Cannabis liberalisation and the US opioid crisis

Involvement of CB1R and CB2R Ligands in Sleep Disorders and Addictive Behaviors in the Last 25 Years

Over the last three decades, the decriminalization and legalization of therapeutic and recreational marijuana consumption have increased. Consequently, the availability of marijuana-based products associated with its therapeutic use has increased. These developments have stimulated research on cannabinoids involving a wide range of animal models and clinical trials. Also, it is reported that cannabinoids promote sleep in animal models and naïve human participants, and they seem to improve insomnia and sleep apnea in patients. However, evidence from rigorous clinical trials is needed. In addition, among several physiological processes, cannabinoid receptors modulate dopamine synthesis and release. In this regard, the side effects of marijuana and marijuana derivatives must not be ignored. The chronic consumption of marijuana could reduce dopamine responsivity, increase negative emotionality, and induce anhedonia. Research on the neurobiological changes associated with cannabinoid ligands in animal models, in regard to the consumption of both marijuana and marijuana-based compounds, must improve and the effectiveness of the therapeutic outcomes in clinical trials must be guaranteed. In this review, we include a detailed description of the mechanisms of action of cannabinoids on the brain and their impact on sleep disorders and addictive behaviors to emphasize the need to understand the potential risks and benefits of their therapeutic and recreational use. Evidence from basic research and clinical trials from papers published between 2000 and 2024 are included. The pharmacodynamics of these compounds is discussed in terms of sleep-wake regulation, drug addiction, and addictive behaviors.

MASCC guideline: cannabis for cancer-related pain and risk of harms and adverse events

BACKGROUND

Approximately 18% of patients with cancer use cannabis at one time as palliation or treatment for their cancer. We performed a systematic review of randomized cannabis cancer trials to establish a guideline for its use in pain and to summarize the risk of harm and adverse events when used for any indication in cancer patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomized trials with or without meta-analysis was carried out from MEDLINE, CCTR, Embase, and PsychINFO. The search involved randomized trials of cannabis in cancer patients. The search ended on November 12, 2021. The Jadad grading system was used for grading quality. Inclusion criteria for articles were randomized trials or systematic reviews of randomized trials of cannabinoids versus either placebo or active comparator explicitly in adult patients with cancer.

RESULTS

Thirty-four systematic reviews and randomized trials met the eligibility criteria for cancer pain. Seven were randomized trials involving patients with cancer pain. Two trials had positive primary endpoints, which could not be reproduced in similarly designed trials. High-quality systematic reviews with meta-analyses found little evidence that cannabinoids are an effective adjuvant or analgesic to cancer pain. Seven systematic reviews and randomized trials related to harms and adverse events were included. There was inconsistent evidence about the types and levels of harm patients may experience when using cannabinoids.

CONCLUSION

The MASCC panel recommends against the use of cannabinoids as an adjuvant analgesic for cancer pain and suggests that the potential risk of harm and adverse events be carefully considered for all cancer patients, particularly with treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Do We Have Structure, Process and Outcomes to Support Cannabis as Supportive Therapy in Cancer?

Cannabis is becoming more popular and more available in the United States. It has been approved for use by multiple states for various conditions and several states now allow recreational cannabis. We explore the structure of cannabis distribution, the process of acquisition, outcomes, and the safety of cannabis in the United States.

U.S. state policy contexts and mortality of working-age adults

The rise in working-age mortality rates in the United States in recent decades largely reflects stalled declines in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality alongside rising mortality from alcohol-induced causes, suicide, and drug poisoning; and it has been especially severe in some U.S. states. Building on recent work, this study examined whether U.S. state policy contexts may be a central explanation. We modeled the associations between working-age mortality rates and state policies during 1999 to 2019. We used annual data from the 1999-2019 National Vital Statistics System to calculate state-level age-adjusted mortality rates for deaths from all causes and from CVD, alcohol-induced causes, suicide, and drug poisoning among adults ages 25-64 years. We merged that data with annual state-level data on eight policy domains, such as labor and taxes, where each domain was scored on a 0-1 conservative-to-liberal continuum. Results show that the policy domains were associated with working-age mortality. More conservative marijuana policies and more liberal policies on the environment, gun safety, labor, economic taxes, and tobacco taxes in a state were associated with lower mortality in that state. Especially strong associations were observed between certain domains and specific causes of death: between the gun safety domain and suicide mortality among men, between the labor domain and alcohol-induced mortality, and between both the economic tax and tobacco tax domains and CVD mortality. Simulations indicate that changing all policy domains in all states to a fully liberal orientation might have saved 171,030 lives in 2019, while changing them to a fully conservative orientation might have cost 217,635 lives.