Stéphanie Baggio1, Stéphane Deline2, Joseph Studer2, Meichun Mohler-Kuo3, Jean-Bernard Daeppen2, Gerhard Gmel4. 1. Alcohol Treatment Centre, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland. Electronic address: Stephanie.Baggio@chuv.ch. 2. Alcohol Treatment Centre, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Alcohol Treatment Centre, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland; Addiction Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland; Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Little is known regarding cannabis administration routes for nonmedical use-that is, its delivery methods (e.g., joints, water pipe, food). Therefore, we examined the prevalence rates of different cannabis delivery methods and assessed the relationship of the distinct administration routes with problematic drug use. Subgroups of cannabis users were also investigated (i.e., "pure" cannabis users, previously described as employing a harmless route of administration, and water pipe users, previously described as using a harmful route of administration). METHODS: As part of the Cohort Study on Substance Use Risk Factors, 1,763 cannabis users answered questions concerning their drug use (i.e., routes of administration, problematic cannabis use, other illicit drug use). Descriptive statistics, latent class analysis, correlations and t-tests were assessed. RESULTS: The main administration route was "joints with tobacco"; other routes of administration had prevalence rates from 23.99% to 38.23%. In addition, increasing the number of administration routes was associated with more problematic cannabis use, as well as heavier illicit drug use. Water pipes without tobacco were especially linked to heavy drug use patterns, whereas "pure" cannabis use seemed less harmful. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlighted that diversification in routes of administration can be associated with heavier illicit drug use. This was especially true for water pipe users, whereas "pure" cannabis users, who did not mix cannabis with tobacco, were an exception. Indeed, these results may be useful for future preventive programs, which may need to focus on those who have diversified routes of administration for cannabis.
PURPOSE: Little is known regarding cannabis administration routes for nonmedical use-that is, its delivery methods (e.g., joints, water pipe, food). Therefore, we examined the prevalence rates of different cannabis delivery methods and assessed the relationship of the distinct administration routes with problematic drug use. Subgroups of cannabis users were also investigated (i.e., "pure" cannabis users, previously described as employing a harmless route of administration, and water pipe users, previously described as using a harmful route of administration). METHODS: As part of the Cohort Study on Substance Use Risk Factors, 1,763 cannabis users answered questions concerning their drug use (i.e., routes of administration, problematic cannabis use, other illicit drug use). Descriptive statistics, latent class analysis, correlations and t-tests were assessed. RESULTS: The main administration route was "joints with tobacco"; other routes of administration had prevalence rates from 23.99% to 38.23%. In addition, increasing the number of administration routes was associated with more problematic cannabis use, as well as heavier illicit drug use. Water pipes without tobacco were especially linked to heavy drug use patterns, whereas "pure" cannabis use seemed less harmful. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlighted that diversification in routes of administration can be associated with heavier illicit drug use. This was especially true for water pipe users, whereas "pure" cannabis users, who did not mix cannabis with tobacco, were an exception. Indeed, these results may be useful for future preventive programs, which may need to focus on those who have diversified routes of administration for cannabis.
Authors: James A Cranford; Kipling M Bohnert; Brian E Perron; Carrie Bourque; Mark Ilgen Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-10-15 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Shelby L Blaes; Caitlin A Orsini; Hannah M Holik; Toneisha D Stubbs; Shandera N Ferguson; Sara C Heshmati; Matthew M Bruner; Shannon C Wall; Marcelo Febo; Adriaan W Bruijnzeel; Jennifer L Bizon; Barry Setlow Journal: Neurobiol Learn Mem Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 2.877
Authors: Rebecca L Hartman; Timothy L Brown; Gary Milavetz; Andrew Spurgin; David A Gorelick; Gary Gaffney; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: Drug Test Anal Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 3.345
Authors: Ashley A Knapp; Dustin C Lee; Jacob T Borodovsky; Samantha G Auty; Joy Gabrielli; Alan J Budney Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2018-09-08 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Elizabeth R Aston; Jane Metrik; Rochelle K Rosen; Robert Swift; James MacKillop Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Brienna N Meffert; Danielle M Morabito; Michelle K Mosich; Mallory J Loflin; James Sottile; Adrienne J Heinz Journal: Curr Drug Res Rev Date: 2019