Tom P Freeman1,2,3, Valentina Lorenzetti4. 1. Addiction and Mental Health Group (AIM), Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK. 2. National Addiction Centre, King's College London, London,, UK. 3. Clinical Psychopharmacology Unit, University College London, London, UK. 4. School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cannabis products are becoming increasingly diverse, and vary considerably in concentrations of ∆9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Higher doses of THC can increase the risk of harm from cannabis, while CBD may partially offset some of these effects. Lower Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines currently lack recommendations based on quantity of use, and could be improved by implementing standard units. However, there is currently no consensus on how units should be measured or standardized among different cannabis products or methods of administration. ARGUMENT: Existing proposals for standard cannabis units have been based on specific methods of administration (e.g. joints) and these may not capture other methods, including pipes, bongs, blunts, dabbing, vaporizers, vape pens, edibles and liquids. Other proposals (e.g. grams of cannabis) cannot account for heterogeneity in THC concentrations among different cannabis products. Similar to alcohol units, we argue that standard cannabis units should reflect the quantity of primary active pharmacological constituents (dose of THC). On the basis of experimental and ecological data, public health considerations and existing policy, we propose that a 'standard THC unit' should be fixed at 5 mg THC for all cannabis products and methods of administration. If supported by sufficient evidence in future, consumption of standard CBD units might offer an additional strategy for harm reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Standard ∆9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) units can potentially be applied among all cannabis products and methods of administration to guide consumers and promote safer patterns of use.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cannabis products are becoming increasingly diverse, and vary considerably in concentrations of ∆9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Higher doses of THC can increase the risk of harm from cannabis, while CBD may partially offset some of these effects. Lower Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines currently lack recommendations based on quantity of use, and could be improved by implementing standard units. However, there is currently no consensus on how units should be measured or standardized among different cannabis products or methods of administration. ARGUMENT: Existing proposals for standard cannabis units have been based on specific methods of administration (e.g. joints) and these may not capture other methods, including pipes, bongs, blunts, dabbing, vaporizers, vape pens, edibles and liquids. Other proposals (e.g. grams of cannabis) cannot account for heterogeneity in THC concentrations among different cannabis products. Similar to alcohol units, we argue that standard cannabis units should reflect the quantity of primary active pharmacological constituents (dose of THC). On the basis of experimental and ecological data, public health considerations and existing policy, we propose that a 'standard THC unit' should be fixed at 5 mg THC for all cannabis products and methods of administration. If supported by sufficient evidence in future, consumption of standard CBD units might offer an additional strategy for harm reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Standard ∆9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) units can potentially be applied among all cannabis products and methods of administration to guide consumers and promote safer patterns of use.
Authors: Jason P Connor; Daniel Stjepanović; Bernard Le Foll; Eva Hoch; Alan J Budney; Wayne D Hall Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Mallory J E Loflin; Brian D Kiluk; Marilyn A Huestis; Will M Aklin; Alan J Budney; Kathleen M Carroll; Deepak Cyril D'Souza; Robert H Dworkin; Kevin M Gray; Deborah S Hasin; Dustin C Lee; Bernard Le Foll; Frances R Levin; Joshua A Lile; Barbara J Mason; Aimee L McRae-Clark; Ivan Montoya; Erica N Peters; Tatiana Ramey; Dennis C Turk; Ryan Vandrey; Roger D Weiss; Eric C Strain Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-04-26 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Erik Stiles; Karl C Alcover; Bryan Stiles; Oladunni Oluwoye; Michael G McDonell Journal: Early Interv Psychiatry Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 2.732
Authors: Rosalie Liccardo Pacula; Jason G Blanchette; Marlene C Lira; Rosanna Smart; Timothy S Naimi Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Christine M Steeger; Leah N Hitchcock; Angela D Bryan; Kent E Hutchison; Karl G Hill; L Cinnamon Bidwell Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2021-05-30
Authors: Hugo López-Pelayo; Silvia Matrai; Mercè Balcells-Olivero; Eugènia Campeny; Fleur Braddick; Matthijs G Bossong; Olga S Cruz; Paolo Deluca; Geert Dom; Daniel Feingold; Tom P Freeman; Pablo Guzman; Chandni Hindocha; Brian C Kelly; Nienke Liebregts; Valentina Lorenzetti; Jakob Manthey; João Matias; Clara Oliveras; Maria Teresa Pons; Jürgen Rehm; Moritz Rosenkranz; Zoe Swithenbank; Luc van Deurse; Julian Vicente; Mike Vuolo; Marcin Wojnar; Antoni Gual Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 4.157