Conceptualizing and considering Cannabis-Related "Harm-to-Others": The Role of Cannabis-Related Violence

Decriminalizing and Legalizing Cannabis for Clinical Benefits in Malaysia: Perspective Among Pharmacists (A Qualitative Study)

Cannabis, often criticized, has active compounds that indicate multiple medical benefits. However, before the potential decriminalization and legalization of medical cannabis, pharmacists play a crucial role in the decision-making for personalized therapy and evidence-based medicine. This study investigates pharmacists' perspectives on medical cannabis, covering medical use, societal impact, research, legality, and regulation. This study was conducted through semi-structured interviews with pharmacists from different sectors. Interviews were conducted with 16 pharmacists, with 4 from each sector: industry, academia, community, and hospital. There was a consensus on the need for streamlined research before potential decriminalization and legalization of cannabis, highlighting concerns about abuse and misuse despite its benefits. With that in mind, all participants agree that there is a need to update the current legislation and regulations to better control the use and distribution of medical cannabis. Several participants also called to attention that education plays an important role in the potential decriminalization of medical cannabis, with cannabis-related stigma being a potential deterrent for not only the public but also healthcare professionals. As medical cannabis is a new subject in Malaysia, this study could ignite further multidisciplinary human-related research with strict regulations which will ultimately result in evidence-based medicine.

An examination of cannabis use motives among couples with intimate partner violence and alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cannabis use is highly prevalent among individuals with a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) and among people who drink alcohol. Motives for cannabis use are important correlates of consumption and problem severity. However, no research has examined cannabis use motives among couples with IPV. The goals of the study were to examine (1) the associations between a person and their partner's cannabis use motives; and (2) examine the extent to which each partners' cannabis use motives are related to their own and their partner's cannabis consumption.

METHODS

Participants were 100 couples (n = 92 different-sex couples, n = 8 same-sex couples) who reported physical IPV in their current relationship.

RESULTS

Certain cannabis motives (coping and conformity) and behaviors (cannabis use frequency, quantity and drug-related problems) were positively associated between intimate partners. One's own higher coping motives were associated with greater frequency of cannabis consumption; higher conformity motives were associated with less quantity of consumption; higher social motives were associated with greater quantity of cannabis consumption; and one's partner's social motives were associated with less quantity of cannabis consumption. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that couples report similar motives for cannabis use, and that one's own and their partner's motives may differentially influence frequency and quantity of use.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides novel information on congruency between cannabis use motives and behaviors between intimate partners, as well as how both an individual and their partner's motives for use can influence an individual's cannabis use behaviors.

Cumulative lifetime violence, social determinants of health, and cannabis use disorder post-cannabis legalization in a community sample of men: An intersectional perspective

Despite Canada having the highest disease burden globally for cannabis use disorder (CUD) and violence being ubiquitous in men's lives, little is known about how intersections among social determinants of health (SDOH) and cumulative lifetime violence severity (CLVS) influence CUD in men post-cannabis legalization. Using data collected in a survey with a national community sample of 597 men who self-identified as having experienced violence, we conducted a latent profile analysis using 11 subscales of the CLVS-44 scale and explored differential associations between CLVS profiles and CUD considering SDOH covariates. Four profiles were distinguished by intersections among CLVS-44 subscale severity and roles as target and perpetrator. CLVS profiles were significantly associated with CUD in the unadjusted model and in the adjusted model where age, adverse housing, and education were significant covariate controls. In the adjusted model, CUD was differentially associated with CLVS profiles and significantly higher in Profile 4 (highest severity target and perpetrator) than in Profile 1 (lowest severity target, no perpetration). Chi-square tests showed significant intersection between adverse housing, younger age, Profile 4 CLVS, and moderate to severe CUD among cannabis users. These results reveal the importance of understanding simultaneous intersections among indicators of CLVS in determining profiles of lifetime violence. Also critical are intersections among CLVS profiles and significant covariates as a basis for trauma- and violence-informed care for CUD that prioritizes men most disadvantaged by this convergence and attends to individual and structural health disparities at practice and policy levels.

Health, safety, and socioeconomic impacts of cannabis liberalization laws: An evidence and gap map

Background

Globally, cannabis laws and regulations are rapidly changing. Countries are increasingly permitting access to cannabis under various decriminalization, medicalization, and legalization laws. With strong economic, public health, and social justice incentives driving these domestic cannabis policy reforms, liberalization trends are bound to continue. However, despite a large and growing body of interdisciplinary research addressing the policy-relevant health, safety, and socioeconomic consequences of cannabis liberalization, there is a lack of robust primary and systematic research that comprehensively investigates the consequences of these reforms.

Objectives

This evidence and gap map (EGM) summarizes the empirical evidence on cannabis liberalization policies. Primary objectives were to develop a conceptual framework linking cannabis liberalization policies to relevant outcomes, descriptively summarize the empirical evidence, and identify areas of evidence concentration and gaps.

Search Methods

We comprehensively searched for eligible English-language empirical studies published across 23 academic databases and 11 gray literature sources through August 2020. Additions to the pool of potentially eligible studies from supplemental sources were made through November 2020.

Selection Criteria

The conceptual framework for this EGM draws upon a legal epidemiological perspective highlighting the causal effects of law and policy on population-level outcomes. Eligible interventions include policies that create or expand access to a legal or decriminalized supply of cannabis: comprehensive medical cannabis laws (MCLs), limited medical cannabidiol laws (CBDLs), recreational cannabis laws (RCLs), industrial hemp laws (IHLs), and decriminalization of cultivations laws (DCLs). Eligible outcomes include intermediate responses (i.e., attitudes/behaviors and markets/environments) and longer-term consequences (health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes) of these laws.

Data Collection and Analysis

Both dual screening and dual data extraction were performed with third person deconfliction. Primary studies were appraised using the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale and systematic reviews were assessed using AMSTAR 2.

Main Results

The EGM includes 447 studies, comprising 438 primary studies and nine systematic reviews. Most research derives from the United States, with little research from other countries. By far, most cannabis liberalization research focuses on the effects of MCLs and RCLs. Studies targeting other laws-including CBDLs, IHLs, and DCLs-are relatively rare. Of the 113 distinct outcomes we documented, cannabis use was the single most frequently investigated. More than half these outcomes were addressed by three or fewer studies, highlighting substantial evidence gaps in the literature. The systematic evidence base is relatively small, comprising just seven completed reviews on cannabis use (3), opioid-related harms (3), and alcohol-related outcomes (1). Moreover, we have limited confidence in the reviews, as five were appraised as minimal quality and two as low quality.

Authors’ Conclusions

More primary and systematic research is needed to better understand the effects of cannabis liberalization laws on longer-term-and arguably more salient-health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes. Since most research concerns MCLs and RCLs, there is a critical need for research on the societal impacts of industrial hemp production, medical CBD products, and decriminalized cannabis cultivation. Future research should also prioritize understanding the heterogeneous effects of these laws given differences in specific provisions and implementation across jurisdictions.

Cannabis and tobacco use among adolescents aged 12-17 years from 16 low- and middle-income countries

Background

We aimed to examine the association between cannabis use and tobacco use in 12-17-year-old adolescents residing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods

We used data from the Global School-based Student Health Survey collected between 2012 and 2022. We selected 16 LMICs based on pre-defined inclusion criteria and compared the prevalence of cannabis use for female and for male adolescents for each country. We estimated age- and sex-standardised distributions of tobacco use, school truancy, suicide attempt, sex with multiple partners, physical fighting, perceived school kindness, and parental monitoring were estimated. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) measuring associations between cannabis use and other variables. We generated pooled estimates through random effects meta-analyses.

Results

The overall pooled prevalence of cannabis use was 4.3% (95% CI = 3.2-5.9), with significant between-country heterogeneities (I² = 91.4%; P = 0.000). Cannabis use was more prevalent in males than in females in each country. Tobacco use was strongly associated with cannabis use in all 16 LMICs. Tobacco users had approximately 11 to 14 times greater odds of cannabis use than non-tobacco users. Sex with multiple partners, suicide attempts, and school truancy had a robust association with cannabis use in over half of LMICs.

Conclusions

There is a need for comprehensive preventive measures targeting multiple risk behaviours associated with cannabis use for adolescents in LMICs.

Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Cannabis Use-Related Adverse Psychosis Outcomes: A Public Mental Health-Oriented Evidence Review

Objective: Cannabis use is increasingly normalized; psychosis is a major adverse health outcome. We reviewed evidence on cannabis use-related risk factors for psychosis outcomes at different stages toward recommendations for risk reduction by individuals involved in cannabis use. Methods: We searched primary databases for pertinent literature/data 2016 onward, principally relying on reviews and high-quality studies which were narratively summarized and quality-graded; recommendations were developed by international expert consensus. Results: Genetic risks, and mental health/substance use problem histories elevate the risks for cannabis-related psychosis. Early age-of-use-onset, frequency-of-use, product composition (i.e., THC potency), use mode and other substance co-use all influence psychosis risks; the protective effects of CBD are uncertain. Continuous cannabis use may adversely affect psychosis-related treatment and medication effects. Risk factor combinations further amplify the odds of adverse psychosis outcomes. Conclusions: Reductions in the identified cannabis-related risks factors-short of abstinence-may decrease risks of related adverse psychosis outcomes, and thereby protect cannabis users' health.