ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review


The evolving legal cannabis landscape in the US continues to present novel regulatory challenges that necessitate the development of a Cannabis Regulatory Science. Two specific issues of concern within Cannabis Regulatory Science are (1) the impact that cannabis use has on the incidence, prevalence, and severity of mental disorders, and (2) how cannabis laws and regulations modify this impact. This paper first provides several conceptual points that are useful for evaluating the relationship between cannabis use and mental disorders. Second, it selectively reviews and comments on data relevant to the relationship between cannabis use and depression, several forms of anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. Next, regulatory and public health parallels between the nascent cannabis industry and the pharmaceutical, tobacco, and alcohol industries are discussed. The focus is on specific types of industry practices that may harm those with or at risk for mental disorders. Recommendations are then offered for legal cannabis regulations that could mitigate this harm. Last, future research goals are discussed for building the field of Cannabis Regulatory Science and addressing the potential negative impact of cannabis on those with mental disorders.
Cannabis regulatory science: risk-benefit considerations for mental disorders
Jacob T. Borodovskya,b, Alan J. Budneya
aDartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Center for Technology and Behavioral Health, 46 Centerra
Parkway, Lebanon, NH 03766, United States; bThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and
Clinical Practice, 74 College St. Hanover, NH 03755, United States
Corresponding Author: Jacob T. Borodovsky
Center for Technology and Behavioral Health
46 Centerra Parkway
Lebanon, NH 03766, United States
Cannabis regulatory science: risk-benefit considerations for mental disorders
The evolving legal cannabis landscape in the U.S. continues to present novel regulatory challenges
that necessitate the development of a Cannabis Regulatory Science. Two specific issues of concern
within Cannabis Regulatory Science are (1) the impact that cannabis use has on the incidence,
prevalence, and severity of mental disorders, and (2) how cannabis laws and regulations modify this
impact. In this paper, we first provide several conceptual points that are useful for evaluating the
relationship between cannabis use and mental disorders. Second, we selectively review and
comment on data relevant to the relationship between cannabis use and depression, several forms of
anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. Next, we discuss
regulatory and public health parallels between the nascent cannabis industry and the pharmaceutical,
tobacco, and alcohol industries. We focus on specific types of industry practices that may harm
those with or at risk for mental disorders. We then offer recommendations for legal cannabis
regulations that could mitigate this harm. Last, we discuss future research goals for building the
field of Cannabis Regulatory Science and addressing the potential negative impact of cannabis on
those with mental disorders.
Keywords: cannabis, marijuana, legalization, mental disorders, psychiatric, regulatory science
Cannabis legalization has gained unprecedented momentum around the world and continues to
evolve rapidly. In the U.S., states not only differ in whether they have legalized medical or
commercial (i.e., recreational) cannabis, or both, but importantly, each state has taken a unique
approach to designing its legal cannabis laws (LCL). States vary dramatically in the number and
types of qualifying medical conditions, requirements for becoming a medical cannabis patient, the
types and potency of products that can be used, the amount of personal cannabis one can possess,
and the regulation of production, distribution, marketing, and sale of cannabis (Barry & Glantz,
2016; Bestrashniy & Winters, 2015; Chapman, Spetz, Lin, Chan, & Schmidt, 2016; Pacula, Hunt,
& Boustead, 2014; Pacula, Powell, Heaton, & Sevigny, 2015; Williams, Olfson, Kim, Martins, &
Kleber, 2016). These specific components of laws warrant careful consideration and study as each
has the potential to mitigate or increase the negative or positive public health consequences related
to cannabis use. Unfortunately, few states have effectively utilized scientific evidence concerning
cannabis or the public health effects of various regulatory mechanisms, to construct their laws and
regulations (Barry & Glantz, 2016; Weiss, Howlett, & Baler, 2017).
This article concentrates on the potential impact of components (i.e., provisions) of legal
cannabis laws on one vulnerable subgroup - those with and those predisposed to developing mental
disorders. Historically in the United States, individuals with mental disorders have experienced
stigma, marginalization (Perese, 2016), and a disproportionate amount of burden engendered by
legal and illegal addictive substances (Centers for Disease & Prevention, 2013; Jane-Llopis &
Matytsina, 2006; Kessler, 2004). Those with mental disorders account for a substantial portion of
the total amount of tobacco and alcohol consumed in the U.S. (Grant, Hasin, Chou, Stinson, &
Dawson, 2004; Lasser et al., 2000; Meier, Purshouse, & Brennan, 2010). Cannabis consumption
patterns are no different. It is estimated that those with past-year mental disorders consume
approximately 80% of all cannabis consumed in the U.S. (Lev-Ran, Le Foll, McKenzie, George, &
Rehm, 2013). Thus, this population will clearly be affected by legal cannabis perhaps more so
than other subgroups. The design of legal cannabis laws and corresponding regulations should
reflect an acute awareness of this disproportionate vulnerability.
Developing regulations that mitigate the impact of cannabis on those with mental disorders is
complicated by the interacting dynamics of commercial and medical cannabis legalization. From a
commercialization perspective, a multibillion-dollar for-profit cannabis industry (ArcView Market
Research, 2016) is emerging and behaving in ways reminiscent of the tobacco and alcohol
industries (Barry & Glantz, 2016; Carlini, Garrett, & Harwick, 2017; Pacula, Kilmer, Wagenaar,
Chaloupka, & Caulkins, 2014; Richter & Levy, 2014; Subritzky, Lenton, & Pettigrew, 2016;
Subritzky, Pettigrew, & Lenton, 2015). Our history with the tobacco and alcohol industries has
clearly demonstrated that loose regulation of these industries and their products is detrimental to
public health (Bero, 2003; Jahiel & Babor, 2007) particularly for vulnerable populations such as
those with mental disorders (Apollonio & Malone, 2005; Hirshbein, 2012; Prochaska, Hall, &
Bero, 2008).
In addition to concerns about commercial cannabis, the medical cannabis laws that are now
effective in 29 U.S. states and Washington D.C. permit therapeutic cannabis use for diverse and
often diagnostically ambiguous medical conditions. These medical cannabis laws convey to the
public that cannabis is an effective therapeutic agent for the multitude of conditions listed within
and across state laws. The combination of commercialization and medicalization of cannabis
appears to be contributing to individuals supplementing or replacing their use of FDA-approved
psychiatric medications with cannabis to treat depression, anxiety, and symptoms of psychosis
(Boehnke, Litinas, & Clauw, 2016; Bradford & Bradford, 2016; Corroon, Mischley, & Sexton,
2017; Nunberg, Kilmer, Pacula, & Burgdorf, 2011; Piper et al., 2017; Reiman, 2016; Reinarman,
Nunberg, Lanthier, & Heddleston, 2011). Similar trends are emerging in Canada (Lucas & Walsh,
2017; Lucas et al., 2016; Walsh et al., 2013). This is occurring despite little to no controlled clinical
evidence supporting the therapeutic efficacy of cannabis for mental disorders (Belendiuk, Baldini,
& Bonn-Miller, 2015), and despite data indicating that medical cannabis patients with a history of
psychiatric problems have more problematic cannabis use than medical cannabis patients without a
history of psychiatric problems (Ware, Martel, Jovey, Lynch, & Singer, 2018).
This chaotic regulatory landscape necessitates the expeditious development of a Cannabis
Regulatory Science to generate the data necessary for creating evidence-based cannabis regulations
that maximize public health benefits and minimize public health harms. The goal of the present
commentary is to contribute to this effort by focusing on the relationships among cannabis use,
cannabis legalization, and mental disorders. Specifically, this paper will (1) present conceptual
points regarding the relationship between cannabis and mental disorders that may be useful for
readers; (2) review the relevant relationships between cannabis and mental disorders at multiple
levels of analysis (e.g., epidemiological, clinical, behavioral pharmacological); (3) draw several
parallels from the pharmaceutical, tobacco, and alcohol industries to identify how legal cannabis
laws and a for-profit cannabis industry will likely influence cannabis use among those with mental
disorders; (4) present recommendations for regulations based on the current literature and historical
precedents with other substances; and (5) present considerations for future research that will help
create a robust Cannabis Regulatory Science body of research related to cannabis and mental
Of note, we will not address how cannabis use and legalization may affect non-cannabis
substance use disorders (SUD) (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, opioid, or tobacco use disorder) even though
such SUDs are a subgroup of mental disorders and disproportionately co-occur with mood,
anxiety, and psychotic disorders (Grant et al., 2016). A meaningful discussion of this topic requires
an analysis of several additional concepts (e.g., gateway hypothesis, substitution effects,
pharmacological synergy, etc.) that are beyond the scope of this commentary. Second, we discuss
cannabis use disorder (CUD) but do so within the context of its significant co-occurrence with
other mental disorders. We refer those interested in a discussion of the specific relationships among
cannabis legalization, cannabis use, and CUD (excluding other types of mental disorders) to our
previous commentary (Budney & Borodovsky, 2017).
The relationship between cannabis and mental disorders
Conceptual Points
Before addressing the known relationships between cannabis use and specific mental disorders,
several broad concepts warrant discussion. The concepts outlined below will help guide critical
evaluation of the relevant scientific literature.
First, the cannabis plant contains over 100 distinct cannabinoid compounds, and the amount
of each compound varies substantially across plants (ElSohly & Gul, 2014). The compounds most
relevant to this discussion (but certainly not the only relevant compounds) are delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). THC is the primary psychoactive constituent
of cannabis and exhibits reinforcing and rewarding properties (Cooper & Haney, 2009). Synthetic
pharmaceutical-grade THC is FDA approved to treat weight loss in AIDS patients and
chemotherapy-induced nausea (AbbVie Inc., 2018). A closely related compound nabilone is
also FDA approved for treating the latter condition (Throckmorton, 2016). In contrast, to date,
studies on CBD have not shown any clear signs of abuse liability (Babalonis et al., 2017), and
individuals who have consumed as much as 600 mg of CBD reportedly did not demonstrate signs
of intoxication in a laboratory study (Martin-Santos et al., 2012). Additionally, emerging data
suggest that CBD-based medications may be promising therapeutic agents for several neurological
disorders (Fasinu, Phillips, ElSohly, & Walker, 2016).
The effects and therapeutic value of consuming a pharmaceutical-grade formulation of a
single cannabinoid (e.g., THC or CBD) can be dramatically different from the effects of ingesting
the entire cannabis plant. Furthermore, ingesting the entire plant (or a formulation) that has
differing amounts of each compound, (e.g., a plant containing 20% THC and 0.3% CBD vs. a plant
containing 0.5% THC and 4.0% CBD), would have obvious differential pharmacological effects.
Thus, not only is it essential to identify the specific compounds being administered when
evaluating the effects of “cannabis” on behavior and specific health conditions, but the dose of each
compound and the commensurate interactions must be considered as well. Evaluation of dose is
further complicated by other potential pharmacodynamic characteristics of cannabinoid
compounds. For example, biphasic effect profiles have been posited for cannabinoids; that is, a low
dose may produce one effect (e.g., reduction in anxiety) and a high dose may cause the opposite
effect (e.g., increased anxiety) (Mechoulam & Parker, 2013).
Second, the chronicity of use of a particular cannabinoid or combination of cannabinoids
(such as those present in the cannabis plant) could impact the medical risk-benefit profile. For
example, a cannabinoid could have a clinically meaningful impact on a mental disorder when
administered acutely, but adversely affect the development or course of a mental disorder when
repeatedly administered over time. Paradoxical characteristics like these are not uncommon among
medications. Consider benzodiazepines for example. This class of medications is effective as a
short-term aid for reducing debilitating symptoms of anxiety disorders (Dell'osso & Lader, 2013).
And yet, long-term benzodiazepine use carries several risks such as development of a substance use
disorder, cognitive decline, and exacerbation of anxiety (Dell'osso & Lader, 2013). The point is that
evaluating the risk-benefit profile of a psychoactive compound used for medical purposes requires
consideration of both short- and long-term consequences.
Third, a drug’s reinforcing effect should not be mistaken as a therapeutic one. Psychoactive
substances like THC (or alcohol, stimulants, opioids) produce euphoric effects via interactions with
reward-related neurocircuitry. More relevantly, these substances can also temporarily reduce pre-
drug negative mood states without resolving the underlying cause of the mood disturbance. This
combination of effects likely renders the substance more reinforcing for persons with mental
disorders. That is, in addition to the typical positive reinforcing effects experienced by users,
individuals with mental disorders may also experience negative reinforcement when ingesting the
substance (i.e., relief from negative emotional states such as depressed mood). One might interpret
this latter effect as therapeutic, but it in fact likely contributes to the increased vulnerability to
substance use and development of substance use disorders (SUD) among those with mental
disorders. Whether or not this constitutes self-medication (Khantzian, 1997) in the traditional
sense of the term is of little importance. The relevant point is that using a substance to achieve
temporary symptomatic relief may not be therapeutic, particularly if continued use of the substance
exacerbates or helps maintain (rather than resolving) a mental disorder.
Last, when interpreting the results of research studies or case illustrations, it is essential to
consider the history of cannabis use of the individuals under study. Whether individuals have ever
used cannabis, how recently they have used, and how frequently they have been using all can
contribute to tolerance to cannabis effects, and to the probability and severity of cannabis
withdrawal when cannabis is discontinued. This, in turn, may have a dramatic impact on the
observed effects in any one study (Kirk & De Wit, 1999; Schlienz, Budney, Lee, & Vandrey,
In sum, any meaningful discussion and evaluation of the effects of cannabis on mental
disorders must explicitly specify what cannabinoid compounds are being evaluated, how much of
and for how long the compounds were administered and evaluated, the potential conflation of
reinforcing properties and therapeutic utility, and the cannabis use history of the persons included
in the evaluation.
The prevalence and co-occurrence of cannabis use and mental disorders.
The cross-sectional relationship between cannabis use and mental disorders can be understood in
two ways the prevalence of cannabis use among those with mental disorders (Lev-Ran, Le Foll,
et al., 2013) or the prevalence of mental disorders among cannabis users (Stinson, Ruan, Pickering,
& Grant, 2006). In both cases, the scientific literature is clear that the co-occurrence of cannabis
use or CUD and major depressive, psychotic, anxiety, posttraumatic stress, and bipolar disorders is
disproportionally large when compared to either those who do not use cannabis or to those without
mental disorders (Agosti, Nunes, & Levin, 2002; Green, Young, & Kavanagh, 2005; Hasin et al.,
2016; Lev-Ran, Imtiaz, Rehm, & Le Foll, 2013; Lev-Ran, Le Foll, et al., 2013; Teesson et al.,
2012). Furthermore, the prevalence of mental disorders among cannabis users appears to rise in
parallel with the frequency and severity of self-reported cannabis use (Cheung et al., 2010;
Degenhardt, Hall, & Lynskey, 2001; Stinson et al., 2006; Zvolensky, Cougle, Johnson, Bonn-
Miller, & Bernstein, 2010). Of note, the elevated prevalence of CUD among those with mental
disorders does not appear to be simply a function of an elevated prevalence of lifetime cannabis
use. Several cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have demonstrated that cannabis users with
mental disorders are approximately twice as likely as cannabis users without mental disorders to
have or develop CUD (Florez-Salamanca et al., 2013; Lev-Ran, Le Foll, et al., 2013; Lopez-
Quintero et al., 2011; Martins & Gorelick, 2011).
Specific mental disorders and their relationships with cannabis use.
In this section, we present summaries of the known and potential therapeutic and adverse effects of
cannabis and cannabinoids on depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, and
bipolar disorder. Given space limitations, this summary is broad in scope, but lacking in detail.
More in-depth discussions of this literature can be ascertained from cited original articles and
Cannabis users commonly report that they use cannabis to help with their depression (Aggarwal et
al., 2013; Bonn-Miller, Boden, Bucossi, & Babson, 2014; Reinarman et al., 2011; Walsh et al.,
2013). However, there are no randomized controlled clinical trial data demonstrating the use of
medical cannabis (plant) or pharmaceutical-grade cannabinoids for the treatment of major
depressive disorder (Whiting et al., 2015). Several studies of various patient populations with
serious physical medical conditions (e.g., HIV, Multiple sclerosis) have measured depressive
symptoms as a secondary outcome, and have noted improvements in mood (Walsh et al., 2017).
However depressive symptoms were not the primary endpoints in these studies, and this effect was
not on Major Depressive Disorder. Relief from the symptoms associated with serious chronic
medical conditions like HIV or Multiple sclerosis would be expected to improve negative moods
commonly associated with enduring chronic illness. Interestingly, the medication rimonabant, a
CB1 receptor antagonist (i.e., blocks the effects of cannabinoids like THC), was removed from the
U.S. and European markets after determining that a small portion of those who used it experienced
side effects of depression and suicidality. This observation reflects an important relationship
between the endocannabinoid system and mood regulation, and hence, raises the possibility of
developing cannabinoid-based medications to treat mood disorders (Hill & Gorzalka, 2009; Le
Foll, Gorelick, & Goldberg, 2009; Micale, Di Marzo, Sulcova, Wotjak, & Drago, 2013). Moreover,
preclinical data indicate that CB1 receptor agonism may increase serotonergic-related neural
activity suggesting that cannabinoid compounds may be useful for improving negative mood
(Bambico, Katz, Debonnel, & Gobbi, 2007; Gobbi et al., 2005).
The extant data that address whether or not cannabis use can contribute to depression are
equivocal, but when a relationship has been observed, cannabis use is most often associated with an
increased, rather than decreased risk of depression. A systematic review of longitudinal studies
that controlled for baseline depression indicated that cannabis use (particularly heavy cannabis use)
was associated with increased risk for subsequently developing depression (Lev-Ran et al., 2014).
However, some nationally representative longitudinal data suggest that this relationship is mediated
by associations with other SUDs (Blanco et al., 2016), or suggest an opposite causal direction (i.e.,
that having major depressive disorder at baseline increases the risk of subsequent cannabis
initiation) (Feingold, Weiser, Rehm, & Lev-Ran, 2015). Studies that have not accounted for the
frequency of cannabis use or the age of cannabis use onset have found no relationship (Danielsson,
Lundin, Agardh, Allebeck, & Forsell, 2016). Clinically, individuals with depression who continue
to use cannabis throughout treatment make less improvement on their mental health symptoms than
individuals with depression who do not use cannabis during treatment (Bahorik et al., 2017). Last,
individuals from twin pairs who use cannabis frequently (≥100 times) are more likely to report
major depression than their less frequent or non-using monozygotic twin (Agrawal et al., 2017).
In sum, the endocannabinoid system is involved in mood regulation, and thus there may be
potential for development of cannabinoid-based medications for depression. However, use of
cannabis plant material ingested by the general population likely facilitates the onset or worsening
of symptoms of depression. Interpretation of positive findings from cannabis studies that observe
decreased depression secondary to relief from chronic medical conditions (e.g., Multiple sclerosis),
must consider and test alternative explanations such as that the improved mood is caused by the
reduction in the chronic condition. Last, self-reported temporary relief from depression (negative
reinforcement) likely contributes to the high prevalence of CUD among those with depressive
disorders. Caution is warranted in labeling such acute symptomatic relief as therapeutic.
The relationship between cannabis and anxiety that can be gleaned from the extant literature is
complex. Some CB1 receptor agonist compounds, e.g., THC, have demonstrated potential
anxiogenesis, while other compounds such as CBD have shown anxiolytic properties (Crippa et
al., 2009). The potential relations between cannabis and anxiety are further complicated by
evidence suggesting that a single cannabinoid - such as THC - can mitigate stress responses when
consumed at low doses (7.5 mg), but exacerbate stress at higher doses (12.5 mg) (Childs, Lutz, &
de Wit, 2017). Moreover, anxiety is a common symptom reported during cannabis withdrawal
(Budney, Moore, Vandrey, & Hughes, 2003), and thus some reports of anxiolytic effects of
cannabis may merely reflect mitigation of anxiety-related cannabis withdrawal symptoms.
That said, cannabis users commonly report that cannabis helps with their anxiety (Bonn-
Miller, Boden, et al., 2014; Reinarman et al., 2011; Walsh et al., 2013) and daily cannabis users
provided with 3% THC cannabis cigarettes report feeling more relaxed after use (Hart et al., 2002).
However, there are few controlled studies that clarify the effect of cannabinoid compounds on
clinical anxiety. Some data suggest that CBD reduces public speaking anxiety (Bergamaschi et al.,
2011) and self-reported anxiety symptoms among patients with social anxiety disorder (Crippa et
al., 2011). Studies of patients with chronic pain treated with pharmaceutical-grade cannabinoids
(e.g., dronabinol, nabilone, and nabiximols) demonstrate improvements in symptoms of anxiety
compared to placebo (Whiting et al., 2015). However, similar to the depression data reported, these
types of studies focused on treatment of non-psychiatric medical conditions and impact on anxiety
or anxiety disorders were secondary outcomes. Thus these reductions could readily be explained by
indirect effects that stem from a reduction in chronic pain.
Cannabis use can elicit acute episodes of intense anxiety as well as exacerbate symptoms of
anxiety among those with an anxiety disorder (Crippa et al., 2009). Several controlled laboratory
studies on the acute effects of cannabis or cannabinoids in humans support this notion. For
example, individuals with varied lifetime histories of cannabis use who were given up to 5 mg of
intravenous THC reported significant increases in anxiety (D'Souza et al., 2004). Similar results
were observed among subjects with varying patterns of cannabis use administered oral THC (15
mg) or a combination of 16.2 mg THC/15.0 mg CBD delivered via an oromucosal spray
(Karschner et al., 2011). In a study of cannabis edible products, 18 participants with no past 90-day
cannabis use, consumed a cannabis brownie containing either 10, 25, or 50 mg of THC. One
participant provided with a 25 mg brownie, experienced severe anxiety and had to temporarily
discontinue study participation (Vandrey et al., 2017). In another study, individuals who had used
cannabis less than 15 times in their life, had not used cannabis in the past month, and had never
experienced negative psychological effects from cannabis were given either 10 mg of oral THC,
600 mg of oral CBD, or placebo over three sessions (Martin-Santos et al., 2012). The dose of THC
significantly increased anxiety compared to placebo and CBD, but no differences were observed
between CBD and placebo. Finally, relatively infrequent cannabis users (<10 cannabis joints per
month) have reported greater anxiety after using increasingly more potent (2969 mg THC)
cannabis joints (Hunault et al., 2014).
Some have suggested that the impact of cannabis on anxiety may also vary by sub-type of
anxiety disorder (Walsh et al., 2017). For example, two independent analyses of longitudinal data
from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) study
indicate that baseline cannabis use is associated with elevated incidence of social anxiety (Blanco
et al., 2016; Feingold, Weiser, Rehm, & Lev-Ran, 2016) but not other types of anxiety. Frequency
of use may also impact the relationship between cannabis and anxiety. Longitudinal analyses of
youth indicate that daily cannabis use is associated with having an anxiety disorder later in life
(Degenhardt et al., 2013). Studies that have not accounted for the frequency of cannabis use or age
of cannabis use onset have found no relationship in either direction, that is, early cannabis use did
not relate to later anxiety nor did early anxiety predict later cannabis use (Danielsson et al., 2016).
In sum, the relationship between cannabis and anxiety is complex, similar to observed
relationships between depression and cannabis use. Factors such as cannabis use history, cannabis
potency, predisposition to an anxiety disorder, and consumers’ ability to titrate dose, may all affect
the extent to which individuals experience the acute effects of cannabis as being anxiogenic or
anxiolytic. This last factor concerning titration warrants special attention. Cannabis products and
methods of administration that allow a person to closely titrate his or her level of intoxication (e.g.,
vaping low-THC plant material) reduce the risk of over-intoxication and thus the risk of an acute
episode of anxiety. Currently available high-THC cannabis products (e.g., concentrates) consumed
via rapid methods of administration such as dabbing (M. Loflin & Earleywine, 2014), offer little
ability to titrate and thus place individuals at a higher risk of ingesting anxiogenic doses of THC.
Finally, as with depressed mood, cannabis (with THC or THC and CBD) can provide temporary
relief from some anxiety symptoms in some individuals who are feeling stressed or anxious, but
there are no controlled data to suggest it helps resolve anxiety disorders. Available data suggest that
CBD-based (non-THC) compounds may warrant controlled testing for certain anxiety disorders,
but to date, their clinical utility as an anxiolytic has not been demonstrated.
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
Most recently, cannabis has garnered a great deal of media, legislative, and scientific attention as a
potential treatment for PTSD. Such attention can likely be tied to two sources. Military veteran
groups have been publicly lobbying for legal access to cannabis for their PTSD (Ugwu, 2017).
Second, human studies have reported that both THC and CBD may help facilitate extinction of
conditioned fear memories (albeit under different administration procedures) (Das et al., 2013;
Rabinak et al., 2013). Moreover, two studies report that pure pharmaceutical-grade THC has
significantly reduced nightmares in those with PTSD (Jetly, Heber, Fraser, & Boisvert, 2015;
Roitman, Mechoulam, Cooper-Kazaz, & Shalev, 2014) and veterans with PTSD often endorse
using cannabis as a sleep-aid (Bonn-Miller, Babson, & Vandrey, 2014). However, other research
suggests potential adverse impact of cannabis and cannabinoids on PTSD symptoms and its course.
One study has demonstrated that compared to adults who do not use cannabis, chronic cannabis
users showed worse ability to extinguish previously conditioned fear responses (Papini et al.,
2017). Cannabis use and CUD have been associated with worse PTSD treatment outcomes, and
stopping cannabis use has been associated with better PTSD treatment outcomes (Bonn-Miller,
Boden, Vujanovic, & Drescher, 2013; Wilkinson, Stefanovics, & Rosenheck, 2015). Moreover,
veterans with PTSD and a history of heavy cannabis use who discontinue cannabis use at the start
of their PTSD treatment are less responsive to treatment than those with no history of cannabis use
or lighter cannabis use (Bonn-Miller et al., 2013).
As with depression and other anxiety disorders, the data on the relationship between PTSD
and cannabis are highly complex and equivocal (Haney & Evins, 2016; M. J. Loflin, Babson, &
Bonn-Miller, 2017). Generally, the clinical data suggest a negative impact of cannabis use on
PTSD outcomes. Nonetheless, additional research is warranted that addresses the aforementioned
issues: testing of specific cannabinoids and doses, acute vs. chronic administration, cannabis
tolerant vs. non-tolerant patients, and symptomatic relief versus impact on resolution of the
disorder. Clinical trials addressing some of these issues are underway (O'Neil et al., 2017).
An extensive literature has accumulated over the past 20 years on the effects of cannabis on the
development and course of schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders, and many reviews of this
issue are available (Hamilton, 2017; Rabin & George, 2017; Radhakrishnan, Wilkinson, &
D'Souza, 2014; Schoeler et al., 2016). THC and other synthetic CB1 receptor agonists have the
potential to elicit the onset of acute transient psychotic symptoms and produce cognitive
dysfunction. THC appears to exert a dose-dependent risk (albeit a relatively small risk) for
increasing the probability of developing a psychotic disorder, particularly among those with an
initial increased risk (e.g., genetic vulnerability, exhibiting prodromal signs or symptoms, earlier
onset cannabis use). Regular use of high potency cannabis (i.e., high THC content) appears to
confer markedly higher risk. Cannabis use has also been associated with worsening of symptoms of
schizophrenia, as well as adversely impacting the clinical course (i.e., trigger relapse, and outcomes
for those with psychotic disorders).
Some preclinical and clinical data, however, suggest that some cannabinoid compounds,
most notably CBD, might have potential for exerting positive effects on schizophrenia (Gururajan
& Malone, 2016; Leweke, Mueller, Lange, & Rohleder, 2016). A double-blind, randomized
controlled trial testing CBD against amisulpride reported that both compounds reduced symptom
severity, and CBD caused fewer extrapyramidal symptom side effects (Leweke et al., 2012).
Another recent double-blind placebo-controlled trial of CBD used in conjunction with treatment as
usual, demonstrated that CBD helped significantly reduce positive psychotic symptoms and
improved scores on the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (McGuire et al., 2017). There do not
appear to be any published clinical trials evaluating the cannabis plant as a treatment for psychosis
(Walsh et al., 2017). Interestingly, while individuals with schizophrenia who use cannabis have
worse symptoms of psychosis, there is some evidence to suggest that they have better cognitive
functioning (e.g., attentional control, visuospatial abilities) than individuals with schizophrenia who
do not use cannabis (Rabin, Zakzanis, & George, 2011). However, methodological differences
across studies, such as poorly defining cannabis use or inadequate control groups, warrant cautious
interpretation of this observation (Rabin et al., 2011; Segev & Lev-Ran, 2012). Moreover,
selection biases may explain these observations; that is, persons with schizophrenia who are able to
obtain and use cannabis may generally be higher functioning than those with schizophrenia who
cannot and don’t (Rabin et al., 2011; Segev & Lev-Ran, 2012).
In sum, there is convincing evidence from studies examining the use of cannabis plant
material that cannabis use is related to an increased likelihood of developing psychosis in
subgroups of the population and worsens existing symptoms of psychosis. Nonetheless, the
literature highlights the complexity of the problem and the need to consider the effects of various
compounds in the cannabis plant. Preclinical and clinical data on CBD suggest that additional
research is warranted to examine the potential for CBD to reduce the risk of developing
schizophrenia or for use as a medication for schizophrenia.
Bipolar Disorder.
To date, we are not aware of any data from controlled studies which suggest that either the use of
the cannabis plant in its entirety or CBD has potential as an effective therapeutic agent for bipolar
disorder. One published case study of two adults with bipolar disorder who were given up to 1200
mg CBD over the course of 25 days reported no significant improvement in symptoms (Zuardi et
al., 2010). As with schizophrenia, there are data to suggest that cannabis either has no effect or
improves cognition among individuals with bipolar disorder (Braga, Burdick, Derosse, & Malhotra,
2012; Sagar et al., 2016). Again, however, such results could reasonably be ascribed to selection
biases stemming from higher functioning individuals’ greater likelihood of using cannabis.
Clinical survey data suggest an association between use of cannabis and both the
development of bipolar disorder as well as negative course and outcomes among those with bipolar
disorder, although some studies have found no directional relationship. For example, data from the
Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study indicate that cannabis use at baseline
increased the risk for bipolar disorder at follow up (van Laar, van Dorsselaer, Monshouwer, & de
Graaf, 2007), and according to analyses of NESARC data, a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder at
baseline is not associated with subsequent cannabis initiation (Feingold et al., 2015). As with other
mental disorders, the risk of experiencing the onset of bipolar disorder at a younger age may
increase in relation to lifetime severity and frequency of cannabis use (Lagerberg et al., 2014; van
Laar et al., 2007).
Additional data from several other large longitudinal studies have shown that individuals
with bipolar disorder who use cannabis do not fare well. Among individuals with bipolar disorder,
those who use cannabis experience worse clinical outcomes (disorders severity, mania, and
psychosis) (van Rossum, Boomsma, Tenback, Reed, & van Os, 2009), are less likely to have their
symptoms go into remission (Kim et al., 2015), and have a significantly shorter time to recurrence
of bipolar disorder symptoms (Zorrilla et al., 2015) than those who do not use cannabis. Meta-
analyses of experimental and prospective observational studies lend further support to the
relationship between cannabis use and subsequent onset of bipolar disorder or worsening of
existing symptoms of bipolar disorder (Gibbs et al., 2015).
Summary: cannabis and mental disorders.
A few points of emphasis on the relationships between cannabis and mental disorders are worthy of
(1) The scientific and clinical literature has yet to adequately differentiate the cannabis plant
from isolated compounds of the plant or from synthetic cannabinoid compounds.
Summaries of information that do not account for these differences provide a poor
representation of how “cannabis” interacts with mental disorders. Such unreliable
information has great potential for misleading policymakers and the public about the
therapeutic potential and efficacy of the cannabis plant or isolated cannabinoid compounds.
(2) Currently, there are little to no controlled data from clinical science that support the use of
the cannabis plant containing effective doses of THC for any of the psychiatric conditions
reviewed above (National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine, 2017). Indeed,
there are fairly strong clinical data to indicate that use of the cannabis plant containing
effective doses of THC may cause or worsen many of these conditions. However, there are
no clinical data to suggest that CBD has a negative effect on psychiatric conditions; and
there are some preliminary clinical data to suggest that CBD warrants more controlled study
as a potential therapeutic agent for some psychiatric conditions. Moreover, basic and
laboratory research suggest that compounds that target the endogenous cannabinoid system
should be explored as potential therapies for psychiatric conditions. That said, such
observations do not indicate that use of the cannabis plant has utility in treating such
(3) Those with mental disorders are most vulnerable to the negative effects of cannabis use and
the development of CUD. As legal cannabis laws are considered or enacted, regulatory
provisions and public health initiatives are sorely needed to prevent even greater health
disparities related to cannabis use and CUD among those at risk for or that have a mental
disorder. We discuss these concerns in more detail below.
The potential impact of cannabis laws and regulations on individuals with mental disorders:
lessons from pharmaceutical, tobacco, and alcohol regulation.
Legally deeming cannabis as both a commercial and medical product makes effective regulation
even more difficult than that of traditional commercial-only substances like tobacco and alcohol.
This difficulty is especially pronounced in regards to protecting those with mental disorders.
Medical cannabis laws that legitimize the use of cannabis for multiple, diagnostically ambiguous
health conditions including some psychiatric conditions, have the potential to further increase the
prevalence, frequency, and dose of cannabis use among those with or at risk for mental disorders.
Thus, when considering optimal regulatory strategies for cannabis, it would seem prudent to start
by examining not only the U.S.’s history of regulatory efforts to mitigate the harms of tobacco and
alcohol, but also the concepts and systems that guide pharmaceutical industry regulation. Below,
we provide examples of several parallels between the emerging cannabis industry and the
pharmaceutical, tobacco, and alcohol industries. We believe these parallels can inform preliminary
designs of public health-oriented regulatory approaches to cannabis that may help prevent
escalation of the risk of harm among those with mental disorders.
Making scientifically unsubstantiated medical claims and using them for promotional purposes.
For-profit companies benefit from selling as much of their products as possible, to as many people
as possible. However, when the product being sold is a medication, there is a unique tension to
consider. The revenue generated by a medication is bound to the incidence and prevalence of the
medical condition that the medication has been approved to treat. It is largely for this reason that
pharmaceutical companies have often sought to expand the use of a medication in the population
by attempting to promote “off-label” use of that medication. Briefly, off-label use denotes the use
of a medication for indications not approved by FDA (i.e., treatment of conditions for which there
are few if any data supporting the use of that medication). Psychiatry is particularly vulnerable to
the influence of off-label promotion (Moncrieff, 2011; Moncrieff, Hopker, & Thomas, 2018). It is
not difficult to find instances in which pharmaceutical companies have attempted to increase off-
label prescribing of psychiatric medications to treat non-approved mental disorders (Kesselheim,
Mello, & Studdert, 2011; Mack, 2003; McKean & Monasterio, 2012; Mello, Studdert, & Brennan,
2009; Vedula, Bero, Scherer, & Dickersin, 2009), and not surprisingly, off-label prescribing of
psychiatric medications is common (Alexander, Gallagher, Mascola, Moloney, & Stafford, 2011;
Eguale et al., 2012; Stafford, 2008). However, this tactic is not limited to pharmaceutical
companies. There is evidence that the tobacco industry promoted the idea that smoking and
nicotine helped reduce anxiety and regulate emotions (Hirshbein, 2012), and that nicotine provided
a means for individuals with schizophrenia to self-medicate (Prochaska et al., 2008).
Similarly, few U.S. legal cannabis laws have explicitly deemed anxiety or depressive
disorders as qualifying conditions for medical cannabis. Yet survey data clearly indicate that
anxiety and depression are consistently two of the most common reasons for using medical
cannabis (Aggarwal et al., 2013; Bonn-Miller, Boden, et al., 2014; Lankenau et al., 2018; Nunberg
et al., 2011; Reinarman et al., 2011; Sexton, Cuttler, Finnell, & Mischley, 2016; Troutt &
DiDonato, 2015). Understanding why this is happening is critical. As mentioned above, many
positively rewarding psychoactive substances also produce acute relief from current negative
emotional states. Such negative reinforcement is a likely contributor to the high prevalence of
cannabis (and other substance) use among those with mood disorders.
Because a substantial amount of the cannabis consumed in the United States is consumed
by individuals with mental disorders (Lev-Ran, Le Foll, et al., 2013), it is in the interest of the
cannabis industry to continue to promote the idea that cannabis is a useful treatmentfor mental
disorders. Indeed, cannabis product distributors are now making scientifically unsubstantiated
claims about using cannabis to treat depression and anxiety (Bierut, Krauss, Sowles, & Cavazos-
Rehg, 2017; Caulkins, 2018; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2016), and it is easy to find
examples of legally-registered dispensaries in states like Colorado (The Clinic Marijuana Center,
2017), New Jersey (Garden State Dispensary, 2017), Delaware (First State Compassion Center,
2018), Rhode Island (Summit Medical Compassion Center, 2017), Nevada (Deep Roots Medical,
2017), and New Hampshire (Sanctuary Alternative Treatment Center, 2017) tacitly or explicitly
promoting the use of cannabis or cannabinoids to treat mental disorders on their websites even
though such disorders are not on the list of state-approved conditions. Furthermore, many
dispensaries are staffed by budtenders who provide point-of-sale verbal recommendations or
written materials concerning which type of cannabis (%THC, %CBD) can be used to treat various
mental disorders and negative moods states (Haug et al., 2016).
What makes these observations concerning is that information that “legitimizes” or
provides messages of hope related to cannabis’ proclivity for relief from mental disorders has great
potential for increasing initiation and possibly maintenance of cannabis use among those with
mental disorders. Potential for this impetus to cause such harm can manifest in at least two ways:
(1) use of cannabis rather than or in addition to known effective medications, and (2) facilitating
rationalization of use of a substance (cannabis) with known potential for addiction and likely long-
term adverse effects on psychiatric conditions.
Despite such industry behavior, one is hard-pressed to find any provisions of legal cannabis
laws requiring that cannabis product labels, dispensary websites, or dispensary staff, detail the fact
that the scientific literature does not support cannabis as a treatment for mental disorders, and that
cannabis use has potential for adversely impacting such conditions.
Cannabis sales outlets (i.e., dispensary) location and density.
The disproportionately large prevalence of alcohol and tobacco use disorders among those with
mental disorders may be attributed, in part, to the fact that mental disorders and outlets for selling
alcohol and tobacco are both highly concentrated in the same geographic areas primarily
socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods (Pearson, Bowie, & Thornton, 2014; Pereira,
Wood, Foster, & Haggar, 2013; Young-Wolff, Henriksen, Delucchi, & Prochaska, 2014). It is well
known that systems-level contextual variables such as the location and density of tobacco and
alcohol outlets are strongly related to having a tobacco or alcohol use disorder and having a more
difficult time discontinuing use (Campbell et al., 2009; Chuang, Cubbin, Ahn, & Winkleby, 2005;
Reitzel et al., 2011).
Again, as might be expected, a growing body of literature examining the location and
density of cannabis dispensaries reveals patterns similar to those for alcohol and tobacco. Often,
states pass non-preemptive legal cannabis laws, letting municipal governments decide whether or
not to permit sale of cannabis in their particular jurisdiction. Consequently, dispensaries have
become more concentrated in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas (Morrison, Gruenewald,
Freisthler, Ponicki, & Remer, 2014; Nemeth & Ross, 2014) that also have high densities of alcohol
outlets (Morrison et al., 2014; Shi, Meseck, & Jankowska, 2016; Thomas & Freisthler, 2016). By
some estimates, for each additional dispensary per square mile, the annual number of cannabis use
disorder-related hospitalizations increases by 7% (Mair, Freisthler, Ponicki, & Gaidus, 2015).
Individuals living in states with a greater number of dispensaries per person are also more likely to
have used alternative methods of cannabis administration (e.g., edibles and vaping), illustrating the
influence that dispensary proliferation may have on use patterns (Borodovsky, Crosier, Lee,
Sargent, & Budney, 2016).
Some efforts have been made to prevent dispensaries from being located near mental health
treatment clinics (Freisthler, Kepple, Sims, & Martin, 2013). However utilization of mental health
treatment is extremely low (most notably among socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals) (P.
S. Wang et al., 2005). Thus this solution, although well-meaning, targets locations where only a
fraction of this vulnerable population is found.
Cannabis products: potency, content, and diversification.
At the turn of the 20th century, the mechanization of the tobacco industry brought about increased
product development and alterations (Richter & Levy, 2014). Given that those with mental
disorders are more likely than the general population to become and stay addicted to nicotine
(Prochaska, Das, & Young-Wolff, 2017) and have the highest prevalence of nicotine use disorder
(Grant et al., 2004; Hurt & Robertson, 1998), one could reasonably argue that tobacco company
efforts to develop products that increased the amount of nicotine delivered to the user affected
those with mental disorders more than any other subpopulation. A similar dynamic appears to be
taking place with regard to the nascent legal cannabis industry (ArcView Market Research, 2016;
Richter & Levy, 2014). Since the mid-1990’s, the average potency (i.e., %THC) of street cannabis
seized by the DEA has increased from 4% to 12% THC (ElSohly et al., 2016). Remarkably, the
cannabis products sold in dispensaries can exceed these levels by up to 7-fold (Carlini et al., 2017).
Moreover, these high potency THC concentrates are being consumed using new rapid and efficient
methods of administration (M. Loflin & Earleywine, 2014). Survey data have begun to link the use
of these high-potency products to increased risk of depression, anxiety, and psychosis (Chan et al.,
2017; Daniulaityte et al., 2017; Keller, Chen, Brodsky, & Yoon, 2016) - supporting prior findings
from the United Kingdom that indicate similar relationships (M. Di Forti et al., 2009; Marta Di
Forti et al., 2014). Despite this, few states have attempted to regulate the potency of cannabis
concentrate products, and additionally, to our knowledge, there are no regulatory requirements to
warn consumers about the concerns associated with use of high potency cannabis concentrate
Historically, tobacco companies also have profiled the product preferences of subgroups of
tobacco users, and in doing so learned about the potential reinforcing effects of product flavoring
(Ahijevych & Garrett, 2010; Cook, Wayne, Keithly, & Connolly, 2003). For example, those with
mental disorders are more likely than other groups of smokers to be using menthol-flavored
cigarettes (Cohn, Johnson, Hair, Rath, & Villanti, 2016; Prochaska et al., 2017). Menthol flavoring
enhances the reinforcing effects of nicotine (Ahijevych & Garrett, 2010), leads individuals to
believe that tobacco is less harmful (Anderson, 2011), and is associated with more difficulty
quitting (D. T. Levy et al., 2011). Similar tactics and associated concerns are apparent with
cannabis product design and flavoring. There has been an unprecedented diversification of
attractive cannabis edible products (e.g., baked goods, drinks, lollipops, gummies)(Barrus et al.,
2016). Such products may reduce risk perceptions of cannabis use and increase the reinforcing
potential of cannabis because they are highly palatable and allow users to avoid the unpleasant
sensations associated with smoking. Additionally, different strains of cannabis are known to smell
and taste different putatively in large part because they contain different profiles of a class of
compounds called terpenes. Terpenes found in the cannabis plant have also been touted for their
potential anti-anxiety properties (Russo, 2011). The cannabis industry has now begun filing patents
for methods to create cannabis plants with terpene profiles that they believe are useful for treating
anxiety and depression (Lewis, Backes, & Giese, 2015; Weed, 2017). In summary, effective
regulation of cannabis will need to focus on various aspects of cannabis product design. This
includes not only THC and CBD content, but other product constituents that may alter the
reinforcing effects of cannabis (e.g., edible flavors and terpenes).
Recommendations for legislative and regulatory actions
Based on extant literature and historical knowledge of the for-profit sale of psychoactive
substances, the following recommendations may help prevent or reduce legal cannabis-related
harms among those with mental disorders.
(1) States with medical cannabis laws should remove any psychiatric conditions from their list
of qualifying conditions.
(2) States with medical cannabis laws should remove any clauses in their legislation that
provide medical condition loopholes (i.e., allowing use for any conditions that a physician
deems appropriate).
(3) Medical and commercial cannabis dispensary personnel, product labels, publications, on-
site display materials, websites, and social media profiles should:
not be permitted to tacitly or explicitly make scientifically unsubstantiated claims
about the therapeutic utility of the cannabis plant for mental disorders (or any other
medical disorders).
not be permitted to use psychiatric proxy terms such as “stress,” “happy,” or
“relaxed” to describe the effects of consuming cannabis products.
clearly inform consumers that cannabis may contribute to the onset of mental
clearly inform consumers that cannabis may worsen symptoms of a mental disorder
and adversely impact its course.
not be permitted to use terms referring to the cannabis plant (e.g., “marijuana” or
“cannabis”) when describing published scientific investigations of isolated
cannabinoid compounds (e.g., THC or CBD).
(4) States with medical and commercial cannabis laws should actively enforce licensed
dispensaries’ adherence to regulations via compliance checks and audits similar to those
used for tobacco (Jason, Ji, Anes, & Birkhead, 1991) and alcohol (Wagenaar, Toomey, &
Erickson, 2005). Failure to comply with regulations would result in heavy, financially-
related penalties. Compliance checks might involve active monitoring of dispensaries’
online behavior (e.g., dispensary website or social media page)(Peiper et al., 2017) or
having government personnel attempt to purchase cannabis explicitly for psychiatric
(5) Regulations should limit THC potency in all cannabis products. Data are not available to
inform a specific %THC limit, thus setting this limit would be partially, but not completely
arbitrary. A growing literature raises concern about the association between the use of high-
THC products and development of mental disorders, and in the last few years we have seen
an escalation in hospitalizations associated with excessive intoxication from consumption of
high-THC products (particularly edibles and concentrates)(Pierre, Gandal, & Son, 2016; G.
S. Wang et al., 2016). There is little justification for selling and consuming cannabis
products with THC levels over 15%, particularly for “medical” use. Such limits would help
curb industry attempts to devise cannabis formulations with greater reinforcing effects that
might be especially harmful to those with mental disorders.
(6) Legal cannabis laws (medical or commercial) or the regulations enacted by municipalities
in states with non-preemptive legal cannabis laws should restrict the total number of
dispensaries permitted within the state or specific municipalities, with special consideration
for the location of dispensaries. For example, states could limit the total number of
dispensaries located in neighborhoods with average household incomes at or below the
federal poverty level.
(7) Develop a research agenda that allows regulatory agencies to implement cannabis product
standardsanalogous to FDA’s tobacco product standardsthat protect public mental health.
The core mission of this research agenda should be to determine if potential new product
standards could (1) increase the likelihood that current cannabis users who have or are at
risk for developing a mental disorder discontinue cannabis use, and (2) decrease the
likelihood that individuals who are not using cannabis and either have or are at risk for
developing a mental disorder, start using cannabis (Villanti et al., 2011).
(8) States with both a commercial and medical cannabis law should tighten restrictions in their
commercial law and, although highly improbable, repeal their medical cannabis law to
allow time for clinical science to develop and test cannabinoid compounds that are safe and
effective for treating mental disorders.
(9) States with only a medical cannabis law should replace their law with either a restrictive
commercial cannabis law or decriminalization.
Future directions: research and data infrastructure
It is necessary to begin building a body of scientific knowledge that can be used to design cannabis
regulations that protect those with or predisposed to developing mental disorders. The question is:
where do we start? Perhaps the best place to look for the types of research questions that must be
addressed is in the tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical regulation and control literature (Ashley &
Backinger, 2012; Ashley, Backinger, van Bemmel, & Neveleff, 2014; Barry & Glantz, 2016;
Pacula, Kilmer, et al., 2014). For example, in the same way that tobacco product content has been
evaluated for its impact on those with or at risk for mental disorders (Cohn et al., 2016), it will be
essential to evaluate the impact of cannabis product content (e.g., THC, CBD, other cannabinoids,
terpenes) on one's risk for developing a mental disorder or the course of an existing mental
disorder. Similar thinking should apply to various product labeling and marketing tactics that the
cannabis industry is likely to employ. More broadly speaking, perhaps one of the most fundamental
concepts for cannabis regulatory scientists to consider is the interaction between the medical and
commercial cannabis industries. Well-designed research that results in effective regulation of the
medical cannabis industry may have suboptimal impact if similar regulations cannot
simultaneously be applied to the commercial industry.
Data infrastructures
Permitting the for-profit sale of addictive substances creates a unique set of public health concerns
- particularly when the substance is sold both as a medicine and a commercial product. As cannabis
transitions from illicit to licit substance in the U.S., our ability to monitor and isolate potential
causes of acute and long-term benefits and adverse effects of cannabis use on a population-level
scale must keep pace. Although some states have created medical cannabis patient registration
systems, the resulting data fall short of what will be necessary for creating effective regulations.
Several researchers have noted that effective monitoring will be impossible unless there is a
concerted effort to create new local, state, and federal cannabis data collection systems (Freeman &
Swift, 2016; Hoffman, Terashima, McCarty, & Muench, 2017; Kilmer & Pacula, 2017a, 2017b;
Lenton & Subritzky, 2017; S. Levy & Weitzman, 2016; Pacula, Kilmer, et al., 2014; van Ours,
The Sentinel System currently utilized by FDA for pharmacovigilance provides an excellent
first step towards conceptualizing a cannabis data system. Launched in February 2016, the Sentinel
System allows FDA to query de-identified, individual-level data from a diverse but synchronized
network of relevant partners (i.e., hospitals, insurance companies, pharmacies) to answer questions
concerning medication safety (Behrman et al., 2011; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2018).
State-specific sentinel initiatives (or perhaps even collaborative inter-state systems) for cannabis
could require all registered dispensaries and relevant healthcare entities to comply with
standardized, individual-level, data collection and reporting procedures. Such data systems could
provide the vital information necessary for creating more nuanced cannabis exposure variables and
uncovering links to important health outcomes. For example, states could classify types of products
based on cannabinoid concentrations (e.g., CBD-oils, THC concentrates) and monitor the number
of units and total volume of each type of product sold in particular jurisdictions. These data could
then be linked with local-, county- and state-level mental disorder incidence and prevalence data.
The combined dataset could be used to detect correlative relationships worthy of further
investigation and possible intervention.
Concluding thoughts
The extant data indicate that those with mental disorders are negatively and disproportionately
impacted by cannabis use, and are decidedly vulnerable to poorly regulated for-profit industries
that market addictive substances such as cannabis. Policy-makers must recognize and consider
these facts when developing or modifying cannabis laws and regulations. By building a robust
Cannabis Regulatory Science, scientists will generate knowledge that can be translated into novel
evidence-based regulations. As part of this effort, cannabis regulatory scientists should remain
sensitive to the clear vulnerability of those with mental disorders and aim to discover and
implement evidence-based policies that protect this and other vulnerable populations.
Declaration of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and
writing of the paper. Funding: NIH grants: 5T32DA037202, 5R01DA032243, P30DA029926. The
funding sources had no involvement in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of
data; writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication.
This work was supported by NIH grant funding: 5T32DA037202, 5R01DA032243,
P30DA029926. The funding sources had no involvement in the study design; collection, analysis,
and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for
AbbVie Inc. (2018). Marinol® (dronabinol) [package insert] AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL
Aggarwal, S. K., Carter, G. T., Sullivan, M. D., Zumbrunnen, C., Morrill, R., & Mayer, J. D. (2013).
Prospectively surveying health-related quality of life and symptom relief in a lot-based
sample of medical cannabis-using patients in urban Washington State reveals managed
chronic illness and debility. Am J Hosp Palliat Care, 30(6), 523-531.
Agosti, V., Nunes, E., & Levin, F. (2002). Rates of psychiatric comorbidity among U.S. residents
with lifetime cannabis dependence. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse, 28(4), 643-652.
Agrawal, A., Nelson, E. C., Bucholz, K. K., Tillman, R., Grucza, R. A., Statham, D. J., . . . Lynskey,
M. T. (2017). Major depressive disorder, suicidal thoughts and behaviours, and cannabis
involvement in discordant twins: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Psychiatry, 4(9), 706-
714. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30280-8
Ahijevych, K., & Garrett, B. E. (2010). The role of menthol in cigarettes as a reinforcer of smoking
behavior. Nicotine Tob Res, 12 Suppl 2(suppl_2), S110-116. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntq203
Alexander, G. C., Gallagher, S. A., Mascola, A., Moloney, R. M., & Stafford, R. S. (2011).
Increasing off-label use of antipsychotic medications in the United States, 1995-2008.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 20(2), 177-184. doi:10.1002/pds.2082
Anderson, S. J. (2011). Marketing of menthol cigarettes and consumer perceptions: a review of
tobacco industry documents. Tob Control, 20 Suppl 2(Suppl 2), ii20-28.
Apollonio, D. E., & Malone, R. E. (2005). Marketing to the marginalised: tobacco industry targeting
of the homeless and mentally ill. Tob Control, 14(6), 409-415. doi:10.1136/tc.2005.011890
ArcView Market Research. (2016). The Sate of Legal Marijuana Markets - Executive Summary.
Retrieved from
Ashley, D. L., & Backinger, C. L. (2012). The Food and Drug Administration's regulation of
tobacco: the Center for Tobacco Products' Office of Science. Am J Prev Med, 43(5 Suppl
3), S255-263. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.08.004
Ashley, D. L., Backinger, C. L., van Bemmel, D. M., & Neveleff, D. J. (2014). Tobacco regulatory
science: research to inform regulatory action at the Food and Drug Administration's Center
for Tobacco Products. Nicotine Tob Res, 16(8), 1045-1049. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu038
Babalonis, S., Haney, M., Malcolm, R. J., Lofwall, M. R., Votaw, V. R., Sparenborg, S., & Walsh,
S. L. (2017). Oral cannabidiol does not produce a signal for abuse liability in frequent
marijuana smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend, 172, 9-13.
Bahorik, A. L., Leibowitz, A., Sterling, S. A., Travis, A., Weisner, C., & Satre, D. D. (2017).
Patterns of marijuana use among psychiatry patients with depression and its impact on
recovery. J Affect Disord, 213, 168-171. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.02.016
Bambico, F. R., Katz, N., Debonnel, G., & Gobbi, G. (2007). Cannabinoids elicit antidepressant-
like behavior and activate serotonergic neurons through the medial prefrontal cortex. J
Neurosci, 27(43), 11700-11711. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1636-07.2007
Barrus, D. G., Capogrossi, K. L., Cates, S. C., Gourdet, C. K., Peiper, N. C., Novak, S. P., . . .
Wiley, J. L. (2016). Tasty THC: Promises and Challenges of Cannabis Edibles. Methods
Rep RTI Press, 2016. doi:10.3768/rtipress.2016.op.0035.1611
Barry, R. A., & Glantz, S. (2016). A Public Health Framework for Legalized Retail Marijuana Based
on the US Experience: Avoiding a New Tobacco Industry. PLoS Med, 13(9), e1002131.
Behrman, R. E., Benner, J. S., Brown, J. S., McClellan, M., Woodcock, J., & Platt, R. (2011).
Developing the Sentinel System--a national resource for evidence development. N Engl J
Med, 364(6), 498-499. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1014427
Belendiuk, K. A., Baldini, L. L., & Bonn-Miller, M. O. (2015). Narrative review of the safety and
efficacy of marijuana for the treatment of commonly state-approved medical and
psychiatric disorders. Addict Sci Clin Pract, 10(1), 10. doi:10.1186/s13722-015-0032-7
Bergamaschi, M. M., Queiroz, R. H., Chagas, M. H., de Oliveira, D. C., De Martinis, B. S.,
Kapczinski, F., . . . Crippa, J. A. (2011). Cannabidiol reduces the anxiety induced by
simulated public speaking in treatment-naive social phobia patients.
Neuropsychopharmacology, 36(6), 1219-1226. doi:10.1038/npp.2011.6
Bero, L. (2003). Implications of the tobacco industry documents for public health and policy. Annu
Rev Public Health, 24(1), 267-288. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.24.100901.140813
Bestrashniy, J., & Winters, K. C. (2015). Variability in medical marijuana laws in the United States.
Psychol Addict Behav, 29(3), 639-642. doi:10.1037/adb0000111
Bierut, T., Krauss, M. J., Sowles, S. J., & Cavazos-Rehg, P. A. (2017). Exploring Marijuana
Advertising on Weedmaps, a Popular Online Directory. Prev Sci, 18(2), 183-192.
Blanco, C., Hasin, D. S., Wall, M. M., Florez-Salamanca, L., Hoertel, N., Wang, S., . . . Olfson, M.
(2016). Cannabis Use and Risk of Psychiatric Disorders: Prospective Evidence From a US
National Longitudinal Study. JAMA Psychiatry, 73(4), 388-395.
Boehnke, K. F., Litinas, E., & Clauw, D. J. (2016). Medical Cannabis Use Is Associated With
Decreased Opiate Medication Use in a Retrospective Cross-Sectional Survey of Patients
With Chronic Pain. J Pain, 17(6), 739-744. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2016.03.002
Bonn-Miller, M. O., Babson, K. A., & Vandrey, R. (2014). Using cannabis to help you sleep:
heightened frequency of medical cannabis use among those with PTSD. Drug Alcohol
Depend, 136, 162-165. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.12.008
Bonn-Miller, M. O., Boden, M. T., Bucossi, M. M., & Babson, K. A. (2014). Self-reported cannabis
use characteristics, patterns and helpfulness among medical cannabis users. Am J Drug
Alcohol Abuse, 40(1), 23-30. doi:10.3109/00952990.2013.821477
Bonn-Miller, M. O., Boden, M. T., Vujanovic, A. A., & Drescher, K. D. (2013). Prospective
Investigation of the Impact of Cannabis Use Disorders on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
Symptoms Among Veterans in Residential Treatment. Psychological Trauma-Theory
Research Practice and Policy, 5(2), 193-200. doi:10.1037/a0026621
Borodovsky, J. T., Crosier, B. S., Lee, D. C., Sargent, J. D., & Budney, A. J. (2016). Smoking,
vaping, eating: Is legalization impacting the way people use cannabis? Int J Drug Policy,
36, 141-147. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.02.022
Bradford, A. C., & Bradford, W. D. (2016). Medical Marijuana Laws Reduce Prescription
Medication Use In Medicare Part D. Health Aff (Millwood), 35(7), 1230-1236.
Braga, R. J., Burdick, K. E., Derosse, P., & Malhotra, A. K. (2012). Cognitive and clinical outcomes
associated with cannabis use in patients with bipolar I disorder. Psychiatry Res, 200(2-3),
242-245. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2012.05.025
Budney, A. J., & Borodovsky, J. T. (2017). The potential impact of cannabis legalization on the
development of cannabis use disorders. Prev Med, 104, 31-36.
Budney, A. J., Moore, B. A., Vandrey, R. G., & Hughes, J. R. (2003). The time course and
significance of cannabis withdrawal. J Abnorm Psychol, 112(3), 393-402.
Campbell, C. A., Hahn, R. A., Elder, R., Brewer, R., Chattopadhyay, S., Fielding, J., . . . Task
Force on Community Preventive, S. (2009). The effectiveness of limiting alcohol outlet
density as a means of reducing excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms.
Am J Prev Med, 37(6), 556-569. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.09.028
Carlini, B. H., Garrett, S. B., & Harwick, R. M. (2017). Beyond joints and brownies: Marijuana
concentrates in the legal landscape of WA State. Int J Drug Policy, 42, 26-29.
Caulkins, J. P. (2018). Advertising Restrictions on Cannabis Products for Nonmedical Use:
Necessary but Not Sufficient? Am J Public Health, 108(1), 19-21.
Centers for Disease, C., & Prevention. (2013). Vital signs: current cigarette smoking among adults
aged >/=18 years with mental illness - United States, 2009-2011. MMWR Morb Mortal
Wkly Rep, 62(5), 81-87.
Chan, G. C. K., Hall, W., Freeman, T. P., Ferris, J., Kelly, A. B., & Winstock, A. (2017). User
characteristics and effect profile of Butane Hash Oil: An extremely high-potency cannabis
concentrate. Drug Alcohol Depend, 178, 32-38. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.04.014
Chapman, S. A., Spetz, J., Lin, J., Chan, K., & Schmidt, L. A. (2016). Capturing Heterogeneity in
Medical Marijuana Policies: A Taxonomy of Regulatory Regimes Across the United States.
Subst Use Misuse, 51(9), 1174-1184. doi:10.3109/10826084.2016.1160932
Cheung, J. T., Mann, R. E., Ialomiteanu, A., Stoduto, G., Chan, V., Ala-Leppilampi, K., & Rehm, J.
(2010). Anxiety and mood disorders and cannabis use. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse, 36(2),
118-122. doi:10.3109/00952991003713784
Childs, E., Lutz, J. A., & de Wit, H. (2017). Dose-related effects of delta-9-THC on emotional
responses to acute psychosocial stress. Drug Alcohol Depend, 177, 136-144.
Chuang, Y. C., Cubbin, C., Ahn, D., & Winkleby, M. A. (2005). Effects of neighbourhood
socioeconomic status and convenience store concentration on individual level smoking. J
Epidemiol Community Health, 59(7), 568-573. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.029041
Cohn, A. M., Johnson, A. L., Hair, E., Rath, J. M., & Villanti, A. C. (2016). Menthol tobacco use is
correlated with mental health symptoms in a national sample of young adults: implications
for future health risks and policy recommendations. Tob Induc Dis, 14, 1.
Cook, B. L., Wayne, G. F., Keithly, L., & Connolly, G. (2003). One size does not fit all: how the
tobacco industry has altered cigarette design to target consumer groups with specific
psychological and psychosocial needs. Addiction, 98(11), 1547-1561. doi:10.1046/j.1360-
Cooper, Z. D., & Haney, M. (2009). Actions of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in cannabis: relation to
use, abuse, dependence. Int Rev Psychiatry, 21(2), 104-112.
Corroon, J. M., Jr., Mischley, L. K., & Sexton, M. (2017). Cannabis as a substitute for prescription
drugs - a cross-sectional study. J Pain Res, 10, 989-998. doi:10.2147/JPR.S134330
Crippa, J. A., Derenusson, G. N., Ferrari, T. B., Wichert-Ana, L., Duran, F. L., Martin-Santos, R., . .
. Hallak, J. E. (2011). Neural basis of anxiolytic effects of cannabidiol (CBD) in generalized
social anxiety disorder: a preliminary report. J Psychopharmacol, 25(1), 121-130.
Crippa, J. A., Zuardi, A. W., Martin-Santos, R., Bhattacharyya, S., Atakan, Z., McGuire, P., &
Fusar-Poli, P. (2009). Cannabis and anxiety: a critical review of the evidence. Hum
Psychopharmacol, 24(7), 515-523. doi:10.1002/hup.1048
D'Souza, D. C., Perry, E., MacDougall, L., Ammerman, Y., Cooper, T., Wu, Y. T., . . . Krystal, J. H.
(2004). The psychotomimetic effects of intravenous delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in healthy
individuals: implications for psychosis. Neuropsychopharmacology, 29(8), 1558-1572.
Danielsson, A. K., Lundin, A., Agardh, E., Allebeck, P., & Forsell, Y. (2016). Cannabis use,
depression and anxiety: A 3-year prospective population-based study. J Affect Disord, 193,
103-108. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2015.12.045
Daniulaityte, R., Lamy, F. R., Barratt, M., Nahhas, R. W., Martins, S. S., Boyer, E. W., . . . Carlson,
R. G. (2017). Characterizing marijuana concentrate users: A web-based survey. Drug
Alcohol Depend, 178, 399-407. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.05.034
Das, R. K., Kamboj, S. K., Ramadas, M., Yogan, K., Gupta, V., Redman, E., . . . Morgan, C. J.
(2013). Cannabidiol enhances consolidation of explicit fear extinction in humans.
Psychopharmacology (Berl), 226(4), 781-792. doi:10.1007/s00213-012-2955-y
Deep Roots Medical. (2017). Strain Guide - Blue Dream. Retrieved from
Degenhardt, L., Coffey, C., Romaniuk, H., Swift, W., Carlin, J. B., Hall, W. D., & Patton, G. C.
(2013). The persistence of the association between adolescent cannabis use and common
mental disorders into young adulthood. Addiction, 108(1), 124-133. doi:10.1111/j.1360-
Degenhardt, L., Hall, W., & Lynskey, M. (2001). The relationship between cannabis use,
depression and anxiety among Australian adults: findings from the National Survey of
Mental Health and Well-Being. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 36(5), 219-
227. doi:DOI 10.1007/s001270170052
Dell'osso, B., & Lader, M. (2013). Do benzodiazepines still deserve a major role in the treatment of
psychiatric disorders? A critical reappraisal. Eur Psychiatry, 28(1), 7-20.
Di Forti, M., Morgan, C., Dazzan, P., Pariante, C., Mondelli, V., Marques, T. R., . . . Murray, R. M.
(2009). High-potency cannabis and the risk of psychosis. Br J Psychiatry, 195(6), 488-491.
Di Forti, M., Sallis, H., Allegri, F., Trotta, A., Ferraro, L., Stilo, S. A., . . . Pariante, C. (2014). Daily
use, especially of high-potency cannabis, drives the earlier onset of psychosis in cannabis
users. Schizophrenia bulletin, 40(6), 1509-1517.
Eguale, T., Buckeridge, D. L., Winslade, N. E., Benedetti, A., Hanley, J. A., & Tamblyn, R. (2012).
Drug, patient, and physician characteristics associated with off-label prescribing in primary
care. Arch Intern Med, 172(10), 781-788. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.340
ElSohly, M. A., & Gul, W. (2014). Constituents of cannabis sativa. In R. Pertwee (Ed.), Handbook
of Cannabis (Vol. 3, pp. 1093). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ElSohly, M. A., Mehmedic, Z., Foster, S., Gon, C., Chandra, S., & Church, J. C. (2016). Changes
in Cannabis Potency Over the Last 2 Decades (1995-2014): Analysis of Current Data in
the United States. Biol Psychiatry, 79(7), 613-619. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.01.004
Fasinu, P. S., Phillips, S., ElSohly, M. A., & Walker, L. A. (2016). Current Status and Prospects for
Cannabidiol Preparations as New Therapeutic Agents. Pharmacotherapy, 36(7), 781-796.
Feingold, D., Weiser, M., Rehm, J., & Lev-Ran, S. (2015). The association between cannabis use
and mood disorders: A longitudinal study. J Affect Disord, 172, 211-218.
Feingold, D., Weiser, M., Rehm, J., & Lev-Ran, S. (2016). The association between cannabis use
and anxiety disorders: Results from a population-based representative sample. Eur
Neuropsychopharmacol, 26(3), 493-505. doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2015.12.037
First State Compassion Center. (2018). Our Products. Retrieved from Archived at:
Florez-Salamanca, L., Secades-Villa, R., Hasin, D. S., Cottler, L., Wang, S., Grant, B. F., &
Blanco, C. (2013). Probability and predictors of transition from abuse to dependence on
alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol
and Related Conditions. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse, 39(3), 168-179.
Freeman, T. P., & Swift, W. (2016). Cannabis potency: the need for global monitoring. Addiction,
111(2), 376-377. doi:10.1111/add.13207
Freisthler, B., Kepple, N. J., Sims, R., & Martin, S. E. (2013). Evaluating medical marijuana
dispensary policies: spatial methods for the study of environmentally-based interventions.
Am J Community Psychol, 51(1-2), 278-288. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9542-6
Garden State Dispensary. (2017). Our Strains - Blackwater. Retrieved from
Archived at:
Gibbs, M., Winsper, C., Marwaha, S., Gilbert, E., Broome, M., & Singh, S. P. (2015). Cannabis use
and mania symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord, 171, 39-47.
Gobbi, G., Bambico, F. R., Mangieri, R., Bortolato, M., Campolongo, P., Solinas, M., . . . Piomelli,
D. (2005). Antidepressant-like activity and modulation of brain monoaminergic transmission
by blockade of anandamide hydrolysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 102(51), 18620-18625.
Grant, B. F., Hasin, D. S., Chou, S. P., Stinson, F. S., & Dawson, D. A. (2004). Nicotine
dependence and psychiatric disorders in the United States: results from the national
epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 61(11),
1107-1115. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.61.11.1107
Grant, B. F., Saha, T. D., Ruan, W. J., Goldstein, R. B., Chou, S. P., Jung, J., . . . Hasin, D. S.
(2016). Epidemiology of DSM-5 Drug Use Disorder: Results From the National
Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III. JAMA Psychiatry, 73(1), 39-
47. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2132
Green, B., Young, R., & Kavanagh, D. (2005). Cannabis use and misuse prevalence among
people with psychosis. Br J Psychiatry, 187(4), 306-313. doi:10.1192/bjp.187.4.306
Gururajan, A., & Malone, D. T. (2016). Does cannabidiol have a role in the treatment of
schizophrenia? Schizophr Res, 176(2-3), 281-290. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2016.06.022
Hamilton, I. (2017). Cannabis, psychosis and schizophrenia: unravelling a complex interaction.
Addiction, 112(9), 1653-1657. doi:10.1111/add.13826
Haney, M., & Evins, A. E. (2016). Does Cannabis Cause, Exacerbate or Ameliorate Psychiatric
Disorders? An Oversimplified Debate Discussed. Neuropsychopharmacology, 41(2), 393-
401. doi:10.1038/npp.2015.251
Hart, C. L., Ward, A. S., Haney, M., Comer, S. D., Foltin, R. W., & Fischman, M. W. (2002).
Comparison of smoked marijuana and oral Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol in humans.
Psychopharmacology (Berl), 164(4), 407-415. doi:10.1007/s00213-002-1231-y
Hasin, D. S., Kerridge, B. T., Saha, T. D., Huang, B., Pickering, R., Smith, S. M., . . . Grant, B. F.
(2016). Prevalence and Correlates of DSM-5 Cannabis Use Disorder, 2012-2013: Findings
from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III. Am J
Psychiatry, 173(6), 588-599. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15070907
Haug, N. A., Kieschnick, D., Sottile, J. E., Babson, K. A., Vandrey, R., & Bonn-Miller, M. O. (2016).
Training and Practices of Cannabis Dispensary Staff. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res, 1(1),
244-251. doi:10.1089/can.2016.0024
Hill, M. N., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2009). Impairments in endocannabinoid signaling and depressive
illness. JAMA, 301(11), 1165-1166. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.369
Hirshbein, L. (2012). Scientific research and corporate influence: smoking, mental illness, and the
tobacco industry. J Hist Med Allied Sci, 67(3), 374-397. doi:10.1093/jhmas/jrr019
Hoffman, K. A., Terashima, J. P., McCarty, D., & Muench, J. (2017). Toward a Patient Registry for
Cannabis Use: An Exploratory Study of Patient Use in an Outpatient Health-Care Clinic in
Oregon. World Med Health Policy, 9(3), 307-317. doi:10.1002/wmh3.237
Hunault, C. C., Bocker, K. B., Stellato, R. K., Kenemans, J. L., de Vries, I., & Meulenbelt, J.
(2014). Acute subjective effects after smoking joints containing up to 69 mg Delta9-
tetrahydrocannabinol in recreational users: a randomized, crossover clinical trial.
Psychopharmacology (Berl), 231(24), 4723-4733. doi:10.1007/s00213-014-3630-2
Hurt, R. D., & Robertson, C. R. (1998). Prying open the door to the tobacco industry's secrets
about nicotine: the Minnesota Tobacco Trial. JAMA, 280(13), 1173-1181.
Jahiel, R. I., & Babor, T. F. (2007). Industrial epidemics, public health advocacy and the alcohol
industry: lessons from other fields. Addiction, 102(9), 1335-1339. doi:10.1111/j.1360-
Jane-Llopis, E., & Matytsina, I. (2006). Mental health and alcohol, drugs and tobacco: a review of
the comorbidity between mental disorders and the use of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs.
Drug Alcohol Rev, 25(6), 515-536. doi:10.1080/09595230600944461
Jason, L. A., Ji, P. Y., Anes, M. D., & Birkhead, S. H. (1991). Active enforcement of cigarette
control laws in the prevention of cigarette sales to minors. JAMA, 266(22), 3159-3161.
Jetly, R., Heber, A., Fraser, G., & Boisvert, D. (2015). The efficacy of nabilone, a synthetic
cannabinoid, in the treatment of PTSD-associated nightmares: A preliminary randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over design study. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 51,
585-588. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.11.002
Karschner, E. L., Darwin, W. D., McMahon, R. P., Liu, F., Wright, S., Goodwin, R. S., & Huestis,
M. A. (2011). Subjective and physiological effects after controlled Sativex and oral THC
administration. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 89(3), 400-407. doi:10.1038/clpt.2010.318
Keller, C. J., Chen, E. C., Brodsky, K., & Yoon, J. H. (2016). A case of butane hash oil (marijuana
wax)-induced psychosis. Subst Abus, 37(3), 384-386.
Kesselheim, A. S., Mello, M. M., & Studdert, D. M. (2011). Strategies and practices in off-label
marketing of pharmaceuticals: a retrospective analysis of whistleblower complaints. PLoS
Med, 8(4), e1000431. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000431
Kessler, R. C. (2004). The epidemiology of dual diagnosis. Biol Psychiatry, 56(10), 730-737.
Khantzian, E. J. (1997). The self-medication hypothesis of substance use disorders: a
reconsideration and recent applications. Harv Rev Psychiatry, 4(5), 231-244.
Kilmer, B., & Pacula, R. L. (2017a). Building the data infrastructure to evaluate cannabis
legalization. Addiction, 112(7), 1140-1141. doi:10.1111/add.13824
Kilmer, B., & Pacula, R. L. (2017b). Understanding and learning from the diversification of
cannabis supply laws. Addiction, 112(7), 1128-1135. doi:10.1111/add.13623
Kim, S. W., Dodd, S., Berk, L., Kulkarni, J., de Castella, A., Fitzgerald, P. B., . . . Berk, M. (2015).
Impact of Cannabis Use on Long-Term Remission in Bipolar I and Schizoaffective
Disorder. Psychiatry Investig, 12(3), 349-355. doi:10.4306/pi.2015.12.3.349
Kirk, J. M., & De Wit, H. (1999). Responses to Oral Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol in Frequent and
Infrequent Marijuana Users. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 63(1), 137-142.
Lagerberg, T. V., Kvitland, L. R., Aminoff, S. R., Aas, M., Ringen, P. A., Andreassen, O. A., &
Melle, I. (2014). Indications of a dose-response relationship between cannabis use and
age at onset in bipolar disorder. Psychiatry Res, 215(1), 101-104.
Lankenau, S. E., Ataiants, J., Mohanty, S., Schrager, S., Iverson, E., & Wong, C. F. (2018). Health
conditions and motivations for marijuana use among young adult medical marijuana
patients and non-patient marijuana users. Drug Alcohol Rev, 37(2), 237-246.
Lasser, K., Boyd, J. W., Woolhandler, S., Himmelstein, D. U., McCormick, D., & Bor, D. H. (2000).
Smoking and mental illness: A population-based prevalence study. JAMA, 284(20), 2606-
Le Foll, B., Gorelick, D. A., & Goldberg, S. R. (2009). The future of endocannabinoid-oriented
clinical research after CB1 antagonists. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 205(1), 171-174.
Lenton, S., & Subritzky, T. (2017). On sentinel samples, sales data and potency. Addiction,
112(7), 1137-1138. doi:10.1111/add.13756
Lev-Ran, S., Imtiaz, S., Rehm, J., & Le Foll, B. (2013). Exploring the association between lifetime
prevalence of mental illness and transition from substance use to substance use disorders:
results from the National Epidemiologic Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions
(NESARC). Am J Addict, 22(2), 93-98. doi:10.1111/j.1521-0391.2013.00304.x
Lev-Ran, S., Le Foll, B., McKenzie, K., George, T. P., & Rehm, J. (2013). Cannabis use and
cannabis use disorders among individuals with mental illness. Compr Psychiatry, 54(6),
589-598. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2012.12.021
Lev-Ran, S., Roerecke, M., Le Foll, B., George, T. P., McKenzie, K., & Rehm, J. (2014). The
association between cannabis use and depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis
of longitudinal studies. Psychol Med, 44(4), 797-810. doi:10.1017/S0033291713001438
Levy, D. T., Blackman, K., Tauras, J., Chaloupka, F. J., Villanti, A. C., Niaura, R. S., . . . Abrams,
D. B. (2011). Quit attempts and quit rates among menthol and nonmenthol smokers in the
United States. Am J Public Health, 101(7), 1241-1247. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300178
Levy, S., & Weitzman, E. R. (2016). Building a Learning Marijuana Surveillance System. JAMA
Pediatr, 170(3), 193-194. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3489
Leweke, F. M., Mueller, J. K., Lange, B., & Rohleder, C. (2016). Therapeutic Potential of
Cannabinoids in Psychosis. Biol Psychiatry, 79(7), 604-612.
Leweke, F. M., Piomelli, D., Pahlisch, F., Muhl, D., Gerth, C. W., Hoyer, C., . . . Koethe, D. (2012).
Cannabidiol enhances anandamide signaling and alleviates psychotic symptoms of
schizophrenia. Transl Psychiatry, 2(3), e94. doi:10.1038/tp.2012.15
Lewis, M. A., Backes, M. D., & Giese, M. (2015). U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Loflin, M., & Earleywine, M. (2014). A new method of cannabis ingestion: the dangers of dabs?
Addict Behav, 39(10), 1430-1433. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.05.013
Loflin, M. J., Babson, K. A., & Bonn-Miller, M. O. (2017). Cannabinoids as therapeutic for PTSD.
Curr Opin Psychol, 14, 78-83. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.12.001
Lopez-Quintero, C., Perez de los Cobos, J., Hasin, D. S., Okuda, M., Wang, S., Grant, B. F., &
Blanco, C. (2011). Probability and predictors of transition from first use to dependence on
nicotine, alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine: results of the National Epidemiologic Survey on
Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). Drug Alcohol Depend, 115(1-2), 120-130.
Lucas, P., & Walsh, Z. (2017). Medical cannabis access, use, and substitution for prescription
opioids and other substances: A survey of authorized medical cannabis patients. Int J Drug
Policy, 42, 30-35. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.01.011
Lucas, P., Walsh, Z., Crosby, K., Callaway, R., Belle-Isle, L., Kay, R., . . . Holtzman, S. (2016).
Substituting cannabis for prescription drugs, alcohol and other substances among medical
cannabis patients: The impact of contextual factors. Drug Alcohol Rev, 35(3), 326-333.
Mack, A. (2003). Examination of the evidence for off-label use of gabapentin. J Manag Care
Pharm, 9(6), 559-568. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2003.9.6.559
Mair, C., Freisthler, B., Ponicki, W. R., & Gaidus, A. (2015). The impacts of marijuana dispensary
density and neighborhood ecology on marijuana abuse and dependence. Drug Alcohol
Depend, 154, 111-116. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.06.019
Martin-Santos, R., Crippa, J. A., Batalla, A., Bhattacharyya, S., Atakan, Z., Borgwardt, S., . . .
McGuire, P. K. (2012). Acute effects of a single, oral dose of d9-tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) administration in healthy volunteers. Curr Pharm Des,
18(32), 4966-4979.
Martins, S. S., & Gorelick, D. A. (2011). Conditional substance abuse and dependence by
diagnosis of mood or anxiety disorder or schizophrenia in the U.S. population. Drug
Alcohol Depend, 119(1-2), 28-36. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.05.010
McGuire, P., Robson, P., Cubala, W. J., Vasile, D., Morrison, P. D., Barron, R., . . . Wright, S.
(2017). Cannabidiol (CBD) as an Adjunctive Therapy in Schizophrenia: A Multicenter
Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Psychiatry, appiajp201717030325.
McKean, A., & Monasterio, E. (2012). Off-label use of atypical antipsychotics: cause for concern?
CNS Drugs, 26(5), 383-390. doi:10.2165/11632030-000000000-00000
Mechoulam, R., & Parker, L. A. (2013). The endocannabinoid system and the brain. Annu Rev
Psychol, 64(1), 21-47. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143739
Meier, P. S., Purshouse, R., & Brennan, A. (2010). Policy options for alcohol price regulation: the
importance of modelling population heterogeneity. Addiction, 105(3), 383-393.
Mello, M. M., Studdert, D. M., & Brennan, T. A. (2009). Shifting terrain in the regulation of off-label
promotion of pharmaceuticals. N Engl J Med, 360(15), 1557-1566.
Micale, V., Di Marzo, V., Sulcova, A., Wotjak, C. T., & Drago, F. (2013). Endocannabinoid system
and mood disorders: priming a target for new therapies. Pharmacol Ther, 138(1), 18-37.
Moncrieff, J. (2011). Co-opting psychiatry: The alliance between academic psychiatry and the
pharmaceutical industry. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 16(3), 192-196.
Moncrieff, J., Hopker, S., & Thomas, P. (2018). Psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry: Who
pays the piper? Psychiatric Bulletin, 29(03), 84-85. doi:10.1192/pb.29.3.84
Morrison, C., Gruenewald, P. J., Freisthler, B., Ponicki, W. R., & Remer, L. G. (2014). The
economic geography of medical cannabis dispensaries in California. Int J Drug Policy,
25(3), 508-515. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.12.009
National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine. (2017). The Health Effects of Cannabis
and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nemeth, J., & Ross, E. (2014). Planning for Marijuana The Cannabis Conundrum. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 80(1), 6-20. doi:10.1080/01944363.2014.935241
Nunberg, H., Kilmer, B., Pacula, R. L., & Burgdorf, J. (2011). An Analysis of Applicants Presenting
to a Medical Marijuana Specialty Practice in California. J Drug Policy Anal, 4(1).
O'Neil, M. E., Nugent, S. M., Morasco, B. J., Freeman, M., Low, A., Kondo, K., . . . Kansagara, D.
(2017). Benefits and Harms of Plant-Based Cannabis for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A
Systematic Review. Ann Intern Med, 167(5), 332-340. doi:10.7326/M17-0477
Pacula, R. L., Hunt, P., & Boustead, A. (2014). Words Can Be Deceiving: A Review of Variation
Among Legally Effective Medical Marijuana Laws in the United States. J Drug Policy Anal,
7(1), 1-19. doi:10.1515/jdpa-2014-0001
Pacula, R. L., Kilmer, B., Wagenaar, A. C., Chaloupka, F. J., & Caulkins, J. P. (2014). Developing
public health regulations for marijuana: lessons from alcohol and tobacco. Am J Public
Health, 104(6), 1021-1028. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301766
Pacula, R. L., Powell, D., Heaton, P., & Sevigny, E. L. (2015). Assessing the effects of medical
marijuana laws on marijuana use: the devil is in the details. J Policy Anal Manage, 34(1), 7-
Papini, S., Ruglass, L. M., Lopez-Castro, T., Powers, M. B., Smits, J. A., & Hien, D. A. (2017).
Chronic cannabis use is associated with impaired fear extinction in humans. J Abnorm
Psychol, 126(1), 117-124. doi:10.1037/abn0000224
Pearson, A. L., Bowie, C., & Thornton, L. E. (2014). Is access to alcohol associated with
alcohol/substance abuse among people diagnosed with anxiety/mood disorder? Public
Health, 128(11), 968-976. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2014.07.008
Peiper, N. C., Baumgartner, P. M., Chew, R. F., Hsieh, Y. P., Bieler, G. S., Bobashev, G. V., . . .
Zarkin, G. A. (2017). Patterns of Twitter Behavior Among Networks of Cannabis
Dispensaries in California. J Med Internet Res, 19(7), e236. doi:10.2196/jmir.7137
Pereira, G., Wood, L., Foster, S., & Haggar, F. (2013). Access to alcohol outlets, alcohol
consumption and mental health. PLoS One, 8(1), e53461.
Perese, E. F. (2016). Stigma, Poverty, and Victimization: Roadblocks to Recovery for Individuals
With Severe Mental Illness. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 13(5),
285-295. doi:10.1177/1078390307307830
Pierre, J. M., Gandal, M., & Son, M. (2016). Cannabis-induced psychosis associated with high
potency "wax dabs". Schizophr Res, 172(1-3), 211-212. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2016.01.056
Piper, B. J., DeKeuster, R. M., Beals, M. L., Cobb, C. M., Burchman, C. A., Perkinson, L., . . .
Abess, A. T. (2017). Substitution of medical cannabis for pharmaceutical agents for pain,
anxiety, and sleep. J Psychopharmacol, 31(5), 569-575. doi:10.1177/0269881117699616
Prochaska, J. J., Das, S., & Young-Wolff, K. C. (2017). Smoking, Mental Illness, and Public
Health. Annu Rev Public Health, 38(1), 165-185. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-
Prochaska, J. J., Hall, S. M., & Bero, L. A. (2008). Tobacco use among individuals with
schizophrenia: what role has the tobacco industry played? Schizophr Bull, 34(3), 555-567.
Rabin, R. A., & George, T. P. (2017). Understanding the Link Between Cannabinoids and
Psychosis. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 101(2), 197-199. doi:10.1002/cpt.421
Rabin, R. A., Zakzanis, K. K., & George, T. P. (2011). The effects of cannabis use on
neurocognition in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. Schizophr Res, 128(1-3), 111-116.
Rabinak, C. A., Angstadt, M., Sripada, C. S., Abelson, J. L., Liberzon, I., Milad, M. R., & Phan, K.
L. (2013). Cannabinoid facilitation of fear extinction memory recall in humans.
Neuropharmacology, 64, 396-402. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.06.063
Radhakrishnan, R., Wilkinson, S. T., & D'Souza, D. C. (2014). Gone to Pot - A Review of the
Association between Cannabis and Psychosis. Front Psychiatry, 5, 54.
Reiman, A. (2016). Medical Cannabis Patients: Patient Profiles and Health Care Utilization
Patterns. Complementary Health Practice Review, 12(1), 31-50.
Reinarman, C., Nunberg, H., Lanthier, F., & Heddleston, T. (2011). Who are medical marijuana
patients? Population characteristics from nine California assessment clinics. J
Psychoactive Drugs, 43(2), 128-135. doi:10.1080/02791072.2011.587700
Reitzel, L. R., Cromley, E. K., Li, Y., Cao, Y., Dela Mater, R., Mazas, C. A., . . . Wetter, D. W.
(2011). The effect of tobacco outlet density and proximity on smoking cessation. Am J
Public Health, 101(2), 315-320. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.191676
Richter, K. P., & Levy, S. (2014). Big marijuana--lessons from big tobacco. N Engl J Med, 371(5),
399-401. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1406074
Roitman, P., Mechoulam, R., Cooper-Kazaz, R., & Shalev, A. (2014). Preliminary, open-label, pilot
study of add-on oral Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol in chronic post-traumatic stress disorder.
Clin Drug Investig, 34(8), 587-591. doi:10.1007/s40261-014-0212-3
Russo, E. B. (2011). Taming THC: potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpenoid
entourage effects. Br J Pharmacol, 163(7), 1344-1364. doi:10.1111/j.1476-
Sagar, K. A., Dahlgren, M. K., Racine, M. T., Dreman, M. W., Olson, D. P., & Gruber, S. A. (2016).
Joint Effects: A Pilot Investigation of the Impact of Bipolar Disorder and Marijuana Use on
Cognitive Function and Mood. PLoS One, 11(6), e0157060.
Sanctuary Alternative Treatment Center. (2017). Product Menu. Retrieved from
Archived at:
Schlienz, N. J., Budney, A. J., Lee, D. C., & Vandrey, R. (2017). Cannabis Withdrawal: A Review
of Neurobiological Mechanisms and Sex Differences. Curr Addict Rep, 4(2), 75-81.
Schoeler, T., Monk, A., Sami, M. B., Klamerus, E., Foglia, E., Brown, R., . . . Bhattacharyya, S.
(2016). Continued versus discontinued cannabis use in patients with psychosis: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry, 3(3), 215-225.
Segev, A., & Lev-Ran, S. (2012). Neurocognitive functioning and cannabis use in schizophrenia.
Curr Pharm Des, 18(32), 4999-5007.
Sexton, M., Cuttler, C., Finnell, J. S., & Mischley, L. K. (2016). A Cross-Sectional Survey of
Medical Cannabis Users: Patterns of Use and Perceived Efficacy. Cannabis Cannabinoid
Res, 1(1), 131-138. doi:10.1089/can.2016.0007
Shi, Y., Meseck, K., & Jankowska, M. M. (2016). Availability of Medical and Recreational
Marijuana Stores and Neighborhood Characteristics in Colorado. J Addict, 2016, 7193740.
Stafford, R. S. (2008). Regulating off-label drug use--rethinking the role of the FDA. N Engl J Med,
358(14), 1427-1429. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0802107
Stinson, F. S., Ruan, W. J., Pickering, R., & Grant, B. F. (2006). Cannabis use disorders in the
USA: prevalence, correlates and co-morbidity. Psychol Med, 36(10), 1447-1460.
Subritzky, T., Lenton, S., & Pettigrew, S. (2016). Legal cannabis industry adopting strategies of the
tobacco industry. Drug Alcohol Rev, 35(5), 511-513. doi:10.1111/dar.12459
Subritzky, T., Pettigrew, S., & Lenton, S. (2015). Issues in the implementation and evolution of the
commercial recreational cannabis market in Colorado. Int J Drug Policy, 27, 1-12.
Summit Medical Compassion Center. (2017). Medical Cannabis Menu - Vancouver Island Haze.
Retrieved from
Archived at:
Teesson, M., Slade, T., Swift, W., Mills, K., Memedovic, S., Mewton, L., . . . Hall, W. (2012).
Prevalence, correlates and comorbidity of DSM-IV Cannabis Use and Cannabis Use
Disorders in Australia. Aust N Z J Psychiatry, 46(12), 1182-1192.
The Clinic Marijuana Center. (2017). The Clinic Strain Book. Retrieved from
Archived at:
Thomas, C., & Freisthler, B. (2016). Examining the locations of medical marijuana dispensaries in
Los Angeles. Drug Alcohol Rev, 35(3), 334-337. doi:10.1111/dar.12325
Researching the Potential Medical Benefits and Risks of Marijuana, U.S. Senate, (2016).
Troutt, W. D., & DiDonato, M. D. (2015). Medical Cannabis in Arizona: Patient Characteristics,
Perceptions, and Impressions of Medical Cannabis Legalization. J Psychoactive Drugs,
47(4), 259-266. doi:10.1080/02791072.2015.1074766
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2016). 2016 Warning Letters and Test Results for
Cannabidiol-Related Products. Retrieved from
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2018). FDA's Sentinel Initiative - Background. Retrieved
from Archived at:
Ugwu, R. (2017). Veterans Groups Push for Medical Marijuana to Treat PTSD. The New York
van Laar, M., van Dorsselaer, S., Monshouwer, K., & de Graaf, R. (2007). Does cannabis use
predict the first incidence of mood and anxiety disorders in the adult population? Addiction,
102(8), 1251-1260. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01875.x
van Ours, J. C. (2017). Data on cannabis use now that legalization is gaining momentum.
Addiction, 112(7), 1138-1140. doi:10.1111/add.13769
van Rossum, I., Boomsma, M., Tenback, D., Reed, C., & van Os, J. (2009). Does cannabis use
affect treatment outcome in bipolar disorder?: A longitudinal analysis. The Journal of
nervous and mental disease, 197(1), 35-40.
Vandrey, R., Herrmann, E. S., Mitchell, J. M., Bigelow, G. E., Flegel, R., LoDico, C., & Cone, E. J.
(2017). Pharmacokinetic Profile of Oral Cannabis in Humans: Blood and Oral Fluid
Disposition and Relation to Pharmacodynamic Outcomes. J Anal Toxicol, 41(2), 83-99.
Vedula, S. S., Bero, L., Scherer, R. W., & Dickersin, K. (2009). Outcome reporting in industry-
sponsored trials of gabapentin for off-label use. N Engl J Med, 361(20), 1963-1971.
Villanti, A. C., Vargyas, E. J., Niaura, R. S., Beck, S. E., Pearson, J. L., & Abrams, D. B. (2011).
Food and Drug Administration regulation of tobacco: integrating science, law, policy, and
advocacy. Am J Public Health, 101(7), 1160-1162. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300229
Wagenaar, A. C., Toomey, T. L., & Erickson, D. J. (2005). Preventing youth access to alcohol:
outcomes from a multi-community time-series trial*. Addiction, 100(3), 335-345.
Walsh, Z., Callaway, R., Belle-Isle, L., Capler, R., Kay, R., Lucas, P., & Holtzman, S. (2013).
Cannabis for therapeutic purposes: patient characteristics, access, and reasons for use. Int
J Drug Policy, 24(6), 511-516. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.08.010
Walsh, Z., Gonzalez, R., Crosby, K., M, S. T., Carroll, C., & Bonn-Miller, M. O. (2017). Medical
cannabis and mental health: A guided systematic review. Clin Psychol Rev, 51, 15-29.
Wang, G. S., Le Lait, M. C., Deakyne, S. J., Bronstein, A. C., Bajaj, L., & Roosevelt, G. (2016).
Unintentional Pediatric Exposures to Marijuana in Colorado, 2009-2015. JAMA Pediatr,
170(9), e160971. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0971
Wang, P. S., Lane, M., Olfson, M., Pincus, H. A., Wells, K. B., & Kessler, R. C. (2005). Twelve-
month use of mental health services in the United States: results from the National
Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 62(6), 629-640.
Ware, M. A., Martel, M. O., Jovey, R., Lynch, M. E., & Singer, J. (2018). A prospective
observational study of problematic oral cannabinoid use. Psychopharmacology (Berl),
235(2), 409-417. doi:10.1007/s00213-017-4811-6
Weed, J. (2017). US Patent Office Issuing Cannabis Patents To A Growing Market. Retrieved
Archived at:
Weiss, S. R. B., Howlett, K. D., & Baler, R. D. (2017). Building smart cannabis policy from the
science up. Int J Drug Policy, 42, 39-49. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.01.007
Whiting, P. F., Wolff, R. F., Deshpande, S., Di Nisio, M., Duffy, S., Hernandez, A. V., . . . Kleijnen,
J. (2015). Cannabinoids for Medical Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA,
313(24), 2456-2473. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.6358
Wilkinson, S. T., Stefanovics, E., & Rosenheck, R. A. (2015). Marijuana use is associated with
worse outcomes in symptom severity and violent behavior in patients with posttraumatic
stress disorder. J Clin Psychiatry, 76(9), 1174-1180. doi:10.4088/JCP.14m09475
Williams, A. R., Olfson, M., Kim, J. H., Martins, S. S., & Kleber, H. D. (2016). Older, Less
Regulated Medical Marijuana Programs Have Much Greater Enrollment Rates Than Newer
'Medicalized' Programs. Health Aff (Millwood), 35(3), 480-488.
Young-Wolff, K. C., Henriksen, L., Delucchi, K., & Prochaska, J. J. (2014). Tobacco retailer
proximity and density and nicotine dependence among smokers with serious mental
illness. Am J Public Health, 104(8), 1454-1463. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.301917
Zorrilla, I., Aguado, J., Haro, J., Barbeito, S., López Zurbano, S., Ortiz, A., . . . GonzalezPinto, A.
(2015). Cannabis and bipolar disorder: does quitting cannabis use during manic/mixed
episode improve clinical/functional outcomes? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 131(2),
Zuardi, A., Crippa, J., Dursun, S., Morais, S., Vilela, J., Sanches, R., & Hallak, J. (2010).
Cannabidiol was ineffective for manic episode of bipolar affective disorder. J
Psychopharmacol, 24(1), 135-137. doi:10.1177/0269881108096521
Zvolensky, M. J., Cougle, J. R., Johnson, K. A., Bonn-Miller, M. O., & Bernstein, A. (2010).
Marijuana use and panic psychopathology among a representative sample of adults. Exp
Clin Psychopharmacol, 18(2), 129-134. doi:10.1037/a0019022
... While the deleterious effects of alcohol are well known, research on the effects on cannabis is still nascent. Preliminary evidence suggests that it may be beneficial for some medical and mental health conditions, but evidence also suggests that it can be ineffective or harmful (Borodovsky & Budney, 2018; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine [NASEM], 2017). ...
... For individuals with SMI, particular concerns about cannabis use persist. Some evidence exists that it can exacerbate psychotic symptoms and increase the risk or hasten the onset of psychotic disorders (Borodovsky & Budney, 2018;Di Forti et al., 2013;Ksir & Hart, 2016;NASEM, 2017;Starzer et al., 2017), or lead to impairments that require intervention (Volkow et al., 2014)-though the evidence is far from definitive (Ksir & Hart, 2016). Due to the rapid changes in the legal status and the availability of various forms, concentrations, and modalities for consumption of cannabis (Borodovsky & Budney, 2018), providers may not feel adequately prepared to address cannabis use compared to other commonly used substances, such as alcohol or substance use generally. ...
... Some evidence exists that it can exacerbate psychotic symptoms and increase the risk or hasten the onset of psychotic disorders (Borodovsky & Budney, 2018;Di Forti et al., 2013;Ksir & Hart, 2016;NASEM, 2017;Starzer et al., 2017), or lead to impairments that require intervention (Volkow et al., 2014)-though the evidence is far from definitive (Ksir & Hart, 2016). Due to the rapid changes in the legal status and the availability of various forms, concentrations, and modalities for consumption of cannabis (Borodovsky & Budney, 2018), providers may not feel adequately prepared to address cannabis use compared to other commonly used substances, such as alcohol or substance use generally. ...
Purpose Individuals with serious mental illness have high rates of substance use. The most commonly used substances among this population are alcohol and cannabis, and whether clinical providers delivering mental health services feel adequately prepared to address substance use is unclear. While information about the effects of alcohol are well established, the effects of cannabis are less well known and staff may feel less confident in their abilities to assess its use and may rely on more informal sources to learn about it. Methods Mental health agencies in three states (California, Ohio, and New York) surveyed their staff (n =717) to explore their knowledge, training, and expertise in assessment of substance use generally as well as cannabis and alcohol specifically. Results Overall, providers felt more prepared to address their clients' alcohol use than cannabis use. In between-state comparisons, California providers felt significantly less well prepared to assess, discuss, and refer their clients to treatment compared to Ohio and New York providers. Using a series of multi-categorical mediation models, we confirmed that deficits in training for these specific substances largely accounted for between-state differences in assessment, capacity, and treatment. Conclusions Substance use training to address the service needs of individuals with co-occurring disorders is insufficient and a significant need exists for systemic changes to workforce training of community mental health providers.
... Si bien en los últimos años se ha comenzado a estudiar el ajuste psicológico de las personas que consumen drogas con fines sexuales (13,48,91), las variables emocionales parecen ser menos investigadas que los efectos sobre la salud física (92). El consumo de sustancias psicoactivas se ha relacionado frecuentemente con una alta incidencia, prevalencia y gravedad de síntomas de salud mental en GBHSH (93). Por ejemplo, Tomkins et al. (19), en su revisión sistemática, señalaron que el chemsex puede estar asociado con complicaciones como la depresión, la ansiedad, la adicción o síntomas psicóticos. ...
Full-text available
El chemsex o sesión en España, se ha convertido en un problema de salud pública debido a sus riesgos asociados. Esta práctica se ha relacionado en los últimos años con el uso intencional de sustancias psicoactivas para facilitar, mantener y/o mejorar la experiencia sexual (1–3). Aunque el uso de drogas y su asociación con contextos sexuales es conocido desde hace décadas (4), los cambios en el patrón de consumo han relacionado el chemsex principalmente con hombres gays, bisexuales y otros hombres que tienen sexo con hombres (GBHSH) (5). El documento de consenso del 2º European ChemSex Forum, define el chemsex como “un tipo particular de práctica de consumo sexualizado de sustancias, entre hombres gays, bisexuales, otros HSH, y personas trans y no binarias que participan en la 'cultura de sexo casual o sin compromiso’ gay” (p. 4) (6). Esta práctica, a menudo, tiene como objetivos aumentar la excitación y las experiencias sexuales intensas, así como manejar la inhibición y la falta de confianza para realizar determinadas prácticas sexuales (7,8). El uso de sustancias para mejorar la experiencia sexual puede conducir a conductas sexuales de riesgo (9) y, con ello, a un mayor riesgo de contraer infecciones de transmisión sexual (ITS) (10,11), incluido el Virus de la Inmunodeficiencia Humana (VIH) (12). Además, el chemsex también podría estar asociado con riesgos para la salud mental como la depresión y la ansiedad (13,14). Este fenómeno también es conocido como “Party and Play” (abreviado como “PnP”) (15), “intensive sex party” (16), "4/20" (8), "chill outs" (17), y en España “sesión”, “chuches”, “vicio” (18), “guarrichill”, o “chill”. Aunque muchos GBHSH perciben el uso de drogas en el ámbito sexual como un comportamiento común y normalizado (7,17), el grado y frecuencia del consumo de sustancias psicoactivas antes y/o durante las sesiones de sexo varía ampliamente entre los GBHSH. La prevalencia del chemsex presenta grandes diferencias entre los distintos estudios, oscilando entre el 4% y el 94% (19). Probablemente las estimaciones de prevalencia varíen tanto debido al método de reclutamiento, el perfil de los usuarios entrevistados y la elección de las sustancias utilizadas para el chemsex (20–22).
... Si bien en los últimos años se ha comenzado a estudiar el ajuste psicológico de las personas que consumen drogas con fines sexuales (13,48,91), las variables emocionales parecen ser menos investigadas que los efectos sobre la salud física (92). El consumo de sustancias psicoactivas se ha relacionado frecuentemente con una alta incidencia, prevalencia y gravedad de síntomas de salud mental en GBHSH (93). Por ejemplo, Tomkins et al. (19), en su revisión sistemática, señalaron que el chemsex puede estar asociado con complicaciones como la depresión, la ansiedad, la adicción o síntomas psicóticos. ...
... The use of psychoactive substances has frequently been related to a high incidence, prevalence, and severity of mental health outcomes (e.g., Borodovsky and Budney, 2018 [48]). Although psychological symptoms of people who use drugs for sexual purposes has increased in recent years [49,50], studies of the variables associated with mental health are still scarce [51]. ...
Full-text available
Sexualized drug use (SDU) has been poorly studied among heterosexuals. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the prevalence of and gender differences in types of substances, risky sexual practices, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), motivations, and psychological adjustment among heterosexual women and men who engage in SDU. The study sample consisted of 1181 heterosexuals (795 women) between 18 and 78 years old (mean age = 24.4, SD = 7.4). Approximately 12% of the participants had engaged in SDU. No differences were found in the prevalence of SDU between men and women. Alcohol, cannabis, and 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) were the substances most frequently used for sexual purposes. Men were significantly more likely to use MDMA, ecstasy, cocaine, and erectile dysfunction (ED) drugs, and they tended to have more sexual partners than women. Likewise, SDU was related to have more sexual partners, penetrative sex without a condom, practice a fetish, be diagnosed with syphilis, chlamydia, and others STIs, and present more depression symptoms (but not with more anxiety). In conclusion, SDU was associated with poorer physical and mental health. It is, therefore, necessary to design programs aimed at reducing the incidence of the consequences of SDU on the physical and mental health of both men and women. Moreover, programs that seek to understand why these individuals engage in SDU should be undertaken.
... A high content of THC can result in one type of effect while a low dose can result in another.37 Several other individual factors could also be involved, in particular a history of mental disorder, genetic predisposition, chronic medical conditions and early initiation of cannabis use.[38][39][40][41] The second most frequent AEs reported were neurological. ...
Aims: To describe the adverse events (AEs) of recreational cannabis use in France between 2012 and 2017. Methods: AEs related to recreational cannabis use, alone or in combination with alcohol and/or tobacco reported to the French Addictovigilance Network were analysed (excluding cannabidiol and synthetic cannabinoids). Results: Reporting of AEs tripled between 2012 (n = 179, 6.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.4-7.2) and 2017 (n = 562, 10.1%, 95% CI = 9.3-10.9), reaching 2217 cases. They concerned mainly men (76.4%) and users aged between 18 and 34 years (18-25: 30.9%; 26-34: 26.3%, range: 12-84 years). Cannabis was mainly inhaled (71.6%) and exposure was most often chronic (64.2%). Many types of AEs were reported: psychiatric (51.2%), neurological (15.6%), cardiac (7.8%) and gastrointestinal (7.7%), including unexpected AEs (n = 34, 1.1%). The most common effect was dependence, ranging from 10.1% (95% CI = 7.9-12.3) to 20.3% (95% CI = 17.3-23.2) over the study period. Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (n = 87, 2.8%) emerged from 2015. Deaths accounted for 0.2% of all AEs (4 men and 3 women aged on average 35 years). A chronic pattern of cannabis use was reported in 4 of them (intracranial hypertension in the context of lung cancer, suicide, cerebral haematoma, neonatal death with concomitant chronic alcohol use), while in the other cases the toxicological analysis identified cannabis use (ruptured aneurysm and unknown aetiology). Conclusion: This study showed a multitude of AEs related to recreational cannabis use, including unexpected AEs and deaths. It highlights the problem of dependence and the emergence of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome.
Background: Recent prevalence estimates of cannabis use among individuals receiving medication treatment for OUD (MOUD) are lacking, and no study has characterized cannabis route of administration (cROA) in this population. These knowledge gaps are relevant because cannabis' effects and health outcomes vary by cROA and the availability and perceptions of cROA (e.g., vaping devices) are changing. Methods: The Vaping In Buprenorphine-treated patients Evaluation (VIBE) cross-sectional survey assessed the prevalence and correlates of cannabis use and cROA among adults receiving buprenorphine MOUD from 02/20 to 07/20 at five community health centers in Massachusetts, a state with legal recreational and medical cannabis use. Results: Among the 92/222 (41%) respondents reporting past 30-day cannabis use, smoking was the most common cROA (75%), followed by vaping (38%), and eating (26%). Smoking was more often used as a single cROA vs. in combination others (p = 0.01), whereas vaping, eating, and dabbing were more often used in combination with another cROA (all p < 0.05). Of the 39% of participants reporting multiple cROA, smoking and vaping (61%), and smoking and eating (50%), were the most prevalent combinations. Nonwhite race (vs. white) and current cigarette smoking (vs. no nicotine use) were associated with past 30-day cannabis use in multiple logistic regression. Conclusions: Prevalence of past 30-day cannabis use among individuals receiving buprenorphine MOUD in Massachusetts in 2020 was nearly double the prevalence of cannabis use in Massachusetts' adult general population in 2019 (21%). Our data are consistent with state and national data showing smoking as the most common cROA.
Full-text available
Reduction-based cannabis use endpoints are needed to better evaluate treatments for cannabis use disorder (CUD). This exploratory, secondary analysis aimed to characterize cannabis frequency and quantity reduction patterns and corresponding changes in psychosocial functioning during treatment. We analyzed 16 weeks (4 prerandomization, 12 postrandomization) of data (n = 302) from both arms of a randomized clinical trial assessing pharmacotherapy for CUD. Cannabis consumption pattern classes were extracted with latent profile modeling using self-reported (a) past-week days used (i.e., frequency) and (b) past-week average grams used per using day (i.e., quantity). Changes in mean Marijuana Problem Scale (MPS) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores were examined among classes. Urine cannabinoid levels were examined in relation to self-reported consumption as a validity check. Two-, three-, four-, and five-class solutions each provided potentially useful conceptualizations of associations between frequency and quantity. Regardless of solution, reductions in MPS scores varied in magnitude across classes and closely tracked class-specific reductions in consumption (e.g., larger MPS reduction corresponded to larger frequency/quantity reductions). Changes in HADS scores were less pronounced and less consistent with consumption patterns. Urine cannabinoid levels closely matched class-specific self-reported consumption frequency. Findings illustrate that frequency and quantity can be used in tandem within mixture model frameworks to summarize heterogeneous cannabis use reduction patterns that may correspond to improved psychosocial functioning. Going forward, similar analytic strategies applied to alternative metrics of cannabis consumption may facilitate construction of useful reduction-based clinical endpoints. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
In Switzerland, cannabis has been illegal since 1951. Recently, decriminalizing cannabis has been discussed in the Federal Assembly. Developments in other countries received increased attention and stimulated further discussions on reforms. Regulatory approaches in other countries vary widely, but firm scientific evidence on the effects of instruments is still scarce. Some Swiss cities launched initiatives to conduct pilot trials with cannabis in order to find evidence-based alternatives to the status quo, which is marked by various inconsistencies. An initial request by the city of Bern to the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) was rejected in 2017 due to lack of legal basis, but contributed to the establishment of an experimental article for pilot trials with cannabis in the following years. The Ordinance on pilot trials in accordance with the Narcotics Act (BetmPV) allows cantons, municipalities, universities and other organizations to conduct pilot trials to gain scientific knowledge about alternative approaches to regulate the non-medical use of cannabis. The ordinance lists various conditions that must be met before an application is approved by the FOPH. With a view to future pilot trials, the FOPH has mandated Prof. Daniel Kübler and his team from the Department of Political Science at the University of Zurich (IPZ) to develop a research agenda focusing on new legal approaches to cannabis regulation. This agenda aims to serve as a guideline for the generation of scientific evidence related not only to the cannabis pilot trials, but also with respect to additional questions related to cannabis regulation, and to reflect on research coordination and funding.
Recreational cannabis use has been associated with the development of psychosis; as such, there are numerous biopsychosocial risks and vulnerabilities to consider. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5th Edition (DSM-5) has set out a specific set of criteria for cannabis-induced psychotic disorder and other cannabis-induced psychiatric conditions, including anxiety and sleep disorders. These conditions, along with intrinsic and extrinsic patient vulnerabilities, underlay the risk of developing psychosis associated with cannabis use and misuse.
In addition to therapeutic benefits, cannabis also causes cognitive and psychomotor impairment in some individuals. Common acute adverse events can be cannabinoid-specific, such as those related to THC (e.g., dizziness, cognitive effects, anxiety, dry mouth) or specific to the route of administration (e.g., cough, phlegm, or bronchitis from smoking cannabis). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5th Edition (DSM-5) has defined a cannabis intoxication syndrome and a cannabis intoxication delirium syndrome that may rarely result from medical cannabis use.
Full-text available
Background The use of medical cannabis is increasing, most commonly for pain, anxiety and depression. Emerging data suggest that use and abuse of prescription drugs may be decreasing in states where medical cannabis is legal. The aim of this study was to survey cannabis users to determine whether they had intentionally substituted cannabis for prescription drugs. Methods A total of 2,774 individuals were a self-selected convenience sample who reported having used cannabis at least once in the previous 90 days. Subjects were surveyed via an online anonymous questionnaire on cannabis substitution effects. Participants were recruited through social media and cannabis dispensaries in Washington State. Results A total of 1,248 (46%) respondents reported using cannabis as a substitute for prescription drugs. The most common classes of drugs substituted were narcotics/opioids (35.8%), anxiolytics/benzodiazepines (13.6%) and antidepressants (12.7%). A total of 2,473 substitutions were reported or approximately two drug substitutions per affirmative respondent. The odds of reporting substituting were 4.59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.87–5.43) greater among medical cannabis users compared with non-medical users and 1.66 (95% CI, 1.27–2.16) greater among those reporting use for managing the comorbidities of pain, anxiety and depression. A slightly higher percentage of those who reported substituting resided in states where medical cannabis was legal at the time of the survey (47% vs. 45%, p=0.58), but this difference was not statistically significant. Discussion These patient-reported outcomes support prior research that individuals are using cannabis as a substitute for prescription drugs, particularly, narcotics/opioids, and independent of whether they identify themselves as medical or non-medical users. This is especially true if they suffer from pain, anxiety and depression. Additionally, this study suggests that state laws allowing access to, and use of, medical cannabis may not be influencing individual decision-making in this area.
Full-text available
Background: Despite evidence supporting the benefits of cannabinoids for symptom control across a wide range of medical conditions, concerns have been raised regarding the potential misuse and/or problematic use of cannabinoids (CBs). Objective: The first objective of this study was to examine the incidence of problematic prescription cannabinoid use (PPCBU) over a 12-month period among patients initiating cannabinoid therapy. The second objective was to examine the factors associated with PPCBU. A total of 265 patients who were prescribed oral cannabinoid therapy as part of usual medical practice were enrolled into this prospective observational study. Patients first completed a series of baseline questionnaires assessing demographic, clinical, and substance use variables. Three measures designed to assess PPCBU were then administered at 3, 6, and 12 months after initiation of cannabinoid therapy. Results: At each of the follow-up assessment time points, a significantly greater number of patients scored below (vs above) cutoff scores on the three main PPCBU outcomes (all p's < .001). At any follow-up time point, a maximum of roughly 25% of patients demonstrated PPCBU. Heightened odds of PPCBU were observed among patients with a history of psychiatric problems, tobacco smokers, and recreational cannabis users (all p's < .05). Results indicated that past-year substance abuse, assessed using the DAST-20, was the strongest predictor of PPCBU (p < .005). Conclusion: Findings from the present study could have implications for clinicians considering the use of cannabinoids for the management of patients with medical conditions. Although results indicated that the majority of patients included in this study did not reach cutoff scores on the three main PPCBU outcomes, our findings suggest that PPCBU should be routinely assessed and monitored over the course of cannabinoid therapy, particularly among patients with a history of psychiatric or substance use problems.
Full-text available
Movement toward legalization of cannabis grows in the United States yet little is known about long-term use effects. This study was an initial step in the instrument development of a patient registry questionnaire of cannabis users who will be followed over time. Cannabis-using patients (12 females, 10 males) aged 20–64, were sampled from a Portland, Oregon primary care health center. Respondents completed semi­structured qualitative interviews describing methods of cannabis use, motivations for use, and perceptions of risks and benefits. Qualitative analysis used a content analysis approach to assess and extract salient themes. Patients smoked, inhaled, ingested, and applied a wide variety of cannabis products. All participants but one reported using cannabis for perceived physiological or psychological pain and several used cannabis to alleviate cravings for opioid medications. Other motivations included relief from suicidal thoughts and depression, anxiety, migraines, and neuropathic pain. Relatively few perceived risks as compared to benefits were reported. This study provides relevant insight into how and why these primary care patients use cannabis. Results will be used to construct a quantitative questionnaire for a patient registry that can provide critical information about long-term use effects.
Full-text available
Background: Cannabis is available from medical dispensaries for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in many states of the union, yet its efficacy in treating PTSD symptoms remains uncertain. Purpose: To identify ongoing studies and review existing evidence regarding the benefits and harms of plant-based cannabis preparations in treating PTSD in adults. Data sources: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and other sources from database inception to March 2017. Study selection: English-language systematic reviews, trials, and observational studies with a control group that reported PTSD symptoms and adverse effects of plant-based cannabis use in adults with PTSD. Data extraction: Study data extracted by 1 investigator was checked by a second reviewer; 2 reviewers independently assessed study quality, and the investigator group graded the overall strength of evidence by using standard criteria. Data synthesis: Two systematic reviews, 3 observational studies, and no randomized trials were found. The systematic reviews reported insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about benefits and harms. The observational studies found that compared with nonuse, cannabis did not reduce PTSD symptoms. Studies had medium and high risk of bias, and overall evidence was judged insufficient. Two randomized trials and 6 other studies examining outcomes of cannabis use in patients with PTSD are ongoing and are expected to be completed within 3 years. Limitation: Very scant evidence with medium to high risk of bias. Conclusion: Evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the benefits and harms of plant-based cannabis preparations in patients with PTSD, but several ongoing studies may soon provide important results. Primary funding source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. (PROSPERO: CRD42016033623).
Full-text available
Background: Early and frequent cannabis use are associated with an increased likelihood of major depressive disorder (MDD) as well as suicidal thoughts and behaviours. We identify associations between aspects of cannabis use, MDD, and suicidal thoughts and behaviours and examine whether such associations persist after accounting for those predisposing factors, including genetic liability and early family environment, that are shared by identical twins who are discordant for cannabis exposure. Any residual association in such identical pairs might be indicative of individual-specific pathways that might be of a causal nature. Methods: We did a logistic regression analysis of cannabis use from retrospective data on same-sex male and female twin pairs drawn from 3 studies that had recruited twins from the Australian Twin Registry, 1992-93 (sample 1), 1996-2000 (sample 2), and 2005-09 (sample 3). We studied associations between early use and frequent use of cannabis and MDD, suicidal ideation (ever and persistent), and suicide plan and attempt in the full sample as well as in pairs of monozygotic and dizygotic twins that were discordant for each measure of cannabis involvement at a single timepoint. Significant monozygotic associations were further adjusted for covariates, such as early alcohol or nicotine use, early dysphoric or anhedonic mood, conduct disorder, and childhood sexual abuse. Interactions between each cannabis measure and sex, sample or study effects, and birth year category were also examined as covariates. Findings: In 13 986 twins (6181 monozygotic and 7805 dizygotic), cannabis use ranged from 1345 (30·4%) of 4432 people in sample 1 to 2275 (69·0%) of 3299 in sample 3. Mean age of first cannabis use ranged from 17·9 years (SD 3·3) in sample 3 to 21·1 years (5·2) in sample 1, and frequent use (≥100 times) was reported by 214 (15·9%) of 1345 users in sample 1 and 499 (21·9%) of 2275 in sample 3. The prevalence of suicidal ideation ranged from 1102 (24·9%) of 4432 people in sample 1 to 1644 (26·3%) of 6255 people in sample 2 and 865 (26·2%) of 3299 people in sample 3. Prevalence of MDD ranged from 901 (20·3%) people in sample 1 to 1773 (28·3%) in sample 2. The monozygotic twin who used cannabis frequently was more likely to report MDD (odds ratio 1·98, 95% CI 1·11-3·53) and suicidal ideation (2·47, 1·19-5·10) compared with their identical twin who had used cannabis less frequently, even after adjustment for covariates. For early cannabis use, the monozygotic point estimate was not significant but could be equated to the significant dizygotic estimate, suggesting a possible association with suicidal ideation. Interpretation: The increased likelihood of MDD and suicidal ideation in frequent cannabis users cannot be solely attributed to common predisposing factors. Funding: National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.
Full-text available
Background Twitter represents a social media platform through which medical cannabis dispensaries can rapidly promote and advertise a multitude of retail products. Yet, to date, no studies have systematically evaluated Twitter behavior among dispensaries and how these behaviors influence the formation of social networks. Objectives This study sought to characterize common cyberbehaviors and shared follower networks among dispensaries operating in two large cannabis markets in California. Methods From a targeted sample of 119 dispensaries in the San Francisco Bay Area and Greater Los Angeles, we collected metadata from the dispensary accounts using the Twitter API. For each city, we characterized the network structure of dispensaries based upon shared followers, then empirically derived communities with the Louvain modularity algorithm. Principal components factor analysis was employed to reduce 12 Twitter measures into a more parsimonious set of cyberbehavioral dimensions. Finally, quadratic discriminant analysis was implemented to verify the ability of the extracted dimensions to classify dispensaries into their derived communities. Results The modularity algorithm yielded three communities in each city with distinct network structures. The principal components factor analysis reduced the 12 cyberbehaviors into five dimensions that encompassed account age, posting frequency, referencing, hyperlinks, and user engagement among the dispensary accounts. In the quadratic discriminant analysis, the dimensions correctly classified 75% (46/61) of the communities in the San Francisco Bay Area and 71% (41/58) in Greater Los Angeles. Conclusions The most centralized and strongly connected dispensaries in both cities had newer accounts, higher daily activity, more frequent user engagement, and increased usage of embedded media, keywords, and hyperlinks. Measures derived from both network structure and cyberbehavioral dimensions can serve as key contextual indicators for the online surveillance of cannabis dispensaries and consumer markets over time.
Full-text available
Aims The study seeks to characterize marijuana concentrate users, describe reasons and patterns of use, perceived risk, and identify predictors of daily/near daily use. Methods An anonymous web-based survey was conducted (April-June 2016) with 673 US-based cannabis users recruited via the web-forum and included questions about marijuana concentrate use, other drugs, and socio-demographics. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify characteristics associated with greater odds of lifetime and daily use of marijuana concentrates. Results About 66% of respondents reported marijuana concentrate use. The sample was 76% male, and 87% white. Marijuana concentrate use was viewed as riskier than flower cannabis. Greater odds of marijuana concentrate use was associated with living in states with “recreational” (AOR = 4.91; p = 0.001) or “medical, less restrictive” marijuana policies (AOR = 1.87; p = 0.014), being male (AOR = 2.21, p = 0.002), younger (AOR = 0.95, p < 0.001), number of other drugs used (AOR = 1.23, p < 0.001), daily herbal cannabis use (AOR = 4.28, p < 0.001), and lower perceived risk of cannabis use (AOR = 0.96, p = 0.043). About 13% of marijuana concentrate users reported daily/near daily use. Greater odds of daily concentrate use was associated with being male (AOR = 9.29, p = 0.033), using concentrates for therapeutic purposes (AOR = 7.61, p = 0.001), using vape pens for marijuana concentrate administration (AOR = 4.58, p = 0.007), and lower perceived risk of marijuana concentrate use (AOR = 0.92, p = 0.017). Conclusions Marijuana concentrate use was more common among male, younger and more experienced users, and those living in states with more liberal marijuana policies. Characteristics of daily users, in particular patterns of therapeutic use and utilization of different vaporization devices, warrant further research with community-recruited samples.
Objective: Research in both animals and humans indicates that cannabidiol (CBD) has antipsychotic properties. The authors assessed the safety and effectiveness of CBD in patients with schizophrenia. Method: In an exploratory double-blind parallel-group trial, patients with schizophrenia were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive CBD (1000 mg/day; N=43) or placebo (N=45) alongside their existing antipsychotic medication. Participants were assessed before and after treatment using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS), the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF), and the improvement and severity scales of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI-I and CGI-S). Results: After 6 weeks of treatment, compared with the placebo group, the CBD group had lower levels of positive psychotic symptoms (PANSS: treatment difference=-1.4, 95% CI=-2.5, -0.2) and were more likely to have been rated as improved (CGI-I: treatment difference=-0.5, 95% CI=-0.8, -0.1) and as not severely unwell (CGI-S: treatment difference=-0.3, 95% CI=-0.5, 0.0) by the treating clinician. Patients who received CBD also showed greater improvements that fell short of statistical significance in cognitive performance (BACS: treatment difference=1.31, 95% CI=-0.10, 2.72) and in overall functioning (GAF: treatment difference=3.0, 95% CI=-0.4, 6.4). CBD was well tolerated, and rates of adverse events were similar between the CBD and placebo groups. Conclusions: These findings suggest that CBD has beneficial effects in patients with schizophrenia. As CBD's effects do not appear to depend on dopamine receptor antagonism, this agent may represent a new class of treatment for the disorder.
Specific provisions of legal cannabis legislation and regulation could influence cannabis initiation, frequency and quantity of use, and progression to cannabis use disorder. This brief essay highlights scientifically based principles and risk factors that underlie substance use and addiction that can be leveraged to inform policies that might mitigate the development and consequences of cannabis use disorder. Specifically, pharmacologic, access/availability, and environmental factors are discussed in relation to their influence on substance use disorders to illustrate how regulatory provisions can differentially affect these factors and risk for addiction. Relevant knowledge from research and experience with alcohol and tobacco regulation are also considered. Research designed to inform regulatory policy and to evaluate the impact of cannabis legislation on cannabis use and problems is progressing. However, definitive findings will come slowly, and more concerted efforts and resources are needed to expedite this process. In the meantime, policymakers should take advantage of the large body of scientific literature on substance use to foster empirically-guided, common sense approaches to cannabis policy that focus on prevention of addiction.