states with no cannabis laws, but these results were not statistically significant (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] assault, recreational dispensaries: 1.27; 95% CI, 0.79-2.03;self-harm, recreational dispensaries aRR: 1.15; 95% CI, 0.89-1.50). Results varied by age and sex with no associations found except for states with recreational policies and self-harm among males younger than 40 years (aRR <21 years, recreational without dispensaries: 1.70; 95% CI, 1.11-2.61; aRR aged 21-39 years, recreational dispensaries: 1.46; 95% CI, 1.01-2.12). Medical cannabis was generally not associated with self-harm or assault injuries populationwide or among age and sex subgroups.

Conclusions and Relevance

Recreational cannabis legalization appears to be associated with relative increases in rates of claims for self-harm among male health plan beneficiaries younger than 40 years. There was no association between cannabis legalization and self-harm or assault, for any other age and sex group or for medical cannabis. States that legalize but still constrain commercialization may be better positioned to protect younger male populations from unintended harms.

Association of State Policies Allowing Medical Cannabis for Opioid Use Disorder With Dispensary Marketing for This Indication

IMPORTANCE

Misinformation about cannabis and opioid use disorder (OUD) may increase morbidity and mortality if it leads individuals with OUD to forego evidence-based treatment. It has not been systematically evaluated whether officially designating OUD as a qualifying condition for medical cannabis is associated with cannabis dispensaries suggesting cannabis as a treatment for OUD.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether state-level policies designating OUD a qualifying condition for medical cannabis are associated with more dispensaries claiming cannabis can treat OUD.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional, mixed-methods study of 208 medical dispensary brands was conducted in 2019 using the brands' online content. The study included dispensaries operating in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, where OUD is a qualifying condition for medical cannabis, and in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, and West Virginia, where this policy does not exist.

EXPOSURES

Presence of OUD on the list of qualifying conditions for a state's medical cannabis program.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Binary indicators of whether online content from the brand said cannabis can treat OUD, can replace US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for OUD, can be an adjunctive therapy to Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for OUD, or can be used as a substitute for opioids to treat other conditions (eg, chronic pain).

RESULTS

After excluding duplicates, listings for nonexistent dispensaries, and those without online content, 167 brands across 7 states were included in the analysis (44 [26.3%] in states where OUD was a qualifying condition and 123 [73.7%] in adjacent states). A dispensary listed in a directory for West Virginia was not operational; therefore, comparison states were Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Ohio. In policy-exposed states, 39% (95% CI, 23%-55%) more dispensaries claimed cannabis could treat OUD compared with unexposed states (P < .001). For replacing medications for OUD and being an adjunctive therapy, the differences were 14% (95% CI, 2%-26%; P = .002) and 28% (95% CI, 14%-42%; P < .001), respectively. The suggestion that cannabis could substitute for opioids (eg, to treat chronic pain) was made by 25% (95% CI, 9%-41%) more brands in policy-exposed states than adjacent states (P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, state-level policies designating OUD as a qualifying condition for medical cannabis were associated with more dispensaries claiming cannabis can treat OUD. In the current policy environment, in which medical claims by cannabis dispensaries are largely unregulated, these advertisements could harm patients. Future research linking these policies to patient outcomes is warranted.