Jacob T Borodovsky1, Dustin C Lee2, Benjamin S Crosier3, Joy L Gabrielli4, James D Sargent4, Alan J Budney3. 1. Center for Technology and Behavioral Health Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, 46 Centerra Parkway, Lebanon, NH 03766, United States; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, 74 College St., Hanover, NH 03755, United States. Electronic address: Jacob.t.borodovsky.gr@dartmouth.edu. 2. Behavioral Pharmacology Research Unit, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine 5510 Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224-6823, United States. 3. Center for Technology and Behavioral Health Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, 46 Centerra Parkway, Lebanon, NH 03766, United States. 4. C. Everett Koop Institute, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Norris Cotton Cancer Center, One Medical Center Drive Lebanon, NH 03756, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alternative methods for consuming cannabis (e.g., vaping and edibles) have become more popular in the wake of U.S. cannabis legalization. Specific provisions of legal cannabis laws (LCL) (e.g., dispensary regulations) may impact the likelihood that youth will use alternative methods and the age at which they first try the method - potentially magnifying or mitigating the developmental harms of cannabis use. METHODS: This study examined associations between LCL provisions and how youth consume cannabis. An online cannabis use survey was distributed using Facebook advertising, and data were collected from 2630 cannabis-using youth (ages 14-18). U.S. states were coded for LCL status and various LCL provisions. Regression analyses tested associations among lifetime use and age of onset of cannabis vaping and edibles and LCL provisions. RESULTS: Longer LCL duration (ORvaping: 2.82, 95% CI: 2.24, 3.55; ORedibles: 3.82, 95% CI: 2.96, 4.94), and higher dispensary density (ORvaping: 2.68, 95% CI: 2.12, 3.38; ORedibles: 3.31, 95% CI: 2.56, 4.26), were related to higher likelihood of trying vaping and edibles. Permitting home cultivation was related to higher likelihood (OR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.50, 2.48) and younger age of onset (β: -0.30, 95% CI: -0.45, -0.15) of edibles. CONCLUSION: Specific provisions of LCL appear to impact the likelihood, and age at which, youth use alternative methods to consume cannabis. These methods may carry differential risks for initiation and escalation of cannabis use. Understanding associations between LCL provisions and methods of administration can inform the design of effective cannabis regulatory strategies.
BACKGROUND: Alternative methods for consuming cannabis (e.g., vaping and edibles) have become more popular in the wake of U.S. cannabis legalization. Specific provisions of legal cannabis laws (LCL) (e.g., dispensary regulations) may impact the likelihood that youth will use alternative methods and the age at which they first try the method - potentially magnifying or mitigating the developmental harms of cannabis use. METHODS: This study examined associations between LCL provisions and how youth consume cannabis. An online cannabis use survey was distributed using Facebook advertising, and data were collected from 2630 cannabis-using youth (ages 14-18). U.S. states were coded for LCL status and various LCL provisions. Regression analyses tested associations among lifetime use and age of onset of cannabis vaping and edibles and LCL provisions. RESULTS: Longer LCL duration (ORvaping: 2.82, 95% CI: 2.24, 3.55; ORedibles: 3.82, 95% CI: 2.96, 4.94), and higher dispensary density (ORvaping: 2.68, 95% CI: 2.12, 3.38; ORedibles: 3.31, 95% CI: 2.56, 4.26), were related to higher likelihood of trying vaping and edibles. Permitting home cultivation was related to higher likelihood (OR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.50, 2.48) and younger age of onset (β: -0.30, 95% CI: -0.45, -0.15) of edibles. CONCLUSION: Specific provisions of LCL appear to impact the likelihood, and age at which, youth use alternative methods to consume cannabis. These methods may carry differential risks for initiation and escalation of cannabis use. Understanding associations between LCL provisions and methods of administration can inform the design of effective cannabis regulatory strategies.
Authors: Vivek Anand; Kaye L McGinty; Kevin O'Brien; Gregory Guenthner; Ellen Hahn; Catherine A Martin Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Rosalie Liccardo Pacula; Beau Kilmer; Alexander C Wagenaar; Frank J Chaloupka; Jonathan P Caulkins Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-04-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Tushar Singh; René A Arrazola; Catherine G Corey; Corinne G Husten; Linda J Neff; David M Homa; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Marta Di Forti; Hannah Sallis; Fabio Allegri; Antonella Trotta; Laura Ferraro; Simona A Stilo; Arianna Marconi; Caterina La Cascia; Tiago Reis Marques; Carmine Pariante; Paola Dazzan; Valeria Mondelli; Alessandra Paparelli; Anna Kolliakou; Diana Prata; Fiona Gaughran; Anthony S David; Craig Morgan; Daniel Stahl; Mizanur Khondoker; James H MacCabe; Robin M Murray Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Christian Giroud; Mariangela de Cesare; Aurélie Berthet; Vincent Varlet; Nicolas Concha-Lozano; Bernard Favrat Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Elizabeth J D'Amico; Anthony Rodriguez; Joan S Tucker; Eric R Pedersen; Regina A Shih Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 4.492